Page images
PDF
EPUB

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I want to inquire of the Senator from Maine whether these gentlemen have received a pro rata compensation from the House of Representatives.

Mr. HAMLIN. They have received nothing. Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I make the inquiry, because sometimes in these cases duplicate compensation is given, the House of Representatives and the Senate both giving additional compensation. The reason why these persons were not embraced in the resolution giving extra compensation to the clerks and other officers of the Senate, was because they were an entirely new class of officers, unknown before. They are officers whose offices have been created since the original resolution was passed. But there is another point. Extra compensation is granted upon the supposition that the clerks have performed long and arduous service. If these clerks have been in service for a long time, it is right to give it; but if they have been in service but a short time it is not right.

Mr. HAMLIN. They have been in service as long as any clerks around the Capitol, clerks of committees or any others, and they will be in service till December next, which is not true of others.

Mr. BADGER. I will suggest to the Senator from Maine, that the phraseology of the resolution should be altered, so that it will be: "That there be allowed and paid under the direction of the Committee to Audit and Control the Public Expenses of the Senate, out of the contingent fund of the Senate the same," &c., and then at the end, “as was paid at the last session."

Mr. HAMLIN. I accept the modification. Mr. DOUGLAS. I have no objection to the resolution, if the Senator from Maine will add: Provided, It be expressly understood that hereafter no extra compensation shall be given.

I think that the greatest abuse which has grown up here is this extra compensation to all the persons about this Capitol, leading persons to seek for places here just before the close of a session for the purpose of getting the extra compensation, or getting pay which bears no sort of proportion to the service rendered. It is an abuse which is growing up here yearly, and I do hope we will fix the salaries at what they ought to be, and then put an end to this growing enormity, which I believe is more corrupting than any other thing about the Capitol. I hope that the proviso may be added, by way of a notice with respect to the future.

Mr. HAMLIN. I would certainly place these clerks on the same footing as others, and I do not know that any proviso is necessary. They will stand at the end of another session precisely as the other clerks, only they do not come within that class of clerks to which the Senator has alluded. These are clerks that have performed service during the session, and will perform it during the

recess.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not make the objection to the clerks particularly who are provided for in the resolution; but the principal reason why I wish to have the proviso adopted is this: Each session we are told we must give the extra compensation this time, but that we will put a stop to the practice hereafter. If the proviso is not now put upon it, we will be next year in precisely the same situation as we have been in before, and we shall be told we must give it now, but we will stop it hereafter. But it never will stop unless some proviso is made giving notice that it will not be paid. I move as an amendment:

Provided, It is distinctly understood, that hereafter no extra compensation of any kind will be allowed to any of ficer of the Senate, or any person in the employ of the Sen

ate.

Mr. BADGER. We have a committee instructed now, expressly on the motion of the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. HUNTER,] to make an arrangement of a system of compensation to avoid the extra compensation. I hope, therefore, the Senator will not offer his amendment now.

Mr. DOUGLAS. If that is the case, I will withdraw it.

Mr. PEARCE. What is the salary of the Superintendent of the Public Printing?

Mr. HAMLIN. It is twenty-five hundred dollars.

Mr. PEARCE. He is an officer employed by law, and I suppose his salary is fixed by law. He

Special Session-Extra Compensation

House.

is not an officer of this House or of the other. I suppose the same is true of his clerks. They are not the peculiar employees of this or the other Mr. HAMLIN. Yes, they are. They take care of our printing. They do much of what the Printing Committee formerly did.

Mr. PEARCE. I think this practice has gone far enough, and should be stopped.

Mr. STUART. I move to strike out of the resolution the words, "Superintendent of the Public Printing;" thus modifying the resolution so that it shall apply only to the clerks. I have asked about me for some reason why that officer should receive extra pay. I recollect distinctly when this system was adopted in the other House, economy was one of the strongest arguments used there. I believed it myself. But if we are to take the very first opportunity after an officer is created, to increase his pay, we shall make but a sorry exhibition of our effort to carry out our principles of economy. I think you might as well take the President of the United States, and increase his pay by a resolution of the Senate. I confess to you, I see no reason for it whatever, which would not exist in the case of any other officer under this Government, and I certainly cannot vote for it.

Mr. HAMLIN. I hope that amendment will not be agreed to. It is true that the Superintendent of Printing is an officer whose salary is fixed by law. It is equally true that the Secretary of the Senate is an officer whose salary is fixed by law. It is equally true that the Clerk of the House is an officer whose salary is fixed by law. The Librarian, all the clerks around the Capitol, all the officers in the Senate and House are officers whose salaries are fixed by law; and you have given to them all an additional compensation. The only reason why I would give it to the Superintendent of the Public Printing is, that I would place him upon the same footing with the other officers who are properly officers of Congress. They are not, truly speaking, officers of the Senate, but they are officers of the Senate and House. They superintend our printing; they take care of it; they audit the accounts; they are established for that purpose as much as the Secretary of the Senate is placed here for the purpose of taking care of and making up the records of the Senate. I can see no reason why you should exclude the Superintendent and make a distinction between his case and that of all the rest. I agree with the remarks which have fallen from the Senator from Illinois, and I will most cheerfully concur in fixing the sum which we are to pay to all our officers, and not give any of them increased compensation. But when you have given to all the classes of persons which I have named, I hope my friend from Michigan will not make an invidious distinction against the Superintendent, who, I believe is as meritorious as any of our officers.

Mr. BADGER. We are reduced now, according to the count which I make, to 16 Senators; I therefore move an adjournment.

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, March 23, 1853.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. tion; which was considered by unanimous consent Mr. BADGER submitted the following resoluand agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, inquire and report whether the compensation for the expenses of the agent employed to procure and compile the information called for by the resolution of the Senate of March 8, 1851, is payable out of the appropriation for the contingent expenses of the Senate; and if not, how the same should be paid.

PAPER WITHDRAWN.

On motion by Mr. SEWARD, it was

Ordered, That Mr. Rossemeyer have leave to withdraw from the papers submitted by him a certificate of a certain contract entered into by him.

EXTRA COMPENSATION.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the following resolu

tion:

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BADGER. It now becomes necessary to strike out the word "him" after "under," and insert "Superintendent of Public Printing."

Mr. HAMLIN. I can see no reason why the Librarian and the Secretary of the Senate should be paid, and the Superintendent omitted.

Mr. BADGER. Voluntas stat pro ratione-the will of the Senate makes the reason.

Mr. BADGER'S amendment was agreed to, and the resolution was reported to the Senate as amended.

Mr. HAMLIN. The question is now, I suppose, on concurring in the amendment adopted in committee. I wish to say but one word in regard to that. You have paid the Secretary of the Sencompensation, and now the question which I subate, the Librarian, and all your clerks an additional mit to the Senate is, why shall you exclude the Superintendent of your Public Printing from the rule which you apply to every other officer of the body?

Mr. STUART. The amendment which was

agreed to in Committee of the Whole was prohonorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] posed by me. I agree to what was said by the that the whole system of extra compensation is a bad one-a decidedly bad one. But, sir, I thought I could see a distinguishing reason why we should not apply the principle to the Superintendent of Public Printing. He is an officer appointed on the recommendation of the President; an officer over whose appointment neither House of Congress has any control, except in the mode pointed out. The officers named by the Senator from Maine are appointed by one or both Houses of Congress, and this system, bad as it is, has, therefore, a reason in its application to them, but has none whatever to the Superintendent of Printing, as I stated yesterday, no more than to any other officer appointed under the Government. The reason to which I have alluded, applicable to other officers, might, perhaps, be so extended as to apply to the but you might as well apply it to any officer who public printer, elected by the vote of both Houses; is appointed on the nomination of the President as to the Superintendent of Public Printing.

Besides, Mr. President, I do not like the reasoning upon which the thing is founded, to pay an individual because you have paid somebody Printing too small? Then increase it permanentelse. Is the pay of the Superintendent of Public it should not be extended. If it is a good one, it ly. If the system is a bad one, as I think it is, should not be extended beyond the principle which it embraces, and that is to confine it to offcers elected or appointed by one or the other or both Houses of Congress. This, sir, it seems to me, ought to be satisfactory.

It was with great reluctance I said anything upon the question at all. I did not intend at this session to say a word upon any question. Especially did I not intend to say anything about the subject of paying out money. But I would conclude by asking the question, and let every Senator apply it to his own case: By what rule of propriety will you pay out of the contingent fund of the Senate an officer appointed on the nomination of the President?

Mr. HAMLIN. I will merely say to my friend from Michigan that some of the officers whom we have already paid by our resolution are nominated to, and confirmed by the Senate before they can occupy their places. I refer to the Librarian and Commissioner of Public Buildings. Still they are properly the officers of the House and Senate. The Librarian takes care of the Congressional Library. The Superintendent of Public Printing is also properly an officer of the House and Senate; and I only insist that we shall not make fish of one and flesh of another.

Mr. ADAMS. I concur with the suggestion made, that these extra allowances are all wrong. I think every officer should be paid a fair compen sation for his services. I do not intend now to Resolved, That there be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate, under the direction of the Committee to participate in this debate, for it is too late to do Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, anything with the system on this resolution; but

[blocks in formation]

itself a very good system-that of extra compen-
sation. Why, Mr. President, before we yielded
to the influences operating upon us from the other
House, and the clamors raised throughout the
country, to a certain extra mileage to which we
used to be entitled-

I give notice to the Senate that if I shall live to But, Mr. President, I did not rise particularly
the commencement of the next session, I will in- for the purpose of saying this, but just to drop a
troduce a resolution at an early period instructing word in behalf of an expiring system which every-
the proper committee to inquire into the compen-body condemns, but which I really do think is in
sation allowed to the employees of the Senate;
and if it is not sufficient in the judgment of the
Senate, that they fix by law the amount to which
they are entitled. Increase their compensation if
it is not enough. I am willing to do that, but I
am opposed to the extra compensation. I am
willing to pay them what is fair and reasonable.
But I shall not oppose this resolution. As the extra
compensation is allowed to others, I see no reason
why it should not be allowed to the persons men-
tioned in this resolution.

Mr. BORLAND.

Constructive.

Mr. BADGER. "Constructive" mileage. I wish to know whether any member of the Senate ever found it inconvenient to him to receive that constructive mileage at an extra session?

SENATE.

edge I have done injustice, and that Senators ought to have the constructive mileage; nay, it ought to be more than it ever has been, [laughter,] and if I had the liberty now, I would take it most conscientiously. [Laughter.]

Mr. BADGER. So would I. [Laughter.] The question was taken on the amendment, and it was not concurred in.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I offer the following amendment:

Provided, That no extra compensation shall hereafter be allowed to any one out of the contingent fund of the Sen

ate.

Mr. BADGER. I hope my friend will not insist on that. What does it signify? Suppose we pass a resolution hereafter to make the allowance, will that control us?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I never received it. Mr. BADGER. Here is an honorable Senator who says he never took it. Then he did not find it inconvenient to receive it. [Laughter.] No man can be inconvenienced by receiving a thing which he does not receive; therefore my proposi-resolution say? Just what has been said at every tion remains in full force.

Mr. ADAMS. Will the Senator allow meMr. BADGER. I am in the midst of my argument now, and I cannot give way.

Mr. BUTLER. The Senator from Mississippi will help you.

Mr. BORLAND. As chairman of the Committee on Public Printing, I feel it to be my duty to state to the Senate, that if there are any employees of the Government, who, on account of arduous and important services rendered to us, can in any way be considered entitled to the extra allowance, the Superintendent of Public Printing, his clerks, and messenger are entitled to it. know the amount of labor which they have to perform. I was astonished when the Superintendent of Public Printing told me that with two clerks and a messenger he could perform the duties required of him. I thought, and so stated at the first Mr. BADGER. I know he will. He is alsession of the last Congress, that it would take six ways right, [laughter;] but I shall prefer at presclerks; and I think his reducing them to two, and ent to go on. We found it convenient to ourthe amount of labor which I know he performs, selves to receive this mileage. I did, though my which requires all day and sometimes late at night, amount was small. The honorable Senator from entitle him and those who assist him, if anybody Mississippi found it much more convenient, beis entitled, to this extra compensation. There is cause his was larger. [Laughter.] I did not another circumstance which would make it pecu- grudge him his. I was never for leveling his down, liarly hard as well as invidious to make this dis- but I would have been always willing to level mine tinction against them. The bill which passed at up. [Renewed laughter.] We cannot retain this the recent session making appropriation for their for ourselves. It is said to be an abominable syscompensation failed to receive the signature of the tem with regard to our officers; we are told to President, and is not a law. They will have to raise their salaries to the amount requisite and pay wait until the next session before they can get any them that, and no more. Now, sir, I think there is compensation for their services at all. It would something extremely agreeable at the close of the therefore be very hard to refuse them this allow-session, when the officers have been serving us ance. I do hope it will not be done. I will go as far as any Senator, at the next session, to get clear of the system of extra allowance and fix the regular salaries of our employees at a fair rate, and oppose always afterwards any extra compensation; but do not let us begin with this case, and make

this invidious distinction.

with fidelity and attention and kindness, doing
everything they could to promote our convenience
as Senators, and enable us, by their assiduity and
attention, to discharge our public duties with more
advantage to ourselves and to the country, and
promoting our personal convenience-I say there
is something to me exceedingly grateful in this
"free-will offering," by which we tell them, be-
yond the demands of law, "You are to receive this
as a testimonial of the estimate in which we hold
your assiduous and voluntary service beyond the
demands of your official duties." Therefore, sir,
I wish merely to pay a testimony of my respect
and consideration for a system which is soon to
leave nothing but its memory behind.

Mr. BADGER. I was persuaded by the clear and distinct statement made by the honorable Senator from Michigan [Mr. STUART] yesterday, that there was a propriety in striking out "the Superintendent of the Printing" from the proposition to give extra pay, and I consequently voted with him this morning in Committee of the Whole to strike it out; but, sir, I am obliged to say, for truth and candor require it, that the Senators I would say to the Senator from Mississippi from Maine and Arkansas have satisfied me that that his resolution at the next session will be enI was misled by the plausible statement of the tirely unnecessary, for we have already burdened Senator from Michigan, and that the strength of a most laborious and overburdened committee of the argument is the other way. The Senator from this body-that is the Committee on RetrenchMaine has shown that we are in the habit of pay-ment, one of the standing committees of the body ing extra compensation to two officers who are appointed precisely as the Superintendent of the Public Printing is appointed; and the reason why we have been in the habit of paying them is precisely in full force and operation, as a reason for paying this officer; that is, that they are engaged in discharging duties which properly are connected with the two Houses of Congress. The real dif ficulty and incongruity, Mr. President, has arisen from this, that Congress by its legislation has given the appointment of the Librarian, of the Superintendent of Public Buildings, and of the Superintendent of their own printing to the President. That is the error. You ought to have retained the appointment of every officer who is concerned in discharging duties in which we alone are primarily interested. But there can be no reason, under the circumstances, why we should except the Superintendent of the Public Printing, after having paid to others standing in precisely the same relation as to the mode of appointment and the duties which they have to discharge towards us; and therefore my attention being called to that fact, I am obliged to say that the honorable Senator from Michigan, I think, will, by persisting in his amendment, be accomplishing what the Senator from Maine says: making fish of one and flesh of another.

provided for by our rules, because it is necessary
that it should always be in existence and ready to
meet the large demands of the public upon its ser-
vice-by a resolution introduced by the Senator
from Virginia, with the duty of producing a scheme
of compensation to be adopted at the next session,
which will relieve us of what some gentlemen con-
sider a painful necessity, but what I look upon as
the agreeable office of voting extra compensation
to our officers. Therefore, we have nothing at
present to do but simply to pass this resolution,
and then the whole system will be broken up, be-
cause at the next session, should such be the de-
cided sense of the Senate, we will revise the sala-
ries of the officers and stop the contingencies.

Mr. ADAMS. My object in attempting to in-
terrupt my friend from North Carolina, was to make
an acknowledgment to him and other Senators. If
I do injustice to any one I always take pleasure
in retracting it. Heretofore, I have with most of
the country condemned what has been known as
constructive mileage; but since I have had the
honor of being a member of this body, and experi-
enced during the last six weeks especially, the
labor of sitting up here all night when the public
interest required it-the labor which we have had
to perform here and elsewhere connected with the
duties of a Senator, I say now that I acknowl-

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I am aware that we can override it. But what does the Senator from Arkansas and every other Senator who advocates the

other session: "This is the last time we will make the allowance." I have been made the instrument under which these things have been brought here, under the pressure of men, women, and children; at midnight and daylight I have been dragooned, and bedeviled, and hunted down, until I had to succumb. [Laughter.] You are now taking in everybody connected with the Senate-officers created and appointed by the President as well as the others. You fixed the salary of the Superintendent of the Public Printing, upon your deliberate judgment, at $2,500, the highest price which anybody says should be given for the talents and knowledge which he possesses; and yet you immediately vary the proposition to add to his pay $250 or $300. You have also included the reporters in the list of those to whom you give the extra compensation; and the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate are annoyed day after day to give such a construction to the allowance as will bring in every man who is engaged in cutting stone, or has anything to do on the Capitol extension. It is now extended so far that the whole thing is about to fall by its own weight. My proviso is in the shape of a proclamation to everybody connected with the Senate, that hereafter this thing is to stop, and when the Committee on Retrenchment and Reform, will because it was committed to them, take up the subject at the next session, they will not be put off with the apology that "this is the last time " that the extra allowance shall be made. That is all I ask. I know we can hereafter disregard the proviso. My friend from North Carolina comprehends my motive. He knows I am the last man who would deal illiberally with any of our employees.

Mr. BADGER. I know it, and therefore I will make an appeal to the Senator for the last time [laughter] to withdraw his amendment, not on account of any objection to the principle contained in it, but I think it will place us in rather a ridiculous attitude.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I withdraw it.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I think the amendment ought not to be withdrawn. I do not think it is the last time; I do not believe this is an expiring sys

tem.

Mr. BADGER. Oh, yes; it is dead. [Laughter.]· Mr. BRODHEAD. At the extra session of the Senate in 1851, I heard you, Mr. President, (Mr. ATCHISON in the chair,) say it was the last time; and I could not understand till this morning why it was that my friend from lowa [Mr. DoDGE] was so anxious at the last night of the last session to have a resolution passed, giving the sum of between twenty and thirty thousand dollars to the employees. I now understand it. I can comprehend his feelings. I believe he said he was dragooned and bedeviled and hunted down by men, women, and children. How much do you think we paid under this resolution?

Mr. BADGER. Fifty thousand dollars? Mr. BRODHEAD. We paid about $28,000. The plain honest people throughout the country, who work as hard as our employees, think that $30,000 ought to be enough altogether. But, sir, this is extra compensation. I know the officers of the Senate are most worthy officers, and the most accommodating gentlemen that I was ever associated with. I am willing to give them a liberal compensation, but it is a miserable system of

32D CONG.....3D Sess.

paying them about $30,000 extra at the close of a session, and on the last night of the session. But it will never come to an end.

Mr. BADGER. I wish to say one word about this last time" to which Senators have alluded.

Mr. BUTLER. "Henceforth." [Laughter.] Mr. BADGER. "Henceforth;" I change the word. What the Senator said is correct, but he forgets one part of it. The Senator from Indiana, [Mr. BRIGHT,] at the session before the last, said he would yield for that time, but at the commencement of the next session he would introduce a resolution for revising and increasing the salaries, and he was assured if he did so he would receive the entire support of the Senate. He omitted it at that session, and he explained to me the reason, that it was not a suitable time to introduce it, when we had adopted a provision in the appropriation bill making a temporary increase of the salaries of most of the subordinate employees of the Government. That was the reason why he did not introduce it.

Mr. CHASE. I am opposed generally to this doctrine of" henceforth." I do not believe in it as it was explained the other day by the Senator from North Carolina. That which is fit to be done is fit to be done now; and that which is right should be insisted on at all times. If a policy is expedient, it is expedient that it should be carried out now and at all times.

My friend from North Carolina has said that this is an expiring system. I think it is a wrong system, and I agree in that with the Senator from Illinois, and with the other Senators who have spoken on the subject to day. If it is wrong, it should be discontinued, and I know of no time so proper for its discontinuance as the present; and therefore, for the purpose of testing the sense of the Senate upon that, I desire to submit this amend

ment:

Provided, That hereafter no allowance of any kind, beyond their regular compensation, shall be made to any officer of the Senate.

Mr. BADGER. Is it in order to move to amend that amendment?

The PRESIDENT. It is.

Special Session-Extra Compensation.

is so,

for it says no payment "shall be made," without any qualification whatever. Now I deny the power of the Senate to do that, and I deny the propriety of doing it. If, as the Senator says, it does not mean that, why not make it speak what it does mean, that no payment shall be made hereafter unless the Senate direct it? I think he admits that if the Senate does direct it the payment must be made. It is mere brutum fulmen to put there a declaration that no payment shall be made hereafter of any extra allowance or compensation, when the Senator knows perfectly well that if the proviso is adopted the extra allowance can be made if the Senate choose, and will be paid in the manner in which it has been done heretofore. Therefore, I think, in order that we may not stultify ourselves by undertaking by the proviso to tie our own hands, we ought to adopt my amendment. I admit that after the amendment to the amendment is adopted, it will present rather an extraordinary spectacle, but not half as extraordinary as the amendment in its present shape. It is not an amendment declaratory of a purpose; it is not an amendment declaratory of the intentions or judgment of the Senate; it is a peremptory and mandatory proviso that hereafter no additional compensation shall be paid. Whom does it limit? It proposes to limit somebody. If it limits anybody it must be the Senate, for nobody else has assumed any authority to order the payments but the Senate. It is said that we do not pretend to limit the Senate. Then say so expressly upon the face of the amendment. Suppose the honorable Senator should add a proviso to a bill relating to the salaries of officers, that hereafter no salary should be paid to any officer, greater than the salary allowed in that bill, when the officer could receive no salary except under that or some subsequent law. Does not the Senator see that it would be vain and nugatory? I am sincere about this matter, and I should be very sorry to have such a proviso appended to the resolution. I think it places the Senate in a very absurd position. It uses the word "shall" as applied to the Senate or somebody else. It is admitted that nobody has anything to do with it but the Senate, and it undertakes to say that the Senate hereafter shall not do a particular thing. We thus undertake not only to say that we shall not do it, but that no Senate hereafter shall do it. I cannot see the propriety of it. I believe, myself, that when the Committee on Retrenchment reports at the next ses

Mr. BADGER. Then I move to add the words "unless directed by the Senate." I presume the honorable Senator from Ohio does not mean to say, that if the Senate should direct the payment of the extra allowance, the Committee on Contingent Expenses shall not pay it. Now, let us look at this case. The Senator's amendment pro-sion, the system they report will be adopted, and vides that hereafter no extra allowance shall be made. Suppose that at the next session an extra allowance is ordered. The Senator certainly does not mean, if that is ordered by the Senate, and paid by the Secretary out of the contingent fund, that he shall lose the money. It unquestionably means nothing but this: that no extra allowance shall be paid unless the Senate direct it. If it means that, say it. I submit the amendment to make the proviso consistent with the state of the law.

Mr. CHASE. I am quite aware that the Senate, at the next session, may, if they choose, notwithstanding this proviso, grant the extra allowance; but the object of the proviso, I suppose, cannot be mistaken. It is to declare that in the judgment of the Senate the system is wrong, and ought to be discontinued. We have heretofore, upon almost every occasion, as is well known, when propositions for granting extra allowance have been made, been told it is the last time. Now, I wish to put it upon record that it is the last time. We all know very well that it is perfectly competent for the Senate at the next session, if they see fit, to overrule or rescind the proviso. They may do that; but unless it is adopted there will be nothing to indicate that it is the understanding of the Senate that this system ought to be discontinued. On the contrary, if the proviso be adopted now, in my judgment, the system will be discontinued. If it is not adopted, the Senate say in effect that the system shall be continued. I hope that the Senator from North Carolina, inasmuch as he says his amendment will not affect the case at all, will not press it.

Mr. BADGER. I think my proposed amendment does affect the case greatly; for the amendment of the honorable Senator, as it stands, declares that no payment shall be made, whether directed by the Senate or not. Undoubtedly that

that will put an end to this business. But I would rather the system should continue forever than adopt such a proviso as is proposed by the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. CHASE. Every law is subject to repeal; every rule is subject to alteration. The Senate, if they see fit, may proceed in disregard of their rules, by unanimous consent. They cannot disregard a law which they impose upon themselves, except by unanimous consent. It is true that this amendment will become the rule of the Senate unless it is repealed. Therefore I desire its adoption because I know it will constitute a rule, and because I know that unless it is adopted we shall continue to be found in precisely the same situation as at the last night of last session, and the same appeals will be made to us, and we shall be under the duress of which Senators have complained.

I offer the amendment because I think it is right, and because I think it is due to us that we should arrest this system. I have no complaint to make of Senators who differ with me, and who regard this as a fit and proper system. The honorable Senator from North Carolina has said frankly and explicitly that he approves the system in itself. Now, if the Senate approve the system in itself, they will show it by their vote, in adding to my amendment the amendment which he proposes, and thereby reduce it to a nullity. If, on the contrary, the Senate is of opinion that the system should be discontinued, and concur with me in that, and do not concur with the Senator from North Carolina, they will reject his amendment and adopt mine. It is simply a question of difference as to policy. I am unfortunate in differing with a Senator for whom I have so great respect; but differing as I do from him, I think it proper, and feel bound to present the views which I entertain on the subject.

SENATE.

Mr. BADGER. I wish to correct one error into which the Senator has fallen. Although I have been a friend of that system, and think it the best, I do not choose to stand in opposition to the sense of the Senate if a change is determined upon. I am willing that the system shall be discontinued, not because I think it is wrong, not because I do not think it is good in itself, but because it is the subject of complaint, and liable to misapprehension and misconstruction. But I do object to putting a proviso of this kind to the resolution, which my friend from lowa withdrew at my earnest solicitation, because it places us in a ridiculous attitude before the country. If we cannot trust our own firmness and decision, without a pledge in the form of a resolution to control our action, let us confess our imbecility, and give way to somebody to correct it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope the honorable Senator from Ohio will have more firmness than either the Senator from lowa or myself have shown in offering an amendment and then withdrawing it. I hope he will not withdraw the proviso. I confess I admire the apparent earnestness and frankness with which the honorable Senator from North Carolina has argued this question. The real point at issue is this: shall this abuse be discontinued or not? Whenever we have attempted to arrest this practice towards the end of a session, we have been invariably told that it will not do to stop it at that time, because the employees have been engaged, and have worked under the expectation of getting it; that we must give notice at the beginning of a session that we are not to make these allowances; that there was an implied obligation to grant it at the end of the session. That argument invariably prevails when objection is made to the adoption of a resolution towards the close of a session. Then the advocates of the system, when a proposition is made to give notice, think it is very unbecoming to give such a notice, and say that we must have firmness when the time comes at the end of the session, to resist and stop the abuse. Thus by one course of argument at the opening of the session, and by another course of argument at the close of the session, the system has been extended till it has reached now the character of an intolerable abuse. I hope we will adopt the amendment and give the notice. I believe that is the object of the Senator from Ohio by his amendment. The effect of the amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, is to carry the implication that hereafter we will grant the extra allowance.

Mr. BADGER. No; but that it must be paid if we do.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I understand the argument of the Senator upon that subject; I think it would be an improvement of" Chitty on Special Pleading." The proviso is, that hereafter no allowance shall be made. If that proviso be adopted there is a notice that our employees are not to expect it, and if they do they will not get it. Then the amendment to the amendment that the allowance shall not be made unless authorized by the Senate carries the implication with it that we will pay it hereafter as we have on every former occasion. Hence, the question is now distinctly stated whether or not we will put an end to this abuse, and we arrive at that distinct issue by rejecting the amendment to the amendment, and standing firmly by the amendment of the Senator from

Ohio.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I trust the amendment to the amendment will be rejected, and that we shall adopt the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, although I yielded to the solicitation of my friend from North Carolina, and thus showed his power over me. It is not the first time that I have yielded to that power. But I look upon the amendment just as I do upon the amendments ings. Congress has the power to go on and apmade to appropriations for custom-house buildpropriate its dollars ad infinitum, I know. When a bill is before us granting money for the construction of a custom-house, a proviso is always added that the expenditure shall not exceed the appropriation, and my friend from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] has almost worn out his fingers drawing up such provisoes. But we know that Congress has power to override them. I look upon them as a proclamation to those engaged in erect

32D CONG....3D SESS.

ing the custom-houses to keep within the amount
if they can, for they will have a hard fight to get
any more dollars out of the Treasury in that way.
But this question is now up, and the action of the
Senate is to be had, and I do believe that the precise
inference will be drawn which the Senator from
Illinois has suggested, if the amendment is re-
jected, and my friend from North Carolina who
has been in the habit of triumphing over us, will
triumph in the same way again, and everybody
will get the money hereafter, who has been accus-
tomed to get it, and it will go even to the printers
and printers' clerks. I hope my friend from North
Carolina will yield to me in this small matter, and
cease to battle with me. I have given up to him||
once, and I now call on him to give way and vote
for the proviso.

Mr. BADGER. Nothing would gratify me more than to have an opportunity of yielding to my friend, but he must remember that this is not the proper place, in propria loco; things must be done in the right place. Now, he will recollect that he made his proposition, and at my appeal he kindly and generously withdrew it. His own heart, to which he then yielded, suggested to him that the proposition was a wrong one; but unfortunately he has allowed the hard-hearted reasoning of the Senator from Ohio, supported by the unfeeling argumentation of the Senator from Illinois, to induce him to resist the impulses of his heart, and to resort to the stringent operation of another influence. Now, Mr. President, such being the case, I cannot yield to him, because I should be doing my friend wrong. It would aid him in displacing himself from the elevated position which he just now occupied. [Laughter.] The argument of my friend refers to the cases of limitations in regard to custom-houses. Whenever it is necessary to make an increase of the appropriation is it refused? Never; and it never ought to be, for if the custom-house ought to be built, and the sum first appropriated turns out to be inadequate, how absurd it is to say that we will not appropriate the money to complete it; that we will give no more because we said we would give no more. So here my friend must be aware that if the Committee on Retrenchment report a system upon this subject, and it should be adopted, the extra compensation will be done away with; but if it should not be adopted, he knows that the Senate will order the extra compensation, so that the amendment is useless. I beg him to fall back upon the position of generous noble-heartedness which he occupied a little while ago.

Special Session-Extra Compensation.

seen before this body. I have studiously resisted
the payment at every session since I have been a
member of the body. The system commenced in
the first place by giving to the clerks $100 each, I
believe, and to the other officers of the body $50.
It has grown to such an enormous extent that we
now appropriate over $30,000 per annum for the
object. At the first session of the last Congress
we appropriated, as has been said by the Senator
from Pennsylvania, over $28,000; the last session
the amount was over $30,000. Yes, sir, to an
officer of this body whose salary is $3,000 we add
$500 extra; to an officer whose salary is $1,800
we add $250 extra; to an officer-the Sergeant-at-
Arms-whose salary is $1,500 we add $500 ex-
tra, to clerks whose salaries are $1,500 we add
$250, to employees who draw from three to four
dollars per day we add $250, at a short as well as
a long session; swelling the appropriation to the
enormous sum of over $30,000.

Whenever it has been resisted heretofore, we.
have been met by just such an argument as that
used by the Senator from North Carolina to-day,
that the employees expected it; that they had lived
with reference to it; that it would interfere greatly
with their private engagements if they did not get
it, and therefore we were bound to vote for it.
We voted it at the last session, and we are asked
this morning to add three to the list. I thought
we had gone far enough when, at the close of the
last session, we added the gate-keeper; yes, sir,
the gate-keeper in the public grounds, remote
from the Capitol. I did not object to that, be-
lieving that an objection would be useless, as I
uniformly failed in objecting to the system. But
we have come to a point now when the system
can be checked. We can, by the amendment
offered by the Senator from Ohio, give notice to
our employees worthy persons all of them, quale
ified for their places, I admit; I mean nothing
against any of them when I say, that if they are
not satisfied with their regular salaries, there are
plenty of persons throughout this Confederacy,
who would be glad to take their places. If we
give the notice, it will be no argument hereafter,
in support of the extra compensation that our offi-
cers have been living with reference to it. I hope
that the vote on the amendment will be regarded
as a test vote as to whether we intend to continue
the system or stop it, and with that view, I ask
for the yeas and nays on it, so that the notice
may appear on the record.

Mr. BAYARD. In the special session of 1851, when I first took a seat in this body, I recollect Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I will say to the Sen- that a resolution was offered to supply an omisator that it was my judgment which was influenced sion which had occurred in not passing the custo withdrew the amendment and not my heart. I tomary resolution at the preceding session in refwithdrew it because I had a regard for the busi- erence to the extra compensation. At that time ness of the Senate, and did not wish at the eleventh I was very much struck with the force of the arguhour of the session to consume time by going into ment used by the Senator from Indiana in opthese matters. But, sir, I am satisfied that good position to the allowance. Independent of that || will grow out of the adoption of the amendment argument, I could never have consented to the of the Senator from Ohio, notwithstanding the introduction of such a system. But what weighed argument of my friend from North Carolina. I with me in reply to that argument, was the lando consider that whatever Committee on Retrench-guage of a distinguished Senator using the very ment is formed at the next session, it will regard the adoption of the proviso as an instruction. If it is voted down, the committee will just go on as it did at the last session, and precisely the same scenes will be enacted at the close of the session. It is not the first instance in which my friend from North Carolina has had a triumph over me. In all the little matters of books, constitutions, &c., he has triumphed over me. He has almost always triumphed over me by appeals, if not by votes. I certainly do not blame him.

Mr. BADGER. I never had a triumph over my friend except in contests of generosity. In a contest for votes, he has obtained it.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. But I will not prolong this controversy further. I hope that the amendment of the Senator from Ohio will be agreed to. Mr. BRIGHT. I think the Senator from Ohio is right in offering his amendment, and I think his reasoning in support of it has not been controverted by the Senator from North Carolina. The system of extra compensation was considered a very trivial matter at its inception, but like every other iniquitous system it has grown, and though the Senator from North Carolina claims that it is expiring, it has certainly been longer dying than any other measure which I have ever

style of argument alluded to by the Senator from
Illinois. It induced me to vote in favor of the
resolution, with the determination in my mind
that at no subsequent session would I give such a
vote. I will read the remarks made by the Sen-
ator from North Carolina in reference to the argu-
ment of the Senator from Indiana, in order to show
the necessity of the amendment now proposed by
the Senator from Ohio. Unless we adopt that
amendment, we shall have the same appeal made
at another session which was made then. The
Senator from North Carolina said:

"I think the honorable Senator from Indiana is entitled
to all praise and commendation for the sentiments expressed
on this subject, taking the open, public, and manly ground
which he has taken in respect to it. I am glad to hear
him say that he intends at the next session of Congress to
propose a bill for the purpose of the reorganization of the
system. I assure him that I for one will, to the utmost of
my power, cheerfully cooperate with him in establishing
such a system as shall make it unnecessary for the Senate
to vote any extra compensation. But no question as to
what we shall do at the next session is now before us. The
question now is, whether we shall make the usual extra
allowance to our officers, or suddenly, without notice, with-
out preconcert or any new arrangement, cut them off, and
leave them without that which, from our past conduct,
they had a just and fair right to expect?"

It was the force and strength of that argument, applying to the precedents and usages of the Sen

SENATE.

ate, and the impropriety, without notice, of depriving the officers of the compensation to which from our previous action they might look, which induced me at that session to vote for the compensation. The same argument will be made hereafter, unless the amendment of the Senator from Ohio prevails. If it does prevail, no officer can reasonably expect that the extra allowance will be made. Being myself entirely opposed to the system, on the ground that it must inevitably lead to gross corruption and abuse, and might be extended to all the officers of the Government with as much reason as to the officers of the Senate, although it would require in one case, the action of both Houses, and in the other only the action of the Senate, I will vote against the resolution, unless the proviso is adopted.

Mr. BADGER. The introductory remark in what the Senator from Delaware has done me the honor to read, should be expounded by a certain figure in rhetoric by which that is intended which is not expressed, in order to show the meaning which I had in view in what I said at that time. But so far I was entirely in earnest in that case. Though believing in the propriety of the original system, yet it is the subject of so much unnecessary difficulty in the Chamber and so much misconception, that I am ready to yield and vote for the system which may be matured to render it

unnecessary.

Mr. BAYARD. I read those remarks merely for the purpose of showing that the same argument might be made at a future session, if we do not give the notice now. It was an argument that weighed with me, coming with the force with which it was stated, the first session at which I took a seat in this body. By the adoption of the amendment I think you preclude the possibility of ving such an argument at another session.

Mr. BADGER. If the Committee on Retrenchment report a system which will do away with the extra compensation, no one will vote for the allowance; but if it does not, I assure the honorable Senator I will move the usual resolution, and the Senate will adopt it.

Mr. BAYARD. I think not.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina to the amendment.

Mr. BAYARD. I will merely remark that the object of the amendment to the amendment is to destroy the original amendment, and those who are in favor of the original amendment will vote against the proposition of the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. CHASE. As the object of the amendment to the amendment is clearly seen, we might as well take a test vote on it, and I therefore ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 4, nays 30; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, Cooper, and Morton

-4.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Atherton, Bayard, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Butler, Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Hamlin, Houston, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Norris, Sebastian, Seward, Smith, Soulé, Stuart, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, and Weller-30.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The question recurring on the amendment, Mr. BRIGHT called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken resulted-yeas 34, nays 3; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Atherton, Bayard, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Everett, Fish, Fitzpatrick, Hamlin, Houston, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Smith, Soulé, Stuart, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, Toucey, and Weller-34.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, and Cooper-3.

So it was agreed to; and the question recurring on the resolution as amended, it was agreed to.

PRINTING OF A MAP.

Mr. BORLAND. The Committee on Printing, to which was referred the question of printing a map indicating the proposed course of steam navigation between San Francisco and Shanghai, to accompany a bill of the Senator from California, [Mr. GWIN,] for the establishment of a line of mail steamers, have directed me to report in favor

32D CONG....3D SESS.

Special Session-Committee to Procure Evidence.

of printing the same, and also in favor of printing one thousand extra copies.

Mr. SEWARD. I move to amend the report by striking out "one thousand" and inserting "one thousand five hundred."

The motion was agreed to; and the report of the committee, as amended, was concurred in.

REPORT ON THE MEXICAN BOUNDARY. Mr. BORLAND. The same committee, to which was referred the report of the Secretary of the Interior, communicating, in further compliance with a resolution of the Senate, certain papers in relation to the Mexican boundary commission, has directed me to report it back; and as the two thousand additional copies of the first part of the report of Mr. Bartlett, the commissioner to run the boundary line, of which this is the completion, have been ordered to be printed, the committee report in favor of printing two thousand additional copies of the completion of it.

The report was concurred in.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion by Mr. MALLORY, it was Ordered, That the heirs of Joseph H. Waring be permitted to withdraw their papers from the files of the Senate. REPORT OF TOPOGRAPHICAL DEPARTMENT.

Mr. HAMLIN. On the 19th of April, 1852, there was transmitted to the Senate a report of the Topographical Department, relating to the beacons and light-houses on the new south shoals of Nantucket. Owing to the state of the public printing it was not ordered to be printed. I move that it be printed for the use of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON FRAUDS. On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was Ordered, That fourteen hundred additional copies of the report made yesterday by the Committee on Frauds, &c., be printed for the use of the Senate.

LATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.

On motion by Mr. SHIELDS, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted by him on Thursday last:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate pay to Robert Beale, late Sergeant-at-Arms, the salary for the residue of the present year."

Mr. PETTIT. Mr. President, I cannot well imagine how a Senator who has just voted for the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio to another resolution, can propose such a resolution as this. What do you propose to do, sir? You are here undertaking not to pay an officer, or one who is to render service of any kind to the Senate, but to pay a person whom you have discharged from service. There can be no color of any claim for this compensation. You might as well establish a rule that after you had discharged all your officers you would continue to pay them. I would like to know if there is any reason for it. You can hold your officers as long as you please, and pay them; but after they are discharged, I cannot see why you should pay them.

Mr. SHIELDS. As the Senator from Indiana has charged me with inconsistency, I'must say to him that I am not inconsistent in offering this resolution, although I did vote for the proviso of the Senator from Ohio. His proviso was against giving extra pay to officers of the Senate. Everybody knows that Mr. Beale is not an officer of the Senate, so that there is no inconsistency.

Mr. MASON. It is manifest that this resolution will lead to debate, and I therefore move to lay it on the table for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of Executive business. The motion was agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 17, noes 16.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

On motion by Mr. MASON, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business; and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened,

And the Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, March 24, 1853. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER. The Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution submitted by Mr. WALKER, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, on the 21st instant:

Resolved, That the Committee on Indian Affairs be, and

they are hereby, authorized to delegate one of their number to proceed, during the ensuing recess of Congress, to take testimony in the matter now on reference to said committee, touching certain frauds alleged to have been committed by Alexander Ramsay and others, in making payment of moneys to certain bands of the Sioux Indians; and that the member of said committee so to be delegated have power to proceed to such points as may be necessary, and to send for persons and papers, and swear witnesses, and take their testimony, and certify the same with other proofs to said committee for their report thereon at the next session of Congress.

Mr. HUNTER. I think that that is a very objectionable resolution. I think it a very bad practice to have committees of the Senate sitting in the recess. I believe that is not a fair and proper mode of investigating any question; still worse would it be for a committee to delegate its power to one single individual. It is a power which ought not to be exercised by any single member of Congress. It seems to me that the inquiry proposed by the resolution belongs to the Executive. We shall soon have a new Governor of the Territory, I presume, who will be ex officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and to him or to some special commissioner to be appointed by the Executive, would most properly be delegated such a duty as this. Are we to send our members, or the members of the House of Representatives, about the country as commissioners to take testimony? Surely there could be no practice more dangerous. I hope the Senate will not agree to it.

SENATE.

self still more with that Department; but the Senator has no Indians in his State, and he has no occasion to hear their clamorings, as I have. He does not know how the matter affects the local community. He can ill appreciate that there are thousands of Indians on the frontier of Minnesota, and among the pioneer settlements there, ready to do violence to protect their rights unless they see the Government moving with some prospect, and some hope to them, that they are to have their matters investigated. Is there any peculiarity in confiding to an individual the power of a dedimus protestatem to take testimony? Has not the gentleman, in courts of justice, frequently sued out these powers, and sent them to single individuals who could swear witnesses and return the testimony certified to the court? That is all that is proposed by the resolution. It is only proposed that a single member of the Committee on Indian Affairs shall be authorized to go on and complete the taking of the testimony during the recess, not to make a report, but to certify that testimony to the committee at the next session, so that they may have it under examination and report it, together with their report, to the Senate. It is alleged in a letter which accompanies the charges that the individual has had to exercise his personal influence to keep the Indians, who have arms in their hands, from doing personal violence to the inhabitants. I hope violence will not result. For one, I am willing to lend myself to the duty of trying, if possible, to prevent it. I cannot see that there is any enormity in the proposition contained in the resolution. If it be that a commissioner is to be sent out, as the Senator

Mr. WALKER. I am aware that the opposition to, or the advocacy of, any matter which may be proposed in the Senate by the Senator from Virginia, comes with a great deal more force than anything which I, and perhaps the Committee on Indian Affairs, can say; but that there is any-proposes, be it so; but my candid opinion is that thing so peculiar in this matter I am not able to perceive. The subject has been referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. They have proceeded to a considerable extent in taking testimony. They find in that investigation that, with the witnesses which they have examined here, they can proceed but a short way in the inquiry. They have proceeded far enough, however, to see that this is an important matter, and that it ought to be investigated, and that the Senate ought to be fully informed about it. It is a matter which has been brought before the Senate upon memorialupon formal charges which I hold in my hand.

Mr. SEWARD. Who are they made by? Mr. WALKER. By persons residing in Minnesota. One of them is a Mr. Robinson, and another is a Mr. Sweetser. There are various depositions which the committee think it important to make.

Mr. SEWARD. The Senator will excuse me for asking him to state the substance of the charges.

Mr. WALKER. An appropriation of $590,000 was made for the Sioux Indians. The substance of the charges is, that Governor Ramsay, who was the custodier of the money, got the currency of the United States exchanged for the paper of certain banks of the State of New York, upon which he made a large percentage; that he took the money to Minnesota; that he there employed a third person as agent to make the payment; that in making that payment the agent of the Government imposed upon the Indians the necessity of allowing a large percentage, alleged to be fifteen per cent., upon the money paid, before it could pass into the hands of the Indians; that the money that was set apart to be paid to the half-breed Indians was arbitrarily paid, and only to a certain portion, and withheld from the rest. The committee have proceeded, to a certain extent, to investigate the charges. They have arrived at a point which would show that there is a great deal of importance in it; but they can proceed no further for the reason that some members of the Legislature of Minnesota, which has lately been in session, and persons who reside there as missionaries and as citizens have not been here, and could not be got here in time to give us their evidence; but they can be sworn there, and their testimony taken.

I am aware, as I commenced by saying, that the Senator from Virginia occupies an important position here. He is chairman of the Committee on Finance, which connects itself peculiarly with the Executive Department; and Virginia also has the head of another committee which connects it

it will cost vastly more than what the committee propose will cost. A member of the committee can take the testimony and bring it here, and the Committee on Indian Affairs can make their report upon it. I cannot see, situated as we are, that we should not be presumed to feel a deeper interest in the matter than the Senator from Virginia; and I cannot well appreciate, unless the design of his opposition is personal, why it is thrown with so much strenuousness and violence against the matter. I am one of those who have lived long, for the period of my life, upon the frontiers. I have been much in contact with the Indians. I know a great deal of their character. I know the necessity of keeping something in motion to satisfy them that the Government intends to give a respectful consideration to their rights, and that is all that is proposed here.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I have heard a great deal about these charges against Governor Ramsay, and I think it very proper that I should say a word or two with regard to him.

Mr. WALKER. Will the Senator allow me to say that in what I have said I did not intend to intimate anything against Governor Ramsay. I have only stated that charges have been made, and intimated the importance of having them inquired into, by taking testimony.

Mr. BRODHEAD. I have heard of these charges, and it is proper that I should say that I have had an acquaintance of several years with Governor Ramsay. I have served with him for four years in the House of Representatives. I also served in the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania while he was a clerk of the House. I think therefore that it is due from me to say, that while I served with him he maintained a good character for integrity. I say nothing about his political views, for I differed with him on that subject. I think it is proper that these charges should be investigated. It is due to Governor Ramsay, and I confess I cannot see any more proper mode of making the investigation than that proposed by the Committee on Indian Affairs. I think it would be quite as economical as any mode that can be pursued. I think the investigation is important, and I do not think it would be objected to by those making the charges, or by those against whom they are made I understand that both sides are demanding an investigation, though I do not know what tribunal either party desires. I have had no communication either with the persons making the charges or the accused.

I can add, further, that I did not vote for the treaties under which the payments were made; it is unnecessary for me to state the reasons. But I

« PreviousContinue »