Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

Mr. SHERMAN. The difficulty is that there are some advertisements not required by law to be published in the District, but which may properly be published here. For instance, advertisements for mail routes in Maryland might properly be published here, but the law does not require it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. There is not half so much reason for publishing them here as in Balti

more.

Mr. SHERMAN. You have got to leave it after all to the head of the Department. No head of a Department would abuse this discretion. The Clerk of the House selects the papers. No head of a Department will abuse the privilege that is conferred upon him, it seems to me, to publish advertisements unless they are really needed; but I doubt whether we ought to confine it so stringently that the head of a Department cannot publish in this District an an advertisement unless the law requires it to be published here. There are cases where the law does not say where the advertisement shall be published.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Is not that reasoning in a circle? Does not the law of 1867 require it to be published here? Is not that the very claim you have got here?

Mr. SHERMAN. No, sir.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understood that what these newspapers contended for was the right to publish in this District everything. That is what they claim.

Mr. SHERMAN. All we say is that they shall not publish in this District advertisements that are not furnished to them by the proper head of a Department.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That would accomplish it; but I was speaking of the amendment of the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. EDMUNDS. My amendment is addtional to that. It still leaves it to the head of the Department, but declares that he shall not deliver anything, even in his discretion, to these newspapers, unless he delivers such notices as the law requires to be published here. Mr. TRUMBULL. You do not propose to strike out the other?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Oh, no; by no means; it is merely an addition to it.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I ask the atten. tion of the Senator from Ohio to a proposition I will make in lieu of the amendment he proposes. In lieu of what is proposed to be inserted by the Senator from Ohio, I suggest to insert after the word “law," in the ninth line, these words, "and required to be published in the District of Columbia, nor;" so that it will read:

Shall not be so construed as to authorize the publication of any advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations by the newspapers in the District of Columbia, selected in accordance with the law and required to be published in the District of Columbia, nor unless such advertisements, &c.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is exactly the same thing that I proposed to insert after "procla mations" in the next line. It comes to the same result.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not know but that it has the same effect; but it avoids the construction that arises from the language of the proposition of the Senator from Ohio, which seems to make it depend upon the diseretion of the head of the Department.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That will not quite reach it, because so far as it relates to these newspapers selected in accordance with law the law merely requires the selection to be made from the two having the largest circulation. All that that relates to is merely that the selection must be made of the two newspapers having the largest circulation.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The Senator is mistaken on that point.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Not at all. Here it is in the Post Office appropriation bill of 1866: "shall hereafter be advertised by publication in the two daily newspapers in the city of Washington having the largest circulation, and in no others."

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. But the law of
1867 gives it to the Clerk of the House of Rep-lumbia, nor;" so that it will read:
resentatives.

quired to be published in the District of Co

Mr. EDMUNDS. Very well; but it only declares that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is to decide which papers have the largest circulation. That is all. He is the deciding officer. That being so, all that we wish to do now is to limit the advertisements that shall be put into those two papers and exclude all other papers from the advertisements. To do that the Senator from Ohio proposes that the head of the Department shall be the deciding officer, to decide what shall be put into those papers. The objection to his amendment is that it still leaves to the discretion of the head of the Department to insert advertisements that have no place here at all. I propose to correct that by adding in the tenth line, after the word "proclamations," the words "and being required by law to be published in the District of Columbia," not in any particular paper, but published here.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Then the Senator and myself reach the same point precisely, except that I offer my proposition in lieu of the proposition of the Senator from Ohio, and the Senator from Vermont offers his in addition to the proposition of the Senator from Ohio, which I think will lead to a complication.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It will not do, as suggested by the Senator from Illinois, to have it read "required by law to be published in the District of Columbia," because the newspaper proprietors contend that by the act of 1867 they are entitled to all these advertisements now.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will call the Senators to order for a moment, because there is now an amendment to the amendment pending. Let that be adopted, and then I shall have no objection to either of the others.

Mr. EDMUNDS. There is no amendment pending except yours, which is an amendment to the bill, and I propose to amend that.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have offered an amendment to that amendment, which has not been voted upon, to insert certain words in line nine, and also to add some words to the section. That amendment to the amendment has not been acted on, and until that is disposed of all these other propositions are out of order.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Very well. Then we are all out of order. Let us hear what the pending amendment is.

That section ten, &c., shall not be so construed as to authorize the publication of any advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations by the newspapers in the District of Columbia selected in accordance with the law, and required to be published in the District of Columbia, nor unless such advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations are delivered by the proper head of a Department, &c.

That excludes all proclamations and other notices not required to be published in this District.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That seems to reach precisely the point my amendment did. I do not see any objection to that.

see.

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not know but that it will accomplish the object. Senators will The only doubt I have about it is that it does not say, required by law." Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I think it does. Mr. SHERMAN. No; those words are not in it.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I modify my amendment so as to make it read "and required by law to be published in the District of Columbia, nor."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the amendment of the Senator from Maine, as modified, to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. I believe nobody objected to the insertion of the words that I offered, to come in at the end of the section. I ask that those words be read, and the question put on them.

The Chief Clerk read the proposed amendment to the amendment, which was to add at the end of the section the following words:

And no advertisement whatever in any newspaper published in the District of Columbia shall be paid for by any disbursing officer, and if paid, shall not be allowed by any accounting officer, unless published in pursuance of the several acts named in this section.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will merely state that the Executive Departments in some cases are publishing in papers not selected according to law, the Intelligencer and other papers, and they are making claims for advertisements, and are daily inserting therm. This is for the purpose of cutting off that, so that the pub. lication will only be in the two papers selected according to law.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to amend
the amendment by inserting in line nine, after
the word "unless," the words "such publica-pretty
tion is deemed necessary by the proper head
of a Department, nor unless;" so that the sec-
tion will read:

That section ten of an act, &c., shall not be so
construed as to authorize the publication of any
advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or procla-
mations by the newspapers in the District of Colum-
bia selected in accordance with the law, unless such
publication is deemed necessary by the proper head
of a Department, nor unless such advertisements,
notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations are deliv-
ered by the proper head of a Department to such
newspaper, &c.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore put the question on the amendment to the amendment, and declared it rejected.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think there is some misunderstanding. There is no objection cer tainly to the amendment to the latter part of the section.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I have an objection to your amendment to the amendment, for the reason that it leaves an absolute discretion in the head of a Department to decide what he will have pablished here. I think the law ought to fix that as it does now, and therefore I think the amendment of the Senator will defeat the object he has in view himself.

Mr. SHERMAN. Very well; will let the gentlemen try and see if they can fix it up any better.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Now, I move to insert after the word "law," in the ninth line of the amendment, the words "and re

Mr. CAMERON. Although this section well guards the interests of the public, I think it requires something more— Mr. CONNESS. Let the section as amended be read.

Mr. CAMERON. I have no objection to that, and then I shall probably say a word or two on the subject.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be read as amended.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment as amended, as follows:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That section ten of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30,1868, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1867, shall not be so construed as to authorize the publication of any advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations by the newspapers in the District of Columbia, selected in accordance with the law, and required by law to be published in the District of Columbia, nor unless such advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations are delivered by the proper head of a Department to such newspaper for publication in accordance with law, and the rates of compensation for such printing shall not exceed the rates paid for similar printing under existing law. And no advertisement whatever published in the District of Columbia shall be paid for by any disbursing officer, and if paid, shall not be allowed by any accounting officer unless published in pursuance of the several acts named in this section.

Mr. CAMERON. I am afraid that this sec tion is not yet sufficiently guarded, and I should like some of the gentlemen learned in the law who so often give us the benefit of their advice here, to draw an amendment repealing the law of last year. I understand that the Government

has paid to two newspapers something like $40,000 apiece, $80,000 in all.

Mr. SHERMAN.. What papers? Mr. CAMERON. The Chronicle and the Evening Star of this city have been paid, or will be paid, for the printing of last year, under the section which we passed last year, that amount. The greater part of that advertising was for the purchase and sale of articles so far beyond the circulation of these papers that none of them could ever reach the people who were interested. For instance, there were fifteen hundred or two thousand dollars paid for an advertisement as to the publication of mail contracts in the Territory of Arizona. There was a large sum of money paid for an advertisement asking proposals for a fort somewhere down in New Mexico. I think there were half a dozen mules, or something like that, to be bought in Idaho, and they were advertised here; and in some cases these advertisements were published here a day or two before the sale or purchase was to be made at these remote places. This is an abuse which would shock the community if they knew it; but nobody seems to know anything about it. We hardly know it ourselves. We passed a law last year which we thought was going to prevent the heads of Departments from doing wrong, and we gave the power of selecting the printers to the Clerk of the House of Representatives-a man who had plenty to do besides attending to this duty, which he did not understand very well, I think, from the manner in which it has been done. I do not know exactly how we shall get along with this proposition, for these people are very artful, as they have proved by their conduct last year. I should like to have this tenth section of the law of last year repealed altogether. I ask my friend, the Senator from Vermont, to frame a provision repealing that section in such words that no comptroller who is a lawyer or anybody else can get over it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should want time to do that.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as amended.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Will it be competent to amend the amendment afterward? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be when we get into the Senate.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think nothing will be accomplished by the amendment of the Senator from Maine, which has been adopted, to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, and for this reason: as I understand it, the law of 1867, referred to by the Senator from Vermont, as construed by the newspapers and according to the terms of the law itself, requires every adver tisement to be published here in the District of Columbia. The abuse which we wish to correct is this: a newspaper published in the District of Columbia seeing an advertisement in a Santa Fé paper by a quartermaster for lumber to build barracks, copies it into his paper in the District, and then brings his bill to the Treasury Department for payment; and a controversy has arisen there, the Treasury refusing to pay, and the newspaper proprietor insisting that he is entitled to pay. That is the evil. Now, you propose to remove this evil of publication in the city of Washington of an advertisement in reference to a local matter in Arizona or New Mexico or California or else where. All agree that ought to be corrected. The Senator from Maine proposes to correct it by declaring that nothing shall be published in the District of Columbia except what is required by law to be published here. That is reasoning in a circle. You come right around to the same place.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Will the Senator read the act of 1867 to which he refers?

Mr. TRUMBULL. It is the tenth section of the civil appropriation bill, as follows:

"That all advertisements, notices, and proposals for contracts for all the Exécutive Departments of the Government, and the laws passed by Congress, and executive proclamations, and treaties shall hereafter be advertised by publication in the two daily papers published in the District of Columbia now selected under the act of the first session of the ThirtyNinth Congress."

That requires in so many words all these publications to be made in the two newspapers published in the District of Columbia which have been selected by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, as the newspaper men insist, and weil they may insist on it under the terms of the act, although evidently that was not the meaning of Congress. It is proposed to correct that. I submit you correct nothing when you simply say that nothing shall be published here except what by law is required to be published here. That is the very thing in dispute; and I submit that some other amendment is necessary.

Mr. SHERMAN. I had an amendment to guard against that very difficulty.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I know that amendment would have guarded it; but that has been stricken out.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I suggest that this section be passed over informally for the time being, and that we go on with other parts of the bill, and in the mean time we can fix this.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HARLAN in the chair.) That course will be pursued, if there be no objection.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have another amendment that I desire to offer from the Committee on Finance. It is to insert as an additional section the following:

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, $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.

Mr. President, here is a proposition to increase to some extent the salaries of nine officers. From the temper of the Senate yesterday I suppose it will be very difficult to get them to agree to it; but the circumstances are peculiar; and nothing but peculiar circumstances would have induced us to report the section. This increases their salaries but slightly.

Mr. SUMNER. What is the increase?

Mr. SHERMAN. About one thousand dollars each. They have been allowed out of the fund which we have had so much talk about, by the Secretary of the Treasury, for two or three years, about one thousand dollars extra. I desire to say that the salary of the First Comptroller, the most important officer in the Treasury Department, was fixed in 1799 at $3,500, when a clerk got but $800, and it stands there yet.

So with the First Auditor; he got $3,000 then, and he stands there yet. These Auditors and Comptrollers are the most responsible officers of the Treasury Department. Upon their integrity and fidelity depend the entire safety of the Treasury Department. They pass in a month more accounts than the Court of Claims will in three years, and decide causes as important to the Government as the Supreme Court decide in a whole year; and yet their pay stands as it was in 1799. The present First Comptroller, who is a man distinguished for ability, says he cannot live on the salary. The Second Comptroller, Mr. Brodhead, is a gentleman of great distinction; and he is also paid $3,000 or $3,500. These other officers, the heads of bureaus, the Auditors are paid now $3,000; and they include among them, as we all know, men of great ability and high

character.

The Committee on Finance were not prepared to take up the bill referred to yesterday, for the reorganization of the Treasury Department, although we expect to do so early at the next session. We thought it would be very difficult to get action on such a bill at this session; but the Committee on Finance unanimously recommended that this relief should be given to these officers, as we have cut off all opportunity, which the Secretary of the Treasury has had under previous laws, to make an additional allowance to them. That power is now cut off, and they are left to their salaries.

I trust, under the circumstances, the Senate

will unanimously agree to this slight increase. It will not operate very long, because probably at the next session of Congress we shall be able to act on the bill reorganizing the Treasury Department; but for this coming year it will raise the Comptrollers from $3,500 to $4,500, and I think that is too little; I would rather say $5,000; and it raises the Auditors from $3,000 up to $4,000. The Senate can do as they please on the subject.

Mr. CAMERON. I trust we shall not agree to this amendment. I am satisfied that this is not the time to raise salaries. Not one of these gentlemen would give up his office because his salary was not increased, and I verily believe that if all of them did give up their offices we could get just as good men to put in their places for the present salaries. Why, sir, we have taken off $100,000,000 from our tax laws, and we are now going on almost daily increasing some item of expenditure or other. I doubt whether the Committee on Finance themselves can tell how much increase is provided in this bill by the additional number of clerks allowed, so far as we have gone.

Mr. SHERMAN. This bill is a great diminution upon the appropriations of last year. However, the Committee on Appropriations have it in charge.

Mr. CAMERON. That may be, and it ought to be a diminution. Some three or four or five hundred clerks ought to be dismissed in place of increasing the number. When we had an army of a million men in the field, with vast accounts growing out of that immense army, it was necessary, probably, that our clerical force should be very large; but now, in time of peace, it is not necessary that we should have so many of these people; and certainly at this time when taxation is oppressing everybody, and when the town is swarming with men seeking to get places we should not increase salaries. Why, sir, there is not a day that I am not called upon before I get my breakfast by somebody who wants a place here at the present rates; and yet we are asked to increase the pay of these officers. It is this constant increase of pay every day that swells the number of office-hunters in the country. I think the most unfortunate class in the world are the people who are induced to come to Washington to get a scanty living from the Government; and I would give them no more encouragement. A man had better work at home at a couple of dollars a day in a workshop than come here and take one of these places. The most of them are taught idleness; they are taught extravagance; and every one of them will tell you he is not getting enough pay. My impression is that they would be a great deal better off at home. I for one will not vote for any increase of salaries. After awhile, when we get our debt and taxes reduced, it may be wise to do so; it may not be necessary, but it may be proper then to increase some salaries; but I cannot vote for any such proposition now.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I believe I am troubled with about as great a stringency of economy as anybody, but I am in favor of the proposition to increase the salaries of these

men.

I believe that any one of them would command in the business of the country nearly double the salary he gets from the Government. I am not in favor of that kind of economy that would save the cheese parings and give away the cheese. I know that the First Comptroller, as the Senator from Ohio has suggested, has charge of the most important business of the Government. I believe he is worth to-day more than half a million dollars to the Government. He is as good a Republican as my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. NYE. Who is he?

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. R. W. Taylor. We have not had a man since the days of Whittlesey that is worth as much money to the Government as this First Comptroller; and I would be willing to pay him as much as any man under the Government. I think he is worth the whole increase that is proposed to all the rest, rather than that we should be com.

pelled to get along without him; and I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, that unless his salary is raised he will leave the service of the Government. He is a man of large family, and he cannot support them here on his present salary; and it is unreasonable that we should ask him to do so.

Mr. CORBETT obtained the floor.

Mr. CAMERON. This is the old argument, that men in office could do a great deal better out of it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oregon yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania?

Mr. CAMERON. I beg pardon; I did not observe that the Senator from Oregon had obtained the floor.

Mr. CORBETT. I give way to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CAMERON. I am much obliged to the Senator. I merely desire to say that the argument of the Senator from Vermont is the common one always given when you say a word against an increase of salaries. It is said that the men holding these offices can do a great deal better in private life. Then I say let them go into private life. There are plenty of people who will come here and perform the duties just as well probably as they now do. I mean to say nothing against the ability or high capacity of the First Comptroller. I think all that is said on that subject is correct; but there are plenty of men just as good. An old proverb says that "there are as good fish in the sea as ever were caught;" and I am sure there are always good men willing to go into office. According to the Senator's argument, you might go through the whole list of officers here and raise their salaries. I dare say there are men holding $1,200 clerkships who are fitted to perform the duties of these places; and probably there are men getting large salaries who are not fit for their places; but that does not prove to my mind that you ought to increase salaries. I think that the salaries in our Government are as high as they ought to be. I believe we spend a great deal too much money because we have sympathy for individuals. Because a particular incumbent of an office is a gentlemanly and courteous man, and we meet him in our social circles, we are apt to be willing to increase his salary because we like him, or because we are pleased by some attentions that we receive from him or those around him. I do not pretend that I am not susceptible to all these feelings myself; but I am unwilling to increase salaries this year.

I believe there ought to be an entire change in the Treasury Department. I think there ought to be an overhauling and a systematizing there, so as to make the establishment better for the Government and better for the persons employed. I think we could save money enough there to perhaps give some officers higher salaries; but it would be done by reducing the number of people employed and inaugurating a better system. The other day we had a debate about a commissioner of statistics, and we were told that the person employed in the Treasury Department in that service was entirely unfit for his place. I was told so by some gentleman of this body. We were also told that a man must be kept in the State Department to perform the same duties because he had some capacity in gathering up statistics, and the other man, whose special business it was to attend to that subject, was not fit to do it. That is not the way to legislate. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his courtesy.

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. President, I have had some little transactions with the First Comptroller, Mr. Taylor, and in my opinion he is not one of those particularly courteous men who cater to Senators or Congressmen. He is a man who attends to his duties faithfully, I believe, and I think he is a very valuable officer. I admire him the more from the fact that I presented a claim to him, and notwithstanding he rejected the claim I was struck by his ability and the manner in which he

[ocr errors]

examined these things. I believe, as the Senator from Vermont says, that he is a very capable, thorough officer. He watches vigilantly the interests of the Government. I believe he is better worth $5,000 a year than any other man that you could place in that position would be half that amount. He is thoroughly acquainted with the business of the office. There is a very large business to be transacted there. Very large claims are coming constantly before him. It seems to me that to give him a salary that will merely keep his family and not allow him to lay up anything for a rainy day is very unjust. I think his services are worth as much as the services of any Senator here.

I shall support this amendment of the Senator from Ohio, to raise the salaries of these Comptrollers and Auditors who pass upon large claims and judge of them. I think they should receive a salary that would place them above any influences that might tempt them to swerve from their duty in judging of claims, and acting upon them independently. We know, and have heard it said, that influences are brought to bear upon officials to force through claims that are illegitimate and improper; and we should place these men in such a position that they cannot be tempted. I do not believe that Mr. Taylor is one of the kind who can be tempted, but I believe that he should be paid a salary commensurate with his services, and commensurate with the large amount of business he performs and the large amount of claims he is constantly passing upon. I simply desired to add my testimony, knowing something of Mr. Taylor, and having seen something of him.

Mr. NYE. I am myself in favor of paying pretty good salaries; but it seems to me that the reason the honorable Senator from Oregon renders for raising the salary of this man is a very strange one, that he presented a claim to him and he rejected it.

Mr. CORBETT. Yes, sir; I thought the prices were pretty high, and he rejected it.

Mr. NYE. It is very queer that the honorable Senator would present a claim that he did not think was right, and go for raising the salary of the officer that rejected it.

||

Mr. CORBETT. It did not belong to me. Mr. NYE. But, sir; I rose for the purpose of saying a single word. I see there is a general willingness here to raise the salaries of these officers of the Treasury; and I do not know but that it is right; but in looking around these Departments last year, as I made a little effort to do, I found many men that have more labor to perform than these Comptrollers who get far less salary, and any effort to raise their salary heretofore has been a failure. Now, I propose to test the fairness of the Senate by proposing to put other Departments on a footing with the Treasury Department, if it is in order. If there is a man in any of the Depart ments of this Government who works more hours than any other, and has the most important labor to perform in a very important branch of the public service, it is the Commissioner of the General Land Office. His salary is $3,000 a year, and his labors are far more severe than those of the Secretary of the Interior, as the present presiding officer [Mr. HARLAN] will understand. He decides all that great branch of business. The public land interests of this country are certainly as large as any comptrollership is, where he is bounded by his room. I think his salary is altogether || too low. Any gentleman who goes into that office and discharges its duties faithfully ought to have more than $3,000 a year. In the Treasury Department they have clerks that get more than that. The Senator from Maine will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know of any. Mr. NYE. About three thousand dollars. Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir.

Mr. NYE. I ask the Senator from Maine how much they do get.

Mr. FESSENDEN. No clerk probably except the chief clerk of a bureau gets $2,000;

but there are in the office of the Register book-keepers who get $2,500 or $2,600.

Mr. NYE. Well, sir, there is a book-keeper who gets in the neighborhood of three thousand dollars; and with the twenty per cent. we have been in the habit of giving it is more than that.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. And they are picked away at once and taken to New York, where they get $5,000, $6,000, and some of them $10,000.

Mr. NYE. My friend from Vermont has an apprehension that there is danger of the Government losing some of these Comptrollers. Let me tell him that he need have no such fear; they will stay. I have never known one to quit here who got good pay. I am not finding fault with paying this salary to these Comptrollers; perhaps it is right; but I insist upon it that the Treasury Department is not the only Department of this Government; and if the committee who have it in charge are going about to do justice, as I have no doubt the Senator from Ohio intends to do, I can find them cases more deserving, men with as large families, and who work more hours a day than any of these Comptrollers, who are getting but little over half what they propose to give these Comptrollers. The Secretary of the Treasury, I believe, gets $8,000, and now it is proposed to give $4,500 or $5,000 to clerks merely; they are called Comptrollers, because they are at the head of that kind of clerkship. I repeat that I do not know that it is too mach, but while we are attempting to do justice to these deserving men, I hope we shall have an amendment giving the Commissioner of the General Land Office as much certainly as some of the clerks of the Treasury Department.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Nevada and his colleague desire to put in the Commissioner of the General Land Office. I appreciate the services of Mr. Wilson, who is an able and excellent officer; but in the first place the matter ought to be referred to a committee. The increase of these salaries was referred to the Committee on Finance, and after consideration we took these officers and made the increase. Officers in the same Department with the same rank have a great deal more salary The Treasurer gets $6,500; the Comp. troller of the Currency gets $5,000. The heads of bureaus in the War Department get $7,000. If this proposition had been considered by the Committee on Public Lands, I should have no objection to it.

now.

Mr. NYE. The Committee on Public Lands are certainly as capable as the committee to which this matter has been referred to judge of this subject, and having examined into it

Mr. SHERMAN. If the Committee on Public Lands report this proposition I have not the slightest objection to it.

Mr. NYE. I ask the honorable Senator from Ohio if it is necessary to go through the formal presentation of it to the committee to see whether it is proper to raise this salary, when the Senator knows and every Senator knows that it should be raised. I do not like to pick out one Department and make its officers princes and keep the others all poor.

Mr. CONNESS. I wish to inquire whether an amendment to the amendment is now in order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the impression of the Chair, it is in order.

Mr. CONNESS. Then I move to insert after the word "Treasury," in the sixth line of the amendment of the Committee on Finance, the words "and the Commissioner of the General Land Office." The chairman of the Finance Committee will accept that, I sup

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CONKLING. I wish to make an inquiry of the Chair, whether notice was given of this amendment so as to bring it within the rule; and I will state the reason why I make the inquiry. This may be a meritorious case; but there are a great many other meritorious cases; and if without giving any notice, without the amendment being reported by the Committee on Public Lands, this officer is to be added, then with great propriety we may look about and see what other officers ought to be included; and it is rather invidious to establish that way of accomplishing the result. If notice has been given, I do not object; but if it has not been given, and we are to accept this amendment, then there are various officers who ought to be thought of.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has no knowledge that any notice was given to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Senator will not make that objection; but that if there be any other case as meritorious as this he will propose it.

Mr. CONKLING. Whether there be others as meritorious as this I am not prepared to say, because we have a rule providing that this particular legislation shall not be reached in this way. Of course, therefore, Senators are not prepared, upon a suggestion being made, to say what other meritorious cases there are. I repeat, I do not wish to object to this case in particular; but if we have a rule I think we ought to adhere to it.

Mr. CONNESS. Then I ask for a vote of the Senate upon it.

Mr. CONKLING. Not if it is not in order, I suppose.

Mr. CONNESS. I did not understand the Senator to insist on the point of order.

Mr. STEWART. If the point of order is insisted on I will move that this amendment be postponed until to-morrow, and I give notice that I shall then offer it.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I think I must insist on the point of order.

Mr. STEWART. Then I move that the whole amendment go over until to-morrow. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. That is hardly necessary, because the whole question will be open when the bill comes into the Senate.

Mr. SHERMAN. There are other appropriation bills, where it can be moved.

Mr. CONNESS. I wish to give notice now that to-morrow I will offer this amendment to this bill, as proposed to-day.

Mr. CONKLING. I made the suggestion that I did merely by way of suggestion, not meaning to insist upon it against the wish of even a single Senator who thinks it is important to take the sense of the Senate on this question. I now withdraw the point of order; but in withdrawing it I wish to say again that I think while we have this rule we ought to adhere to it, and that these officers ought not to be dependent upon the friendly diligence of some Senator who may have in mind a particular case, and who from a sense of jus tice may rise and suggest that when that same Senator, if his attention had been turned in another direction, very likely would be able to remember a number of other persons equally meritorious. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEWART] says he offered this proposition originally rather by way of illustration. I suppose that to be the case, and I have no doubt the illustration is a true one. I have no doubt the case is one of merit. I only say that it establishes a capricious rule that these officers are to be advanced in their salaries dependent on whether some Senator who has personal knowledge of them is able on the spur of the moment to think of them or hot. That is a lottery which I think the rules intended to provide against.

Mr. CONNESS. I renew the amendment. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I shall be obliged to invoke the rule, and I will say to Senators who have an interest in this matter that when the bill comes into the Senate they can give

40TH CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 218.

me the notice and make a motion to amend it then, and that will answer their purpose.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HARLAN in the chair.) The question of order having been raised, the Chair is of the opinion that it is well taken.

Mr. CONNESS. Well, Mr. President, I now renew the notice that to-morrow I shall offer this amendment.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I suggest to the Senator from Ohio to add at the end of his amendment the words "for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869, so that the salary provided for shall be for that year.

Mr. SHERMAN. That will be proper enough, although this being an appropriation || bill for that year the preliminary words of the bill would cover it. I wish now to add to the amendment and the same is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. These formal words have been omitted, and they ought to be inserted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. CHANDLER called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 23, nays 10; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Cattell, Conness, Corbett, Davis, Drake, Edmunds, Fessenden. Frelinghuysen, Harlan, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sumner, Van Winkle, Vickers, Willey, and Williams-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Cragin, McCreery, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, and Yates-10.

ABSENT — Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cole, Dixon, Doolittle, Ferry, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sprague, Wade, and Wilson-23. So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. I now offer from the Committee on Finance the following amendment as a new section:

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.

I will state that there are twelve night watchmen in the Treasury Department, every one of whom is a wounded soldier.

Mr. SUMNER. What is the pay now?

Mr. SHERMAN. Seven hundred and twenty dollars a year. This gives them the same pay allowed to other watchmen-much less than our watchmen in this building. I trust the amendment will be adopted. The provision was agreed to last year.

Mr. CHANDLER. I should like to add a proviso that all other watchmen in the Departments shall receive the same compensation. Mr. SHERMAN. I believe they do. Mr. CHANDLER. I move to amend the amendment in the way I have indicated.

Mr. SHERMAN. I object to that amendment, because I do not know precisely how many it would affect.

Mr. CHANDLER. I am opposed to raising the pay in one Department and leaving the same class of officers in other Departments at a lower compensation. Let us have them all alike. I shall to-morrow propose an increase of the salary of all men in the same grade in all the Departments, where the salaries of any have been raised.

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not know even that there are night watchmen in the other Departments.

Mr. CHANDLER. Then my amendment can do no harm.

Mr. SHERMAN. It would not be wise to legislate in that loose way. If the Senator from Michigan had seen these men performing this duty every night in the year, watching over hundreds of millions of property, he would not deny to them $2 50 a day, $900 a year. We agreed to this last year, but it has been dropped off now in some way. I do not know how. The salary of $720 is totally inadequate. Every one of these twelve men

is a soldier, and a wounded soldier, and they are all faithfully serving the Government.

Mr. CAMERON. I shall certainly vote to add the $200 to the night watchmen after we have given $1,000 additional to each of the Comptrollers; and I give notice now that tomorrow I shall offer an amendment to this bill providing for paying the women in the Treas ury Department the same compensation that is paid to men for the same service.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Michigan to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have but one more amendment to offer, and then I shall relieve the Senate. It is in regard to the pay of the Assistant Treasurer at Charleston. I move on page 46, line eleven hundred and thirtytwo, to strike out all after "Charleston" and insert" and after the 30th of June, 1868, the annual salary of the Assistant Treasurer at Charleston shall be $4,000, and that amount is hereby appropriated—$22,000;" so as to make the clause read:

For salaries of the Assistant Treasurer of the United States at New York, Boston, Charleston, and St. Louis, namely: for the Assistant Treasurer at New York, $8,000; those at Boston and St. Louis, each, $5,000, and the one at Charleston, $4,000; and after the 30th of June, 1868, the annual salary of the Assistant Treasurer at Charleston shall be $4,000; and that amount is hereby appropriated-$22,000.

This proposes to raise the pay of the Assistant Treasurer at Charleston from $2,500 to $4,000 a year on the ground of the vastly increased business. He now disburses $7,500,000 a year. His pay was fixed under the old régime at Charleston when the business was small. The papers are quite voluminous which I have received from the Department, showing the necessity of this increase. It simply puts this officer on the same grade with other officers in that Department who perform the same character of service, no more, no less. If the Senate want any further information on the subject the petition of this officer can be read. The proposition is simply to raise his pay from $2,500 to $4,000.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. How does that conform with the salaries of similar officers at other points?

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is less than the pay of the sub,Treasurer at St. Louis and at Boston.

Mr. SHERMAN. It is less than is paid to any other officer who disburses that much

[blocks in formation]

"

That all advertisements, notices, and proposals for contracts, executive proclamations, treaties, and laws, required by law to be published in the District of Columbia, shall be published only in the two papers selected under the act approved May 18, 1866, entitled An act making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending the 30th day of June, 1867, and for other purposes," and only when the same shall be delivered to such papers by the proper head of a Department for publication; and all of section ten of the act approved March 2, 1867, entitled An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes, "preceding the proviso thereof, is hereby repealed, and no advertising whatever in any newspaper published in the District of Columbia

shall be paid for by any disbursing officer, and if paid shall not be allowed by any accounting officer, unless published in pursuance of law.

That, in effect, repeals the enacting part of the tenth section of the act of March 2, 1867, out of which this difficulty grows. It refers to the same selection of newspapers, and confines it to these advertisements in the District of Columbia that the law requires to be published here. I feel quite sure that it will cover the whole case.

Mr. SHERMAN. The only modification I want to make is in the last clause. I would change the words "in pursuance of law" to "in pursuance of this act," because the power to publish advertisements in the Intelligencer and other newspapers is claimed under various old laws.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I have not the slightest objection to that modification. I would have put it in that form, but I thought the language I proposed was more acceptable to the Senator. It is much better, I think, to say "under this act," and I so modify my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques tion is on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

The amendment to the amendment was adopted, and the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

[ocr errors]

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I propose an amendment on page 36, an amendment which I am directed by the Committee on Naval Affairs to move: in the eight hundred and seventieth line, after the word "dollars," I move to insert of solicitor and naval judge advocate general, $3,500." The object of this amendment is merely to continue that office. By an act of 2d of March, 1865, the office of solicitor and naval judge advocate was created "to continue during the rebellion and for one year thereafter," and it has been continued every year by means of the appropriation, and unless this appropriation is made that office will expire. This is for no increase of salary, but merely to continue the same office in existence. The Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives were unanimous in their recommendation of the passage of a bill making the office permanent. The Committee on Naval Affairs of the Senate recommend that it be continued for this year with unanimity. The Secretary of the Navy recommends that it be continued. I have his letter here. I have also a letter in my possession from General Grant; he considers the office of importance, and that it ought to be continued. This officer has to examine the returns of about a thousand cases from naval courts of inquiry and courtsmartial every year. He has to examine contracts and claims. He is a gentleman of ability, excellent character, familiar with the business; and the Secretary of the Navy states that instead of this office being an increase of the expenses of the Government it will cost much more to have the business attended to by persons who are not paid by a salary than if this office is continued. The probability is that by another year, under a new organization of the Attorney General's department, some arrangement will be made by which this office can be dispensed with or come under the charge of that Department in some way; but I think it very clear that it ought to be continued for this year, and such is the opinion of the Naval Committees of the House of Representatives and of the Senate and of the Secretary of the Navy and of the General, and the facts clearly show that it ought to be so.

Mr. STEWART. I wish to put my notice in form: after the word "Treasury," in the section inserted on the motion of the Senator from Ohio, I propose to insert the words Commissioner of the General Land Office." I ask that that be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That can be done by unanimous consent. No objection being made the proposed amendment will be

so referred. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I inquire of the Senator from New Jersey whether he moves this by instructions from the Committee on Naval Affairs? Yes, sir; I

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. offer it by the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Then the Senator is in possession of all the facts, I suppose. This office was created during the war, to continue for two years after the war, I think, and that was the reason he was not appropriated for in the House of Representatives, and the reason he was not appropriated for by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to inquire if this amendment has been referred to the Committee on Appropriations?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. We had notice that an amendment would be moved to this effect.

Mr. WILLIAMS. What does the rule amount to that has been adopted here requiring these matters to be considered by the Committee on Appropriations if it suffices for a Senator to stand up in his place and say that he intends to do a certain thing at a certain time? I had supposed that the rule would operate to give us the benefit of the judgment of the Committee on Appropriations, superadded to the judgment of the committee by whom the amendment was proposed. I only speak for the sake of ascertaining what the rule is to be. If nothing is to be done except simply to give notice that such an amendment will be moved, I do not think the Committee on Appropriations have any opportunity afforded them to pass on the merits of the amendment.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The rule requires, as I understand it, that no motion shall be in order to amend an appropriation bill unless that subject-matter has one day before been referred to the Committee on Appropriations, to give them an opportunity to see the relation it has to the general bill. That is the object I suppose. Sometimes it appears that an appropriation has been omitted from the appropriation bill which is provided for by law; and in such a case, if notice is given to the Committee on Appropriations of the proposed amendment, we examine it, and if we find that the law authorizes that appropriation we make it in conformity with the proposition; but if we find, as in this case, that it provides for a new service, or for the continuance of an old service, whether that service is necessary or not, which question belongs to some particular committee, as in this case the Committee on Naval Affairs, we leave them to exam. ine it, and we do not examine it because it belongs to them. And hence they present it, as the Senator from New Jersey from that committee has .presented this case here today. The Committee on Appropriations felt that their duty was performed in this case when they had examined the proposed amendment in committee and found there was no law for it, or, in other words, found that the law justifying this appropriation had expired, and so we contented ourselves with leaving it in the hands of the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. CONNESS. I shall not vote for this amendment, because I do not think this office ought to be longer continued. It was created in March, 1865, just before the war had closed; when the number of ships in the Navy of the United States had reached nearly six hundred or thereabouts. There was some reason then perhaps for an office of this kind, and some reason for the continuance of the office while the surplus ships of the Navy were being sold, which work is now all done; but I cannot understand why the office is necessary now. suppose, of course, the committee believe there is sufficient necessity for it, or else they would not have recommended it; but I have not heard reasons given sufficient for the main

I

tenance of an attorney in that office longer. As for the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy or that head, I do not know whether I would give much for it or not. I do not know how far it would go with other Senators.

I suppose that the Secretary of the Navy has sufficient knowledge of law himself to do all the legal business of the Department that remains now to be done. I am replied to by a Senater behind me that "he has not any." I inclire to that opinion myself, and I kept that in view when I said that he had a sufficient knowledge of law for all the legal purpose necessary to the Department. It seems that we are asked to continue this office for a year longer just because we have had it for three years. That is not a good reason. I think we can just as well dispense with this attorney as continue him at a salary. I am not sure that we could not dispense with the head of the Department. I think we could I remember an occasion when President Lincoln lived, and I failed to be able to get the attention of the head of this Department to important business, I went to see the President on the subject. I seriously stated our case, and he replied to me that there was a real live man in that Department, and asked me if I knew Fox. I told him no, I did not, and it ended by his giving me a note to Fox. I never had any trouble in doing business at the Navy Department while Mr. Fox was there. He was better than all the nominal heads of Department in creation, and all the attorneys, such as they employ, thrown in. I incline to think that we can do without one attorney there.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, the Senator from California says that he does not know what necessity there is for continuing this office. It is not to be expected that every Senator will know all the details of the business of the various committees; and I supposed the very object of having committees was that they might examine as to the necessity of these questions and supply that want of information which individual Senators necessarily are subjected to. I stated in the hearing of the Senator from California that the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House were unanimously in favor of a law to make the office permanent; that the Committee on Naval Affairs of the Senate were unanimous in recommending that this office be continued this year; that the Secretary of the Navy was of the same opinion, and thought it would be a saving of a good deal of money to the Government to have it continued rather than to employ counsel for particular cases; that the General of the Army, being somewhat conversant with the affairs of the Navy as well as of the Army, was of the same opinion. Secretary Stanton is of the same opinion. This amount of authority ought to have some influence in forming the judgment of the Senate; but if authority is not enough, I also stated that there were a thousand cases in a year coming up from naval courts of inquiry and courts-martial which were examined by this solicitor; that questions of prize were examined by him; that questions of claims and contracts passed under his examination; and that his time was consequently fully occupied and well occupied in the interest of the Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to inquire who made the examination into these contracts and claims before this office was created prior to the year 1865?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I suppose the Senator is as well informed on that subject as I am. I do not suppose that prior to 1865 there was one contract made where there are twenty made now; and perhaps it may have been by comparing the expense of this office with the expense which the Department was put to prior to 1865 that the Secretary of the Navy is enabled to certify here that the expeuses are lessened by having a salaried officer rather than employing counsel in given cases. I trust that the amendment will be adopted. Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I can reply

« PoprzedniaDalej »