Mr. BLAINE. It does not.
Mr. PHELPS. What is it, then?

Mr. BLAINE. I understand the proposition to add a third paper was voted down by the House. Now the Committee on Appropriations recommend a non-concurrence in the two hundred and twenty-fifth amendment, because it leaves to the heads of Departments to say whether they will give out any advertisements or not. If you pass that you might as well say it shall not give out any, for they will give none to the Republican papers here. The amendment of the committee provides all advertisements not proper to be published in the District of Columbia shall not be published here, but that all legitimate advertisements shall be given to the two papers authorized by law. That is the whole of it.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The Senate amendment, as amended, was concurred in.

Two hundred and twenty-sixth amendment: SEC. And be it further enacted, That from and after the 30th day of June, 1868, the annual salaries of the Comptrollers of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs shall be $4,500 each; of the Solicitor, the Auditors, the Register, and the supervising architect of the Treasury, the Commissioner of the Land Office, and the Commissioner of Pensions, $4,000 each, and the additional amount necessary to pay the increase of salaries provided for by this section be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence.

Mr. GARFIELD. I ask the gentleman whether the committee designs to refuse this increase of salary to the First Comptroller of the Treasury?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The committee have no desire on the subject. They recommend non-concurrence so the matter can go to the committee of conference and the meritorious cases provided for.

Mr. GARFIELD. All I wish to say is this, and the gentleman will certainly agree with me: there is no officer receiving the same amount of pay in the whole Government of the United States so valuable as the gentleman who is now the First Comptroller of the Treasury, who, I believe, saves to the Government more than any other man in it. He is receiving now a salary entirely insufficient for a man of his ability and the importance of the place he holds. It was fixed at the foundation of the Government, and if any man can show me any officer of the United States Government whose services are worth more than the services of Robert W. Taylor, in his present position, I shall be surprised. I do not say all these salaries ought to stand as fixed in the Senate bill, but I should be unwilling to give any vote that would refuse this proposed increase to the First Comptroller of the Treasury.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman from Ohio cannot say anything in the way of compliment of the First Comptroller of the Treasury to which I will not agree. If this is non-concurred in, and goes to the committee of conference, they will give it due consideration.

Mr. GARFIELD. With that expression of his kindly disposition, I will not trench further upon the time of the House.

Mr. CULLOM. I desire to say if the salaries of any of these gentlemen as heads of bureaus are increased I want that of the Commissioner of Agriculture increased also.

Mr. GARFIELD. I only speak of that one that I particularly know about.

Mr. PIKE. I hope you will not commit the absurdity of raising the salaries of subordinates and having that of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to remain where it is.

Mr. PAINE. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] asked if the First Comptroller of the Treasury was from the district of my friend from Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD,] and he answered that he was. Now, though he is not, however, from my district or from my State, I happen to know that the salary of the First Comptroller is to-day what it was established

in gold at the foundation of the Government, namely, $3,500. The Treasurer of the United States receives, I believe, something like eight thousand dollars, and the Comptroller of the Currency about six thousand dollars. Many officers of the United States receive very much higher salaries than this officer whose services are worth more to the Government than any one officer in the Treasury Department except the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. PIKE. Why any more than those of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury?

Mr. PAINE. It is not possible for me to stop to answer that, but for any man who understands the duties of the Comptroller, who knows that he is, as it were, an independent officer of this Government, to ask me why his services are more important than those of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury seems to me very strange. Now, I trust Congress will not adjourn without giving this officer a salary which will enable him to continue in office, for I know his present salary renders it utterly impossible for him to remain there.

The question being taken on the amendment, it was non-concurred in.

Two hundred and twenty-seventh amend

ment:

Insert the following as an additional section: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That each night watchman at the Treasury Department shall, from the 1st day of July, 1868, receive a compensation of $900 per annum, and an amount sufficient to pay said increased compensation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869, is hereby appropriated.

The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence.

The amendment was non-concurred in. Two hundred and twenty-eighth and last amendment:

Insert the following as an additional section: SEC. And be it further enacted, That no statuary, paintings, or other articles, the property of private individuals, shall hereafter be allowed to be exhibited in the Rotunda or any other portion of the Capitol building.

The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence.

Mr. GARFIELD. Does the committee propose to allow no article of private property in the Rotunda? For instance, a gentleman with a cane in his hand?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Oh, no; it says "to be exhibited."

Mr. GARFIELD. I think the language is too broad.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope to satisfy gentlemen on this subject by adding the following as an amendment:

And it shall be the duty of the superintendent in charge of the public buildings to remove all such statues, paintings, and other articles, being the property of private individuals now in the Capitol.

Mr. MAYNARD. I do not exactly agree with this amendment of the Senate in the shape in which it stands. I think another limitation to it would make it right. I do not believe we ought to reject everything simply because it is individual property. There may be articles of individual property that we would desire or be perfectly willing to have exhibited there. The restriction I suggest would be to reject everything that is put there as an advertisement or in the nature of an advertisement. Mr. BLAINE. How could you tell? Mr. MAYNARD. Those who administer the law must have some judgment.

Mr. BLAINE. I suppose the Commissioner of Public Buildings, General Michler, has just as good taste as anybody, but everybody comes there with pictures that they want to exhibit, and the place looks like an old second-hand picture shop. Now, if you do not put it down absolutely, by a prohibition, you will always have the place cluttered up with unseemly articles. We do not want anything of the sort on exhibition.

Mr. MAYNARD. I agree with the gentleman entirely. We have the place cluttered up with objects put there as specimens of some trade, calling, or pursuit, making it an advertising shop. But there may be a work of art, picture, or statue that is private property, to be sure, but which the public would desire to see.

Mr. BLAINE. If it is proper to be exhib. ited in the Capitol it is proper for the Government to secure it, and the Government can buy it.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MAYNARD. I move to amend the amendment of the Senate by inserting after the word "exhibited," in line three, the words "as an advertisement or as a specimen of art or skill."

Mr. BLAINE. I hope we shall not adopt that.

The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. KELSEY. I move to amend the amendment of the Senate by inserting after the words allowed to be exhibited," the words "or made;" so that it will read:

46

That no statuary, paintings, or other articles, the property of private individuals, shall hereafter be allowed to be exhibited or made in the Rotunda or any other portion of the Capitol building, &c.

I offer that amendment for this purpose. I understand that there is an individual employed in making statuary in some of the rooms of this Capitol, who, during the war, went to South Carolina and tendered his services to the rebels to aid in casting bronze cannon. I understand that he occupies some rooms down bere in the Capitol, and has them free of rent, and is employed on work that is exhibited in the Capitol. My amendment is intended to reach him.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Let it say so then.

Mr. KELSEY. That is precisely what I Then

mean.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. name him.

Mr. KELSEY. I used this language because it is the shortest way in which I could reach the object at which I aimed, and I have endeavored to state that object so that nobody can misunderstand what I mean by it.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will name the person I think I will go with him; but it seems to me to be a continuation of an attack which I mean to comment a little upon hereafter upon another person whose work is nearly finished.

Mr. KELSEY. I desire to say to the gentleman that I am aiming at no other person. I have named the person that I strike at, and I have used this language because I suppose it is more appropriate language to use in a bill thau to name an individual.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman put in the name? I believe it is Clark Mills. Let him insert the name of Clark Mills.

Mr. BLAINE. I hope we shall not put this in. The amendment of the Senate is well enough as it stands.

The question was taken on Mr. KELSEY'S amendment to the amendment, and it was disagreed to.

The amendment of the Senate, as amended, was then concurred in.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I move that the amendments of the Senate be laid aside, to be reported to the House, and that the deficiency bill be taken up. The motion was agreed to.

The committee divided; and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 29, noes 32. The CHAIRMAN. A majority voting against the amendment, it is rejected.

Mr. KELSEY. No quorum has voted.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. It was the general understanding by the House that the majority in the Committee of the Whole should decide questions without regard to whether there is a quorum present or not; but that a vote should be had in the House on every proposition submitted in Committee of the Whole, whether adopted or rejected by the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that before going into Committee of the Whole the House ordered, by unanimous consent, that the Committee of the Whole should not be broken up by reason of a quorum not being

correct.

The amendment was agreed to.
The following clause was read:

For casual repairs of the Patent Office building, to complete pavement on the south wing, $8.000.

Mr. KELSEY. I move to amend by inserting after the words "pavement on the words "the lower floor of;" so that it will read:

For casual repairs of the Patent Office building, to complete pavement on the lower floor of the south wing, $8,000.

I desire to have this amendment made so as to require the lower floor to be repaired instead of the one above it. The lower floor is very much out of repair, as every gentleman knows. The amendment was agreed to.

The following clause was read:

Capitol Building:

For the payment of outstanding liabilities incurred by the late Commissioner of Public Buildings for materials furnished and labor done in repairing the old portion of the Capitol building prior to and during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, $5,484 22: Provided, That no part of the sum hereby appropriated shall be paid until the said accounts shall have been fully examined and approved by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury.

Mr. KELSEY. I move to amend by inserting after the paragraph just read the following:

To pay Samuel Gardiner for services as electrician in lighting the Dome for the months of June, July, August, and September, 1866, $400.

I send to the Clerk's desk and ask to have read a letter from the late Commissioner of Public Buildings.

The Clerk read as follows:

37 EAST CAPITOL STREET, March 17, 1868. DEAR SIR: Mr. Samuel Gardiner, who put up the electrical lighting aparatus at the Capitol, (the admiration, and justly so, of all who witness it.) was employed by me to take care of it during the months of June, July, August, and September, 1866. There being no appropriation out of which to pay him, I promised him that as soon as an appropriation should be made he should receive his pay, at the rate of $100 per month.

When I left the office of commissioner Mr. Gardiner had not been paid, but I supposed he had been before this time, having long since certified his account. I now find that he has not.

He did Lis duty faithfully, and is as honest, honorable, and upright a man as lives, and is entitled to his pay, and I hope you will aid him all you can in getting it.

Very respectfully and truly, yours,
B. B. FRENCH,

Late Commissioner of Public Buildings, Brevet Brigadier General NATHANIEL MICHLER, in charge of Public Buildings, &c.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I suppose, strictly speaking, this amendment is not in order.

Mr. KELSEY. I do not see but what it is in order.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I raise the point of order that this proposed amendment is not for a deficiency.

The CHAIRMAN, (Mr. WILSON, of Iowa.) The Chair thinks it is too late to raise the point

of order.

The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. KELSEY, but before the result was announced.

Mr. KELSEY called for tellers. Tellers were ordered; and Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, and Mr. KELSEY were appointed.

Mr. KELSEY. I have heard of no such understanding or general consent, and I object to it. Mr. HIGBY. I ask to have read what was the understanding of the House. My understanding is that even where an amendment is voted down in Committee of the Whole it shall still be voted upon in the House.

Mr. PIKE. I hope the gentleman from New York [Mr. KELSEY] will be allowed to have a vote on his amendment in the House. I understand that is all he wants.

Mr. KELSEY. That is not all I want. I do not ask for a vote in the House. I insist that the rules shall be observed here in Committee of the Whole.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is informed that the agreement in the House was that a majority vote in Committee of the Whole should decide all questions, whether there be a quorum voting or not. Upon that understanding the Chair decides that the amendment of the gentleman from New York is lost.

Mr. KELSEY. I appeal from that decision. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I shall certainly appeal from that decision, for my understanding was that there should be a vote in the House on every amendment offered in Committee of the Whole, whether adopted by

consent.

Mr. KELSEY. I make the point that the agreement referred to did not apply to this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the agreement made by the House.

The Clerk read as follows:

"Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois."

"I suggest that we go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the appropriation bills, with the understanding that no quorum shall be necessary, and that whenever an amendment is adopted by a majority of those voting it shall go to the House. and where it is rejected let it stand the same as it would if there was a quorum voting."

Mr. KELSEY. The appropriation bill referred to was the legislative, executive, and judicial bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York will suspend. This agreement, made in the House, stands as the order of the House, by which this committee is to be guided. The present occupant of the Chair was not in the House when the agreement was made; but he feels bound to enforce it as the order of the House. Therefore the Chair has decided that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is not agreed to, a majority of those present having voted against it. And the Chair refuses to entertain tire appeal from that decision, because the committee has no power to reverse the order of the House.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I move that the committee rise. If the understanding was such as is now stated it was not so understood by a great many of us.

The motion of Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, was not agreed to.

The following paragraph was read:
Treasury Department:

For temporary clerks in the Treasury Department: Provided, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized, in his discretion, to classify the clerks authorized according to the character of their service, $20,000.

Mr. KELSEY. I move to amend by striking out the proviso in the paragraph just read. The amendment was not agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 5, noes 40. Mr. KELSEY. No quorum has voted. The following paragraph was read: To complete the building used for court-house and post office at Springfield, Illinois, $30,000.

Mr. COBURN. I move to amend by adding after the paragraph just read the following:

That the sum of $3,500 be appropriated for repairs and improvements in the building erected for tho post office and United States courts at Indianapolis, Indiana; to be expended under the direction of the clerk of the district court of the United States of said State.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I hope this amendment will not be adopted. We have already made an appropriation-certainly once, and I am not sure but twice-for this same pur

pose.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will state to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. COBURN] that in one of our appropriation bills there is a general appropriation for everything of this kind.

Mr. COBURN. If that will cover the repairs contemplated in the amendment I withdraw it. It covers

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. everything of the kind.

Mr. COBURN. I withdraw the amendment. Mr. HOPKINS. I move to amend by inserting after the paragraph last read the following:

For constructing the United States court-house and post office at Madison, Wisconsin, $50,000.

I understand that the recollection of the committee is that this amendment was adopted in the committee, but by some oversight it has been omitted. I understand the committee are entirely satisfied of the necessity of the appropriation.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I did not understand that the amount was $50,000. The matter, I believe, was before the committee; but I do not know whether it was definitely passed upon. I should have been opposed to it in committee as I am opposed to it now, but the House has overruled me again and again on all these questions.

Mr. BLAINE. My recollection is that the committee passed on it favorably. I know it was the intention of the committee to include it. The committee divided; and there were-ayes 27, noes 15.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania, demanded tellers.

Tellers were not ordered.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RAUM. I submit the following amend

ment:

Add the following as a new paragraph:

For work on the public building now being erected at Cairo, Illinois, to be used as a post office, customhouse, and court-house of the United States, $10,000.

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of the Treasury has recommended an appropriation of $100,000 for this work, $50,000 in the present bill and $50,000 in the bill which has passed the House. An amendment covering an appropriation of $49,000 was adopted by the House in a bill passed some time ago. I believe that some of the committee has consented this sum shall come in, while I regard it not as much as should be appropriated. Rather than have a fight I have consented this small sum shall be appropriated.

The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:

For necessary repairs of the roof, and alterations in the building used for custom-house and post office in Chicago, Illinois, $20,000: And it is hereby provided, That the commission appointed by the joint resolution of Congress to procure a site for a building to accommodate the post office and United States courts in New York city," approved January 22, 1867, is hereby continued.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. The right to object to any item not in order was reserved upon this bill by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. HOLMAN, and the Speaker expressly stated that gave the right to any gentleman to make the point. I make the point that this proviso is not in order. I believe this commission has expired. I do not know what the effect will be; but I think it will do no harm to strike out the proviso.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. We may lose the benefit of the commission. The com mission can do no harm.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. We do not lose the labor of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order.

The Clerk read as follows:

Soldiers' bounties:

To facilitate the payment of soldiers' bounties under act of July 28, 1866, as follows:

For fuel and gas, $700.

For carpeting, $2,000.

For fitting house, cases, &c., $500.

For rent, $1,200.

For fifty chairs, $300.

For one messenger, three laborers, and two night watchmen, $4,600.

Mr. PRICE. What are these for? I cannot exactly see what they are for.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will tell the gentleman. The chairman of the committe, who took charge of this bill, has a com munication from the War Department on the subject. This is for extra room for fifty or one hundred clerks.

Mr. PRICE. Why did you not say so? Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. We cannot put all the explanations into the bill. The Clerk read as follows:

City of Washington:

To enable the chief engineer of the Army to reimburse to the corporation of the city of Washington for expenses incurred in improving the property of the General Government in said city, under provisions of act of May 5, 1854, and in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary of War, in book of estimates of appropriations, pages 244 and 245, $296.943 88: Provided, That section fifteen of an act entitled "An act to incorporate the city of Washingtou and to repeal all acts heretofore passed for that purpose," approved May 15, 1820, and section three of an act approved May 5, 1864, entitled "An act to amend an act to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, passed May 15, 1820," are hereby repealed; and no improvements of the streets, alleys, avenues, or other property of the United States, in the city of Washington, shall hereafter be made until an appropriation shall have been made therefor; and such appropriation, when made, shall be expended under the direction of the chief engineer of the Army.

Mr. MAYNARD. I make the point of order that the proviso is general legislation, and not in order to this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Now, Mr. Chairman, one word. The Committee on Appropriations put in this appropriation on condition

Mr. INGERSOLL. I raise a point of order. I understand the gentleman from Tennessee made the point of order that this was not germane, being independent legislation, and it was sustained by the Chair. Now, my colleague proposes to argue the question.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Well, then, I move to strike out the whole of the paragraph. The Committee on Appropriations only put in this amendment for the purpose of stopping this fraud and swindle upon the Government which has been carried on so long in the city of Washington.

Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Chairman, I shall not be deterred by any threats of this kind. If this legislation is right it ought to pass. The Committee on Appropriations has put into this bill legislation in regard to affairs in this District, which properly comes within the province of the Committee for the District of Columbia. Now, the spirit with which we legislate for the capital of our country, the point of all others that is the object of observation of foreigners who come here, is certainly not a very enlarged or liberal one. We legis late for more people here than live in some of the small States. How much time and atten

tion we give to their affairs gentlemen know as well as I do. If it is right they should have this sum of money let us appropriate it. If it is right that these walls should be rebuilt let the Committee for the District of Columbia examine them and report an appropriation. I dislike this sort of legislation, saying, "We will give so much money if you will give up a part of your charter."

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I do not know what the gentleman means by talking about this belonging to the Committee for the District of Columbia. From the commencement of this work there has never been a dollar appropriated for it, except what has been reported by the Committee on Appropriations. We have already given $4,000,000 to be squandered upon it, and one half of the money has been stolen.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. More than that.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Now we want to put a stop to this.

Mr. MAYNARD. I am not speaking of the merits or demerits of this appropriation, whether it is right or wrong. What I did speak about was the principle of granting these appropriations upon condition that the law should be changed, and the rights of the people under their charter should be limited by this amendment. If the appropriation is right, let us pass it; if it is wrong, strike it out. But let the Committee for the District of Columbia adjust the question of the charter of this city.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. The Committee for the District of Columbia has no more to do with this than the man in the moon. We have voted appropriations to the amount of $4,000,000 for this work. Three times we have finished and stopped it, and three times we have added $110,000 at the close of the year in a deficiency bill. We thought we would try now and put in something effectual, saying that they should not go on next year. And now it seems it is the old game over again. I shall go for striking out the whole of it.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to strike out the last word. I apprehend that the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not understand the position of my honorable friend from Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD] with regard to this proposition. The gentleman from Tennessee objects to this independent legislation as not belonging to the Committee on Appropriations and not being proper in an appropriation bill. Now, no one can dispute the correctness of that position. The gentleman from Tennessee does not insist that the appropriation proper shall come from the Committee for the District of Columbia, nor has any one else ever contended that it was the province of the Committee for the District of Columbia to report such an appropriation. We all agree that it is the province of the Committee on Appropriations. But what have the Committee on Appropriations done? In this deficiency bill they have reported an appropriation of a sum of money, under the estimate of the War Department, in virtue of a section of the law which this bill now proposes to repeal. What we object to is that in this bill, in carrying out the recommendation of the War Department, you propose to repeal an existing statute.

A MEMBER. It ought to be done.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, if it ought to be done, it should be done in a proper way; and so it is held by the rule and by your chairman. Now, in regard to there having been immense sums of money squandered and stolen in prosecuting this work I have my doubts. The appropriations for the District of Columbia have been miserly within the last six or seven years. You have done but very little toward sustain. ing the dignity of the Government at your national capital. You have appropriated but a trifling sum in the past half dozen years.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. How much? Mr. INGERSOLL. Not half as much as you ought to have appropriated. You have not appropriated a single dollar by virtue of a single appropriation bill that you have ever

This

reported to the House that has not been warranted and authorized by law and based upon some existing statute which has been passed by Congress. Now, what is the law? appropriation is made in virtue of a statute which simply declares that the Government of the United States shall pay for improvements made by the city authorities lying contiguous to the property belonging to the Government of the United States.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman and I do not understand this matter alike. We certainly had this claim settled and audited, and I thought we had appropriated the amount andited.

Mr. INGERSOLL. That I do not complain of. I say the amount is satisfactory, but I do not desire that it shall be coupled with a proposition to repeal the law which authorizes these improvements to be made.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. One word in regard to this matter. I think I am safe in saying that the Committee on Appropriations never would have reported in favor of paying this amount unless coupled with the condition that this law of May 5, 1864, should be repealed. It is one of the laws passed during the rebellion, without any particular regard to what we were doing. Now, what is it? I will read it:

"That in all cases in which the streets, avenues, or alleys of said city pass through or by any of the property of the United States the Commissioner of the Public Buildings shall pay to the duly authorized officer of the corporation the just proportion of the expenses incurred in improving said avenue, street, or alley which the said property bears to the whole cost thereof, to be ascertained in the same manner as the same is apportioned among the individual proprietors of the property improved thereby."

Under that law, without reserving to ourselves any right of control over these contracts, the city government went on and has brought in a bill of $296,000 for the Government to pay.

Mr. INGERSOLL. How many years has that been accumulating?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The estimate was sent in here in December last.

Mr. INGERSOLL. It is for deficiencies running over from year to year.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Only a very short time, as the gentleman will see by looking at the estimates which I have here.

Mr. DELANO. I suggest to the gentleman that the Thirty-Ninth Congress settled a balance for this sort of business with the city of Washington.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman is right, and we had hoped when that was done that we would have had no more of these bills. But when this Congress met an estimate for a deficiency where you had made no appropriation to carry on this work, of $296,000, was brought in, which we are to pay out of the pockets of our constituents. Well, sir,there were some considerations which induced the Committee on Appropriations to recommend that the sum in the bill, $296,000, should be appropriated, provided we could repeal this law altogether, and could provide further that no more work shall be done unless a contract is made and the money appropriated for it. Does my friend and colleague [Mr. INGERSOLL] object to that? Why does he op| pose this proviso? Why will he stand in the way of this reform? Why will he not let us provide here in this bill, while we pay this outstanding claim, that hereafter we will not permit the corporations of Washington and Georgetown to go forward and mulet us out of two, three, or five hundred thousand dollars more?

Mr. INGERSOLL. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment.

Mr. DELANO. I renew it. The proviso attached to this appropriation ought to be preserved if the appropriation is preserved. The section of law under which the Government can be made responsible for claims of this sort on the part of the corporation of this city is one that ought to be repealed. I know, from

having examined these claims before, that we are liable to be imposed upon by false accounts and false estimates. The present law charges the city with its portion of the expense according to the relative value of the property benefited by the improvements. In the Thirty-Ninth Congress we settled up all the old claims of this sort against the Government and in favor of the corporation, and supposed that we were done with them. But it was found that under the law as it now stands these claims continue to multiply and be pressed upon the Government to an unreasonable extent. I therefore favor striking this all out, or else to retain this proviso to guard the United States against the impositions which it constantly suffers under the present arrangement. I think a careful examination of this subject by any candid man will convince him that we should either preserve all this part of the bill as printed or strike it all out.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I want the Committee of the Whole to understand this case, and then they can do just what they think to be right. Originally the Government of the United States received as a bounty, a bonus, a gratuity, from the proprietors of the real estate here a certain number of lots, from the sale of which was derived $1,000,000 at least. That $1,000,000 was appropriated by the Government

Mr. DELANO. Allow me to say that I have been over that whole subject, and I know that the Government has fully accounted for all that amount four or five times over.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I did not say the Government had not accounted for it. I was merely stating what the Government had received. And it never has spent one fourth of that sum in beautifying and adorning this city, except where the city has paid out an Under equal amount for the same purpose. the present law, which it is proposed to repeal by the proviso in this bill, what are the rights of the Government? Here are Jackson square, Lincoln square, the Circle, and other squares and public avenues over which the city has no control whatever, no municipal authority. The present law provides that when the city authorities make a public improvement, such as constructing a sewer, paving a street, or making a permanent public improvement of any kind passing by any of the Government reservations or grounds, the Government shall pay its pro rata share, the same as a citizen does in reference to his property. If the Government has been swindled under such an arrangement, so have the citizens here been swindled. And if the citizens have been swindled, then they have swindled themselves, for these improvements have been ordered by those they have themselves elected. Now, the truth is that where the Government has paid a dollar for these improvements the city has paid five dollars. The Government has not been called upon to pay one dollar, except in the case of improvements passing by the Government reservations and public grounds. Now, it is proposed to repeal this law. If you do so what will be the result? The city proposes to make a sewer on Virginia avenue, for instance. When the work reaches a Government reservation it must be stopped.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. They can come to Congress and get an appropriation.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Yes, sir; the work must be stopped until an appropriation for it is obtained from Congress. And so it will be with every other improvement, no matter how important and necessary it may be, or how trivial it may be, if it should pass by any Gov. ernment reservation or public ground. The Government is now bound by law and in equity to pay its pro rata share of any improvement by which its property is benefited. But if the present law shall be repealed, then there must be a special act of Congress before any such improvement can be made by the city. Now, that is as much as to say that you cannot trust the administration of the city in this respect, so far as Government property is concerned, although at the same time, to the same extent and with the like authority, the administration

of the city is exercised in regard to its own tax-payers. Repeal the present law, and you will have a hundred special bills before Congress for these improvements. Let the law remain as it now is, and you will have no such trouble in regard to these things.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. DELANO. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I renew the amendment. I think we had better agree to let this section stand as it is. Let this city be repaid what it has expended; and let there be an examination hereafter of this whole matter by some appropriate committee before we make any more appropriations. I withdraw the amendment.

On the motion to strike out the paragraph there were-ayes 43, noes 19.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion to strike out the paragraph is agreed to.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Has a quorum voted? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already passed on that question.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I call for tellers. The CHAIRMAN. The question, then, is on ordering tellers.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I make this point of order: when it appears that no quorum has voted, is it not the duty of the Chair to appoint

tellers?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already passed upon that question.

Tellers were not ordered.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I rise to a point of order. I desire to know in what respect the rule has been changed, so that when the committee is found without a quorum it can go on and do business?

The CHAIRMAN. By the order of the House all questions arising in Committee of the Whole in the consideration of this bill are to be determined by a majority vote of those present.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, sir, I shall ask for a separate vote in the House on this amend

ment.

The following paragraph was read:

For the survey of northern and northwestern lakes, $75,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to amend by striking out the paragraph just read. The same appropriation has already been made in the river and harbor bill. The amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read the following: Reconstruction:

For deficiency under the reconstruction acts for the several military districts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1868:

For the first district, $6,000.

For the second district, $127.898 25.

For the fourth district, $53.200.

For the fifth district, $45,000.

For the following amounts, estimated as necessary in carrying out the reconstruction acts from and after the 30th day of June, 1868:

For the first district, $93,000.
For the second district, $15,000.
For the third district, $15,000.
For the fourth district, $75,000.
For the fifth district, $8,000.

Mr. PHELPS. I desire to put a question to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman move an amendment?

Mr. PHELPS. No, sir; I simply wish to make an inquiry. I wish to know whether the chairman of the committee is able to furnish at this time statistics showing the total amount appropriated for reconstruction since the passage of the act of March 2, 1867, including the items now incorporated in this bill as defi ciencies?

The CHAIRMAN. There is no amendment pending. Unless the gentleman moves an amendment debate is not in order.

Mr. PHELPS. I move, then, to amend by striking out the last word of the paragraph last read. I do it for the purpose, if possible, of eliciting from the chairmau the information I have thought we ought to have. I do not think the House ought to be called upon, or this committee, to vote these additional items

in the nature of deficiencies without at least some explanation from the gentleman who has charge of the bill of the purpose for which these items are required, and why the amounts appropriated have failed to be sufficient. For that reason I have asked the question.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I would like to answer the gentleman, but it would take too long.

The amendment was disagreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

For additional labor cleaning the center building of the Capitol, repairing the Washington statue on the east grounds of the Capitol, cleaning and repairing columns in the building, laying a new brick pavement on the west front, and repairing fountains, $1,500.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I move to strike that out. According to the theory laid down by the committee this work should be done at the expense of the city, never mind who owns the property. It seems to be the rule acted upon by the Committee on Appropriations, that the city should pay all the expenses of the Government in the city of Washington. My amendment, therefore, is in accordance with the views of the committee.

Mr. KELSEY. There is another reason it should be stricken out; it is in another bill.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. We want the city, not the District, to pay for its own work. Mr. MILLER. Let me ask a question. Does the city of Washington want to pay for this?

Mr. INGERSOLL. This is on the same line as the previous action of the committee. The amendment was disagreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

And it is hereby provided, That hereafter no contract shall be entered into for the erection, repair, or furnishing of any public building, or for any public improvement whatever, which shall involve the expenditure of a larger sum of money than the amount in the Treasury appropriated for the specific purpose, and no person shall be employed by any Department of the Government unless an amount of money shall have been previously appropriated sufficient to pay all such persous. And if any officer of the Governmeut shall contract for the erection, repair, or furnishing of any public building, or for any publie improvement which shall involve a larger amount than the specific sum appropriated for such purpose, or shall employ any persons in any Department of the Government unless an appropriation sufficient to pay all such persons shall have been previously made, such officer shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be punished by imprisonment not less than six months nor more than two years, and shall pay a fine of $2,000, and shail thereafter be deemed incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the Government of the United States.

Mr. SPALDING. I wish to move an additional section.

Mr. POLAND. I make the point of order that the provision just read is not in order. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The point of order comes too late.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not too late; the gentleman rose in time.

Mr. POLAND. I understand this to be general legislation, and not only general legis lation but penal legislation; but I would not object if the section was not so loosely drawn as to be a dangerous one.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I hope my friend from Vermont, whom we all know to be an excellent lawyer, will move an amendment. This is an evil which should be remedied.

Mr. POLAND. Introduce a bill and refer it to my committee. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will make a bargain; if he will withdraw the point of order and prepare a section, I will let him offer it in the House.

Mr. MAYNARD. Bargaining in legislation has a bad sound.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It has not a bad sound that we should try to prevent frauds.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order, and rules the provision out, as being general legislation.

Mr. SPALDING. I move to amend by offering the following as an additional section: SEC. And be it further enacted, That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated

out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the benefit of the several benevoleut institutions and charitable societies in the District of Columbia in full for deficiencies in the fiscal year just ended, and for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869, namely: Government Hospital for the Insane:

For the support, clothing, medical and moral treatment of the insane of the Army and Navy and revenue-cutter service, and of the indigent insane of the District of Columbia in the Government Hospital for the Insane, including $500 for books and stationery and incidental expeuses, $90,500.

For finishing, furnishing, lighting, and heating the unfinished part of the east wing of the main hospital edific", $7,000.

For the purchase, by the Secretary of the Interior, for the agricultural purposes of the institution, one hundred and forty-eight acres, more or less, of land lying directly east of the present grounds of the hospital, and separated from them by the public road, $23,000.

Columbia Institution for the Deaf and Dumb: For the support of the institution, in addition to the existing appropriation to meet the increased expense of maintaining pupils whose admission was authorized by an act of Congress approved March 2, 1867. $3.000.

For continuing the work upon the buildings of the institution, in accordance with plans heretofore submitted to Congress, $18,000.

For the support of the institution, including $1,000 for books and illustrative apparatus, $25,000.

For the proper inclosure, improvement, and enlargement of the grounds of the institution, in accordance with plans heretofore submitted to Congress, $5.600.

Provided, That hereafter the United States shall be represented in the board of trustees of said Institution for the Deaf and Dumb by three trustees, to be appointed at the beginning of each Congress, as follows: one Senator in Congress, to be appointed by the President of the Senate, and two Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives: And provided further, That no part of the real or pe sonal property now held or hereaft r to be acquired by said last-named institution shall at any time be sold, aliened, or conveyed away, or in any manner used, except for the purposes of said deaf and dumb institution, without the express assent of the Congress of the United States, fir-t had and obtained through an act of Congress duly passed and approved: And provided further, That so much of the act of February 16, 1857, as allows the payment of $150 per annum for the maintenance of each pupil admitted from the District of Columbia and from the Army and Navy be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

Columbia Hospital for Women and Lying-in
Asylum:

For the purchase of land and erecting buildings to take the place of the premises now used, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, $60,000.

For the support of the asylum, over and above the probable amount which will be received from independent or pay patients, $15.000.

For the comp etion of the Providence Пospital, in Washington city, District of Columbia, $30,000.

For the National Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, $10,000.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I make the point of order that these appropriations are the subject of two other separate appropriation bilis of which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] has given notice. They do not belong to this bill, and the gentleman has a right to go into the Committee of the Whole upon those bills, and as we have closed debate it is unjust, unfair, and unparliamentary to consider these matters now.

Mr. SPALDING. Mr. Chairman, the objection that it is unjust, unfair, and unparliamentary to offer this amendment comes with an ill grace from the gentleman from Illinois. I introduced, by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, in February last two small bills appropriating money for benevolent institutions in the District of Columbia, and by reason of objections interposed by the gentleman from Illinois they have been delayed till this moment. I am afraid they will not come in at all, hence I avail myself of this opportunity to wash my hands of this whole matter. I am in favor of carrying out these appropriations for the District of Columbia, and I appeal to gentlemen to support me in my endeavor to get these appropriations passed.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I just made a suggestion to my friend to move to lay aside the other business in Committee of the Whole, and take up his two bills in committee after this bill is disposed of.

Mr. SPALDING. If that is the understanding I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I made that suggestion to the gentleman before he I offered his amendment.

40TH CONG. 2D SESS.No. 234.

Mr. SPALDING. I will agree to that. Mr. BLAINE. I offer the following amend ment, to come in after line three hundred and forty-eight:

For supply of deficiency in payment for material for gates for Judiciary Square Hospital, $868.

The Surgeon General has written a letter on this subject in which he says there is that amount due, and the special appropriation being exhausted and the accounts of the disbursing officer being closed it will be impossible to pay the contractor except by special appropriation.

Mr. GARFIELD. I hope that appropriation will be allowed. The communication from the Surgeon General came to me, as chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, yesterday a little too late to offer the amendment in the proper place. So I put the matter in the hands of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. BLAINE.] The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I agreed to allow the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAWRENCE] to go back to page 4 and insert an amendment.

Mr. MAYNARD. I reserve an objection until I hear the amendment read.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I move to insert at the end of line seventy-four the following: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to ratify, confirm, or recognize the validity of any treaty.

Mr. MAYNARD. I do not see that that has any applicability here, or that there is any necessity for it. I object, therefore, to going back.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I hope the gentleman will allow me to be heard.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I move to amend by adding, as a new section, what I send to the Chair.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. -. And be it further enacted, That there shall be allowed and paid, to the same classes of officers and other persons in the civil service of the United States Government at Washington embraced in the joint resolution of Congress entitled "Joint resolution giving additional compensation to certain employés in the civil service of the Government at Washington," passed February 28, 1867, an additional compensation on their respective salaries as fixed by law, or where no salary is fixed by law, upon their pay respectively, from and after the 30th day of June, 1867, to the 30th day of June, 1868; including, also, such persons as have been employed in any capacity in any ofthe Departments, and the watchinen on the Dome of the Capitol and in the Capitol grounds, the inspector of marble, and the foreman of mechanics at work on the Capitol extension and the watchmen in said extension, whether inside or out, and to the employés of the jail; and to include not only those now in service, but those who have at any time during said year been in service, as follows:

To all those whose annual compensation does not exceed $1,400 an increase of fifteen per cent. upon the amount of their compensation.

To all those whose annual compensation does not exceed $1,600, but does exceed $1,400, an increase of twelve and a half per cent. thereupon.

To all those whose annual compensation does not exceed $1,800, but does exceed $1,600, an increase of ten per cent. thereupon.

And a sufficient sum to pay the same is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I shall not occupy my five minutes. A word will be sufficient. Some time ago we passed a bill giving twenty per cent. additional compensation to all whose salaries are under $2,500; but a scare-crow-I think that is the name a scare crow came on here from New York and coursed over the ground one night, and next day the friends of the bill scattered like the antelopes of the mountains, scared to death; the bill was defeated, and the scarecrow went back to New York triumphant. [Laughter.] Now, this amendment contains less than one third the amount that was appropriated by that bill, and we can surely afford to give this small pittance to these men. I have heard it said that a good many of them are married. I saw a list of the unhappy men who are married, [laughter;] and more than three fourths of those who will be benefited by this amendment have that misfortune. I hope the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. POLAND. I move to amend the amendment by inserting the words "the members of the Metropolitan police."

Mr. BLAINE. That is right.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Yes, that is right. They are the poorest paid men in the city of Washington or in the employ of the Government.

Mr. POLAND. The Metropolitan police only receive ninety dollars a month, making $1,080 a year. Their original pay was sixty dollars a month. We passed an act two years ago giving them thirty dollars a month in addition, but it was to be paid by the cities of Washington and Georgetown. They are paid only sixty dollars a month by the General Government, and thirty dollars a month by the citizens of Washington and Georgetown, making ninety dollars a month. My proposition seems to meet with such general favor that I will not occupy further time in advocating it.

Mr. MULLINS. While this is being done, I notify the committee that at the proper time I will move to amend the amendment by inserting a proposition that there shall be paid back to each tax-payer to the United States twenty per cent. of what he has paid since the time to which this amendment goes back. You propose to run your hands into the pockets of the hard-laboring people, who labor fourteen hours a day, and take from what little wealth they may have accumulated this twenty per cent., to be given to those who are laboring under contracts only eight and nine hours a day. I cannot see the justice of the proposition unless you intend to pay back twenty per cent. to the tax-payers who are doing all within their power to extinguish this debt which is hanging on the body politic like a nightmare. You propose to deplete the Treasury this much and to stop this much from being used in the extinguishment of the public debt for the purpose of putting twenty per cent. in the pockets of men who are laboring under positive contracts. Sir, if they are not receiving the amount due to them, in the name of God pass a law to increase their contracts. But they were legiti mately entitled to make contracts by law, and they have seen fit to make contracts with the Government, and if they are not satisfied let them go out of office. I can find ten men to one to fill their places. The country to-day is coming here from every quarter asking for offices; and if these men cannot live at the present rates let us see if we cannot get men from another quarter equally as good, if not better, for the same or a less price. Propositions have been made to me by men competent to fill any offices to fill these offices at a much less rate than that at which they are now filled. And now you propose to take this out of the pockets of the people of the country who make their living by night, who work from twelve to fourteen hours a day.

Mr. SPALDING. I would like to ask the gentleman if he is willing to relinquish the additional $2,000 a year which we put into an appropriation bill for his benefit and mine for the benefit of the tax-payers of the country? Mr. MULLINS. You did it yourself. I was not here to stop it.

[Here the hammer fell.]

The question was then taken upon the amendment of Mr. POLAND, to include in the amendment of Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania, the members of the Metropolitan police; and upon a division there were ayes 14, noes 29. Before the result was announced, Mr. POLAND called for tellers. The question was taken upon ordering tellers; and there were six in the affirmative.

So (the affirmative not being one fifth of a quorum) tellers were not ordered.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. POLAND] is not agreed to.

The question recurred upon the amendment of Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the last word. I had supposed that this proposition for increase of salaries had been set at rest by the action of the House heretofore upon a similar proposition. But it has come up to-day in a modified form. In the few minutes allowed me