« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. TRUMBULL. I apprehend that the general class of this business that is spoken of would never go to the Attorney General's office, and therefore the objection does not obtain which the Senator from Maine makes.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Who is to do it?
Undoubtedly; and a great deal of that there was no controversy about in the world. Very few of its points were controverted points. Some construction was to be put upon the statute and the mode of executing it, and the Commissioner at that time had to inaugurate the system.
But I have said all I desire to say about this matter, and detained the Senate longer than I had any intention of doing in reference to it. I regard it as a matter of general importance in the administration of the Government affairs to preserve uniformity of decision, and harmony in the Government, and between the different Departments of the Government. I have thought it better that we should not create these law officers of the different Departments. I believe the Senate understand it. I shall be satisfied with whatever decision they make. My motion is to strike out this section, with a view, if it is stricken out, of increasing the force in the Attorney General's office sufficiently to discharge what I suppose would be the proper duty to be discharged by the Law Office.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Let it be done just as it was always done before 1860. This was a great Government before that.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I know it was; but then we did not have these claims.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Department did not have this Solicitor then. We had a war in 1812; we had a Mexican war; and we have been able to conduct the Government without having an Attorney General in each of the Departments of the Government, for that is what this proposition amounts to. The objection to it is the diversity it leads to in the construction of law; the same opinions do not obtain in the different Departments of the Government. I think it would be much better for the public service that there should be one officer to put the construction upon a statute which is to gov. ern all the Departments of the Government. It is a matter of public interest, as I conceive, and best for the public service. I have suggested it to the Senate. The Senate will do with it what it thinks proper. I think the practice of establishing these Solicitors in the different Departments is a very bad one. If the Senate think differently, they will retain this section. That is all there is of it. I have discharged my duty with respect to it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Let me ask the Senator another question. In the Internal Revenue Bureau there are a large number of questions arising every day. They have an officer there -he is not called a Solicitor-to whom those questions are referred and to whom a salary is paid I do not know how much-under the general authority giving additional compensation, where it is absolutely necessary, to certain officers, more than the amount allowed by law; I believe he gets $2,500. Does the Senator suppose that all the questions of law arising there, which come up every day, can be settled at the Attorney General's office?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Of course not.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Then you must have a Solicitor of that bureau-it is absolutely necessary; or you must have a man, no matter what you call him-you may call him a clerk, if you please—but an able lawyer, a man who can take up the questions and examine and settle them; unless you mean to declare that, in addition to all the immense business he has to do, the head of that bureau must settle all these questions and examine them for himself. This has got to be a very great concern of late years, and you cannot take questions that arise in the bureaus of the Departments appropriate to them, and send them out of the Departments to be settled.
Mr. SUMNER. I will only make one remark. It seems to me the Senator from Illinois strangely forgets the change in the condition of things. He asks why we should not go on now as we have for the previous sixty years. There is a very sufficient answer: the machinery of the previous sixty years is not adequate to the work which we have to do now. In some places you are obliged to change the machinery; in other places you are obliged to add to We are told that new occasions teach new duties, and I believe that the great occasion of our war has taught new duties to the Government of this Republic. There is no part of the Government which can be conducted now and in times to come as it was conducted before. A larger machine will be required. New persons must be summoned to the work, and among those who are to be summoned to the work is the officer which the Senator from Illinois seems so much disposed to oppose.
Mr. JOHNSON. The object of this amendment, as I understand, is to provide a Solicitor for the State Department. The opinion I am about to express I have entertained ever since I have had any knowledge of the actual operation of the Government. It is certainly advantageous to the several Departments of the Government, as far as the ordinary business of each Department is concerned, that they should have some one who would undertake what might be considered rather the clerical duty, or the duty that should belong to the head of the Department; but since these Solicitors have been provided for, as is the case in the Treasury Department and in the War Department and, I believe, in the Navy Department, the practical result, I think, has been that the Attorney General has very seldom been consulted on any question.
Another result of the failure to consult the Attorney General has been that different constructions have been placed upon the same laws, very much, as I think, to the injury of the public service. I had supposed that when an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury was provided for, and an Assistant Secretary of War
we have two or three of them-and an Assistant Secretary of State-and I believe my friend from Massachusetts proposes to increase the number, to which certainly I have no objection-that with the aid of these Assistant Secretaries the business of the offices would be properly conducted, and that there could be no occasion at all for any extra aid upon ques
of law other than that which is to be had by a reference to the Attorney General's office. The honorable member from Illinois is right in saying that the act of 1789-and there is no subsequent law, that I am aware of-which creates the office of Attorney General, makes it his duty to answer all questions propounded by the President or by the heads of Depart ments. No bureau officer, no one less than the head of a Department, has a right to con
sult the Attorney General. It is very obvious that the wholesome operation of the Government depends very much upon the uniformity of the construction which can be given to the laws.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I suppose the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is appointed for the very purpose of executing the internal revenue law. Most of it is matter of detail. It is not upon every section of the law that there will be a controversy. He establishes rules and regulations to carry the law into effect. Occasionally some questions of doubt in the construction of a statute may arise, on which it would be very proper for him, probably, to take the opinion of the head of the Department, the Secretary of the Treasury, and through him of the Attorney General. I believe the bureaus do not apply directly to the Attorney General's office. I am not quite sure what the practice of that is; but I suppose the application for the opinion comes from the head of the Depart-tions ment. But most of these questions are settled by the heads of the bureaus. It is not to be presumed that there is to be a controversy about every section of a statute or the execution of it. Mr. FESSENDEN. Does the Senator know that within the first two years of the establishment of that bureau there were legal questions of construction settled which were published in a volume of about four or five hundred pages?
Now, in relation to the Department of State, the honorable member from Massachusetts, who from his situation as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations has become very familiar with the actual condition of the Department, says there are pressing now upon the Depart ment claims made by citizens of foreign countries and claims which our citizens suppose they have upon foreign Governments; but it seems to me that claims of that description, of all others, are the claims which should be submitted to the Attorney General-I mean, not the details of the claims, but the principle upon which those claims are to be placed. It would never do, and I do not know that the Secretary of State, or that the President would consent if the Secretary of State was disposed to do it, to make a claim upon a foreign Government without taking the advice of the law officer of the Government; but it may be that acting upon the authority of the Solicitor, and throwing himself upon that authority, the Secretary might present claims against a foreign Government or might resist claims upon our Government made by the subjects of a foreign Government which ought to be submitted to the judgment of the higher officer of the Government. I do not mean to say anything of the actual condition of things as they exist; but it is to be presumed, and I suppose it is true now, that the Attorney General of the United States must be more competent to advise on all questions of this description than any subordinate legal officer who may be employed by the Government at a salary of $3,000 or $3,500. So far, therefore, as my opinion is concerned, I am adverse to the creation of the office of Solicitor in any of these Departments.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will ask the Senator to compare the two propositions. The honorable Senator from Illinois admits, in argument, that the Attorney General cannot do this business, he cannot give these opinions, but it must be done by subordinates, and he says the subordinate officers to be employed should be employed in the office of the Attorney General. Where is the difference? If you have got to have the officers and got to pay them, why send them all to the Attorney General, when the questions to be settled are right in the different Departments? You do not care to have the Attorney General's opinion except upon a statement of principle.
Mr. JOHNSON. The honorable member will permit me to say that I suppose if these Solicitors were placed in the office of the Attorney General, they would be subject to his control.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Exactly; and therefore the different Departments would lose the control of their own business. If they have got fifty claims in the Department of State, which the Secretary cannot look at, which cases are to be made up and stated, which can be done by any good lawyer, if he can get a good lawyer, instead of having that work done in his own office, in his own time, and under his own eye, he must send it to the Attorney General for some subordinate in his office to do the same thing, who is to be paid the same amount. As I said before, the effect is to run the Departments into each other and create infinite confusion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the motion of the Senator from Illinois to strike out the second section of the bill. Mr. SUMNER. I ask for the yeas and nays upon that motion.
The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeaş 18, nays 14: as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Cowan, Davis, Grimes, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Kirk wood, Morrill, Nesmith, Riddle, Sprague, Stewart, Trumbull, Wilson, and Yates-18.
NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cragin, Dixon, Fessenden, Foster, Guthrie, Harris, Lane of Indiana, Mor
achieve what I look upon as a good purpose in the end.
gan, Norton, Pomeroy, Sumner, Willey, and Williams-14.
ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Conness, Creswell, Doolittle, Edmunds, Henderson, Lane of Kansas McDougall, Nye, Poland, Ramsey, Saulsbury, Sherman, Van Winkle, Wade, and Wright-17.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SUMNER. Now I send an amendment as a new section to the Chair, to come in precisely where the one just struck out was:
And be it further enacted, That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a second Assistant Secretary of State, in the Department of State, at an annual salary of $3,500, to commence on the 1st day of July, 1866; and the amount necessary to pay the same is hereby appropriated.
A Senator near me says he will not go for this amendment unless I put in the name. It is perfectly well known that it is intended to give an opportunity to appoint Mr. Hunter, and the authorities, I presume, will take notice. There is no need of inserting his name; and the remark of the Senator is simply a criticism for an excuse. I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment without a division.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays upon it.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CLARK. It is perfectly apparent to everybody that this attempt to appoint an Assistant Secretary is to get an increase of salary; not for the wants of the service, but to give Mr. Hunter an increase of salary. I am not in favor of any such proposition. If the wants of the service absolutely required a second Assistant Secretary of State I would be willing to vote for it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Is the advice and consent of the Senate required to this appointment? Mr. CLARK. The advice and consent of the Senate is required; but this office is not now proposed to be created because the Government needs it, but simply to give an increase of salary to Mr. Hunter. It is only another evidence of how men will squirm around to get more pay.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator says this is simply to give an increase of salary. It is to make a place for a valuable public servant. There is the simple fact. When I proposed to give an increase of salary outright to him as chief clerk, Senators said that that was contrary to precedent, it would be a bad precedent for the future. 66 Make a new office, Assistant Secretary of State, and see that he is appointed to that." Now, I have done what I could in order to bring that about, and Senators then come forward and say, "But you are creating a new office as an apology for giving a man additional salary." Sir, I accept the statement. It is in order to give an additional salary to a well-deserving public servant, and it is because in no other way can we give him adequate compensation.
Mr. COWAN. It is perfectly right. Mr. SUMNER. I know it is perfectly right, and it ought to be done.
Mr. TRUMBULL. We have the avowal, then, and it is indorsed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, that it is perfectly right in this time of taxation and great debt to create an office, a place, for no other purpose in the world than to pay a salary.
Mr. SUMNER. Very well; to reward a faithful public servant.
Mr. DAVIS. I understand that a bran new principle is to be introduced into our Government; and that is, that a new place shall be created for every deserving officer. opposed to that principle.
Mr. COWAN. I think the Senator from Massachusetts has stated the question just about as well as it could be stated. Honorable Senators will not vote a valuable officer that which they admit themselves to be a sufficient compensation for him. Why? As I understand, because he is called a clerk. The honorable Senator from Massachusetts proposes to change his name; that is the whole of it; and I think he is perfectly right in availing himself of that privilege now, in order to
Mr. TRUMBULL. We acted on that once. Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator's pardon; we voted on a different proposition which had something of the same idea. The proposition which is now submitted is substantially the proposition of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN.] The Senate will see its application if I call their attention for one minute to the consular and diplomatic act of 1856, which undertakes to fix the salaries of envoys extraordinary as follows: here is what is called schedule A; there are three clauses to schedule A: Great Britain and France, each $17,500;" the second clause is " Russia, Spain, Austria, Prussia, Brazil, Mexico, and China, each $12,000;" and then comes clause third, "all other countries, each $10,000."
In point of fact I understand that under this third clause we have now envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary in Peru and Chili. The object of the section which I have cffered is to declare that in all other cases except those on which Congress has already acted, and which I have now named, where an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary shall be appointed, his salary shall no longer be what it may be under this act, $10,000, but it shall be $7,500; in short, it shall be reduced to the salary of a minister resident. The proposition accomplishes, to a certain extent, the purpose aimed at in the proposition which I moved yesterday from the committee; but it has a different form, and I am indebted substantially to the Senator from Ohio for that form. I ask for the yeas and
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SHERMAN. My friend from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] asks me a question which I will answer to the Senate itself. He asks what is the meaning and what is the effect of it. I will state that schedule A. of the diplomatic and consular law, provides for three classes of envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary: first, to France and Great Britain, where the salary is $17,500; second, to several countries named where the salary is $12,000; and then it provides in the third clause that envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to all other countries shall have a salary of $10,000. We have some of each of the three classes. The Senator from Massachusetts wishes to give an additional title to ministers resident without any additional pay. To accomplish that, this amendment adds another grade of envoys extraordinary, so that a person who now holds the office of minister resident may be nominated to the Senate and confirmed as envoy extraordinary, and if he is sent to any country not specifically named, and at which we have not now an envoy extraordinary, he is to get but $7,500. I cannot see what objection there can be to this.
Mr. SUMNER. It is in point of fact a reduction of salary.
Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly. The effect is to make another class, class number four, of
envoys extraordinary. The objection made yesterday by the Senator from Iowa was rather personal in its character, that it raised the salary of gentlemen to whom he had objection. Under this section it is a new office, and they must be sent here for confirmation; it is a fourth class of envoys extraordinary, and it fixes their salary at $7,500, the salary of a minister resident. I do not see any objection that can be made against it now. The objec tion made to the proposition yesterday and the reason I voted against it was because the inev itable effect of the proposition yesterday I thought would be to lead to an increase of salary to the officers appointed under it, be cause as the law fixed their salary at $10,000, and as they had performed the duties of an office the salary of which was fixed at $10,000, they would naturally claim it, and there was no exclusion of that claim in the amendment offered yesterday.
Mr. JOHNSON. I ask the chairman of the committee, or my friend from Ohio, whether this amendment would interfere with the salaries of the ministers who are now abroad. Mr. SUMNER. Not at all.
Mr. GRIMES. But I understand that under this proposition those persons who are now ministers resident can be sent in to-morrow, if the bill passes to-day, as ministers plenipotentiary, and then they will get the increased salary under the other schedule.
Mr. SHERMAN. Oh, no.
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator from Iowa is mistaken, first, as to sending them in. If they are sent in, then the Senator from Iowa will have an opportunity of opposing their confir mation. Take the two gentlemen to whom reference has been made so often in this dis cussion-the ministers resident at Brussels and at Lisbon. Suppose they are nominated tomorrow, each as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. It will then be for the Senator from Iowa to make his opposition. The time has not yet come. Why oppose a general principle, which I insist is beneficent in its application and for the good of the Republic, because under that two gentlemen, or one gentleman, to whom he is opposed may be sent in? Let the gentlemen be sent in, and theu let the Senator from lowa institute his
opposition, but not oppose a principle which in itself is so essentially beneficent,
Mr. TRUMBULL. What is the principle? Mr. SUMNER. The principle is that you reduce the salaries of envoys extraordinary from $10,000 to $7,500; you create a new class.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Allow me to ask a ques tion right there. I understood the Senator from Massachusetts to say, in reply to a ques tion from the Senator from Maryland, that it did not reduce anybody's salary.
Mr. SUMNER. I was right when I said
Mr. TRUMBULL. It does not reduce it, and yet now you say it does reduce it.
Mr. SUMNER. If the Senator from Illinois would only trouble himself to understand the question he would not speak as he does. As I understood the Senator from Maryland, he asked me whether this would reduce the salary of any actual minister, to which I replied no; and I can show that to the Senator if he will only attend.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I am listening. Mr. SUMNER. For instance, the first class of envoys extraordinary is to Great Britain and France; the salary is $17,500 to each coun try. That is not touched. The second class of envoys extraordinary is to "Russia, Spain, Austria, Prussia, Brazil, Mexico, and China, each $12,000." That is not touched. Then comes the third clause, "all other countries, $10,000." Under that third clause the Gov ernment has already appointed envoys extraor dinary and ministers plenipotentiary to Peru and Chili. These two cases are saved out by the language of the proposition, and now the consequence is, that in future appointments
Now, if I can have the attention of the Senator from Iowa for one moment, I wish to put to him a practical question. If he had inportant business, say with the mayor of New York, which he wished to present in the best way possible, I have no doubt my friend would count naturally upon his own character, and justly; he would believe that any agent of his presenting himself to the mayor of New York would be well received; he doubtless would be well received; but if, for instance, there were two persons whose services he might employ, one with the rank of general and the other with the rank of colonel, each equal, perhaps, in abilities and in fitness, I have no doubt that my friend, who will not listen to me, however, while I am addressing him
of envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to countries not already provided for by the legislation of Congress, the salary will be $7.500 instead of $10,000; so that in point of fact we create a fourth class of envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary. Mr. CONNESS. Will the Senator answer me a question?
Mr. SUMNER. Certainly. I am always happy to hear the Senator from California.
Mr. CONNESS. If it be deemed necessary or wise by the executive department to raise a minister resident to the rank of minister plenipotentiary, must his name be sent in to the Senate for confirmation under this proposition?
Mr. SUMNER. It must be, and the Senator from California can have the opportunity of voting against any of these gentlemen.
Mr. GRIMES. I desire to correct the Senator from Massachusetts in one respect. I did not allude yesterday to the minister resident of this Governinent at Belgium; I did allude to the one at Lisbon, and I am prepared if necessary to allude to him a little more extensively to-day than I did yesterday. But my objection to this proposition is that it proceeds upon altogether a different idea than the true American idea on this subject; and that is, that our consequence abroad is to be regulated by the rank which we see fit to confer upon our ministers. The only illustration the Senator has given us as to the necessity of the passage of this provision was given yesterday, when he said that a Senator had an introduction at the White House in preference to a member of the House. But does the member of the House have any the less influence when he reaches the ear of the President, than the member of the Senate who preceded him a few minutes in his introduction?
Mr. CONNESS. That depends on circumstances entirely.
Mr. GRIMES. In this case it will depend entirely on the character of the man who is sent and the character of the country that stands behind him, and not on the rank or the pay that we bestow upon him.
Mr. SHERMAN. If the American minister resident is invited to dinner and an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from some little German State should be invited also, that envoy extraordinary would take precedence. On account of that misfortune, I am perfectly willing to give the higher title.
Mr. CLARK. Would he not have the same dinner?
Mr. SHERMAN. He might have the same dinner, but he would have to tag at the end of the line.
Mr. GRIMES. It seems that the upshot of all this is that we are to make a new schedule and a new grade, in order to enable a certain set of men to sit higher at table when they are invited to dinner than they otherwise would. That is the sum and substance of the whole thing. It proceeds upon anything else than the idea that should stimulate citizens in a republican Government.
Mr. SUMNER. I do not like to discuss things forever that have been discussed so often; I have said so much on this matter that I feel ashamed to add another word; and yet, as the Senator from Iowa returns to the assault, perhaps I may return to the defense.
I tried to show last evening that in introducing this proposition I was simply acting on the practice of this Government in other respects, and upon the practice of mankind universally, everywhere; and my friend from Ohio [Mr. WADE] reminds me that the argument of the Senator from Iowa, a few days ago, was one of the strongest illustrations of what I said. He induced the Senate to agree to appoint a new Assistant Secretary of the Navy merely to allow the actual Assistant Secretary to go abroad because his presence could give a little more éclat to a certain service. That is his argument, and under his argument, yielding to its pressure, we appointed a new functionary in the Department of the Navy.
Mr. GRIMES. I am all attention. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senators, according to the rules, must address the Chair. Mr. SUMNER. I have no doubt my friend would select for his service the general rather than the colonel. He knows enough of human nature to know that the general, on his arrival, would have a prompter reception than the colonel. It is useless to say in reply that behind the agent is the same personage. I assume all that, but I wish to secure to that same personage the best reception possible, and the highest facilities for his representative when he arrives at his destination. I wish now to secure the same thing for my country, and I believe I do not like to bring my own personal testimony into a matter like this-but I believe, according to such opportunities of observation as I have had, now running over a considerable period of my life, that the interests of the country would be promoted by this change. I believe that business would be facilitated and opportunities of influence afforded.
I make no allusion to such topics as have been playfully introduced into this discussion; it is a matter of comparative indifference what place a man may have at a dinner table; but do wish to secure facilities in business and respect for the representatives of my country to the largest degree possible.
The question being taken by yeas and, resulted-yeas 18, nays 16; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Cowan, Cragin, Dixon, Foster, Guthrie, Harris, Henderson, Johnson, Morgan, Norton, Pomeroy, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-18.
NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Chandler, Clark, Davis, Edmunds, Fessenden, Grimes, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lene of Indiana, Ramsey, Riddle, Trumbull, and Willey-16.
ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Conness, Creswell, Doolittle, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Nye, Poland, Saulsbury, Stewart, Van Winkle, and Wright-15.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BUCKALEW. I move an amendment on page 2, line twenty-nine of section one, to strike out the word "eighty" and insert "fifty."
Mr. JOHNSON. Does that reduce the amount of the secret service fund? Let it be read.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was to strike out "eighty" and insert "fifty;' so that the clause will read:
For contingent expenses of foreign intercourse, $50,000.
Mr. BUCKALEW. This covers the secret service fund.
I wish the Senator would be good enough to give some reason for the change. If he has any facts to present I should like to hear them.
$10,000 more than it was before the war. My attention has been called to this appopriation and also to the appropriation immediately before it, "for contingent expenses of all the missions abroad, $60,000. The appropriation for contingent expenses of all the missions abroad" for the fiscal year 1860-61 was $20,000. It is three times as much now. I do not know that the increase is not right; but it seems to me the explanation should come from those who treble the expenses for incidental expenses as they existed before the war. It is doubled with ref rence to the appropriation which the Senator from Pennsylvania has moved to reduce, and it is trebled in reference to the other one. Unless there is some explanation showing why it is necessary to have three times as large a contingent foreign mission fund now as there was in 1861, and twice as large a fund for contingent expenses of foreign intercourse, I shall be inclined to vote for the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, this is a time of peace, and an extraordinary appropriation which was proper during the war I suppose is no longer necessary. That is my only reason for moving the amendment.
Mr. TRUMBULL. In looking at the appropriation for the fiscal year 1860-61, which was the last year before the war, I notice that the appropriation for contingent expenses of foreign intercourse was $40,000. In this bill it is $80,000. The Senator from Pennsylvania, as I understand him, moves to strike out $80,000 and insert $50,000, making the appropriation
Mr. SUMNER. The Senator from Illinois has very frankly told us that he has no facts on the question; that he knows nothing, in short, about it, and that he really knows no reason for the reduction proposed. How does the case stand? Here is a bill which has come, in the first place, from the House of Representatives, where it was considered after having been reported by the proper committee there. When reported there it was founded upon estimates which I presume that committee had carefully considered. I know something of its habits of business, and I presume those estimates were carefully gone over. The bill then came to the Senate, and was referred to the Committee on Finance. To what extent they considered these items, which had already been considered by the committee of the other House, I have no means of knowing. I have not the honor of being a member of that committec. I presume, however, they were, to a certain extent, considered, or at least there is a habit on the part of our committee to recognize, to a certain extent, the labors of the kindred committee in the other House. And now the question is whether we here, having no knowledge on the subject, shall presume to open this appropriation which has already passed the House on the recommendation of the committee of that body having it properly in charge. I am free to say I have no special information on the subject; my attention has not been called to it. I did not imagine that there would be any proposal to change one of these estimates. I have made no inquiry at the Department of State on the subject, nor have I received any communication.
Mr. JOHNSON, Is this larger than the sum appropriated during the last three or four years?
Mr. FESSENDEN. The same as it was last year.
Mr. SUMNER. I supposed it was about the same.
Mr. FESSENDEN. One argument of the Senator from Massachusetts I was particularly struck with; that is that this matter had been considered by the committee of the other House. Well, the committee of the House considered very carefully the second section on a request made by the Department. The Department had given its reasons for that section, stated the necessity for it, and the committee of the House had considered it very carefully and put in the second section; but the Senate has struck it out on the idea that by and by we can change the Department of the Attorney General. I take it for granted that the honorable chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary will feel bound now to bring in a bill in which that matter will be all arranged, because that was what he predicated his motion upon. We are therefore in the habit sometimes of not being governed by the House when it advises a thing, even if it is indorsed by a committee of this body.
Now, sir, with reference to these two items, it is a fact unquestionably, as stated by my honorable friend from Illinois, that before the
Mr. GRIMES. I suppose it was made up from the bill of last year.
war the appropriation for one of these contingencies was $20,000, and for the other, $40,000. When the war came on it was represented, undoubtedly with truth, (I had something to do with raising these items,) that necessarily in time of war the communications abroad would be very great and very frequent, and that there would be a great many occasions when money must be spent; and I took the responsibility of advising that these estimates be raised for that reason. Now, I have taken a little pains to inquire what this means. The first provision is for the ordinary expenses of our missions-postages and little items of expense.
Mr. SUMNER. Sending the dispatch-bag. Mr. FESSENDEN. That is a considerable expense, but much less than it used to be, because the Department used to send special agents with those bags, but now they go by mail. That item of expense, as Mr. Hunter informed me this morning, is reduced instead of being enlarged. I took pains to inquire why this large appropriation should be kept up and I could not get any advice on that subject at the Department of State. The Secretary is not there. Mr. Hunter, who communicated very freely, said the money had been spent very carefully and cautiously under both these items of appropriation. The first item of $60,000 is confined to the ordinary expenses of our missions abroad; I suppose arrangements about books sent out, and things of that sort-I do not know what exactly. I cannot for the life of me understand why, if our missions abroad have not been increased largely, now that we have got back to a time of peace what used to cost $20,000 should now cost $60,000. I feel bound to say that I cannot understand why it should be.
With regard to the $80,000 item, the principal portion of it is for secret service. During the war they were obliged to have a great many agents in reference to blockade-running. That is all at an end. They were obliged to employ a good many spies; they were obliged to send messengers in different directions; and that made the expense large. I take it also that, as seems to be customary now the way the affairs of the world are conducted, something was spent to pay men for writing articles on our side in foreign newspapers. Then special agents were sent out; Bishop Hughes went once, Thurlow Weed went once, and divers other gentlemen.
Mr. JOHNSON. Counsel were sent outMr. Evarts, for example.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes, counsel were sent out to attend to some matters. That was during the war when questions arose which rendered these expenses necessary. I confess that I cannot understand, now that we have got back to a time of peace, why those expenses should be continued which were then repre sented to be necessary on account of the war, and which undoubtedly were. True, something may be required with reference to our troubles on the border, though those are principally revenue matters; with regard to our fishery difficulties there may be some special agents required, and also with regard to Mexican affairs. But when the main matter which increased the expenses so largely has been disposed of, I cannot see for myself why it is necessary to continue such large appropriations for these items. At the same time I confess that I have been unable to get any specific information on the subject why it should be so, because the Secretary himself is absent from the city.
As to the estimates acted upon by the House of Representatives, I suppose they were submitted to the Committee on Appropriations there just as they were to our committee here. I was not present when the committee acted on this bill; but I take it for granted they looked at these items and then at the estimates. They saw that the estimates came in, $60,000 and $80,000. They did not know why, and they passed the $60,000 and the $80,000. This is all the information we had.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes, the amount appropriated last year was taken instead of going back to the year before the war.
Mr. COWAN. I suppose there is no mode by which anybody can ascertain the disposition made of this fund. I suppose it is not intended that there should be.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I suppose there is no committee, except perhaps the committee of the other House on the expenditure of the State Department, that could look into it. I was told by Mr. Hunter-and I have no doubt it is true that the money we have appropriated heretofore for these purposes has been expended economically and carefully under the direction of the President. I have no doubt that whatever we appropriate now will be so expended. Mr. TRUMBULL. I suppose we could ascertain how it is expended except the secret service money; the other contingencies are reported.
Mr. COWAN. The secret service money is what I referred to.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That is never inquired into. That is only a part of this appropriation. Mr. FESSENDEN. It would undoubtedly. be laid open to a committee of Congress, if a committee should inquire into it, but I do not think there is any necessity for that. The money is undoubtedly properly spent. Whatever complaints may be made in regard to the Secretary of State in other particulars, or in any particular by anybody, no one, certainly, pretends that he is a dishonest man in regard
Mr. TRUMBULL. It is incumbent on the Senator from Massachusetts to show why it is increased, not for us to show why it should be diminished. Let him show the necessity for the increase; it is an affirmative proposition; and that is not shown; but then I only wish to say in regard to it, that if we reduce this item to $30,000 it will bring attention to it; the bill has to go back to the House of Representa tives, and if any information comes in showing it to be necessary
Mr. JOHNSON. Does the honorable member understand that the whole of these appropriations have to be expended?
Mr. FESSENDEN. I can now give my friend a little information on the subject. My clerk has taken the pains to go back to 1851 to find out the appropriations annually. In 1851 the appropriation for the contingent expenses of all the missions abroad was $40,000. So it went along. In 1854 there were two appropri ations, both amounting to $82,000; in 1856, $96,000; in 1857, $75,000; in 1858, $75,000; in 1859, $50,000; in 1860, $50,000; and in 1861, $20,000; and then it went up to $40,000, $50,000, and $60,000. If we put it now at $60,000, it is not so high as it was in 1857 and 1858; but I presume there was included. prob. ably, in some of these appropriations the loss by exchange. For contingent expenses of for eign intercourse the appropriation was $60,000, from the year 1856 down to 1860 inclusive. In 1861 it was reduced to $40,000, and in 1862 it was $40,000. In 1863 it was put up to $100,000; that was on my motion; and since then it has been $80,000.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I have no information on the subject. There has been no call for a deficiency at any rate. The fact stands before us, that in the year 1860-61, before the war, $20,000 and $40,000 were the appropriations that were deemed necessary for these expenses. We have got through with the extraordinary expenses of the war, and now, in time of peace, the estimates that come in for this service are just the war estimates. It is for the Senate to judge whether they will continue them or not.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I think upon the same principle we had better reduce the $60,000 item, which is just three times what it was in 1860-61; it was $20,000. I will move now to reduce it one half, to $30,000. I move to strike out "sixty" and insert "thirty" in line twenty-seven of section one.
Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps that does not stand on the same footing with the other. The other was the secret service fund, was it not?
Mr. TRUMBULL. This is "for the contingent expenses of all the missions abroad, $60,000." In 1860-61 the appropriation was "for contingent expenses of all the missions abroad, $20,000.'
Mr. JOHNSON. I was about to say that I suppose none of the missions abroad have been diminished. There are just as many now as there were before, and that appropriation was necessary to meet them abroad.
Mr. CONNESS. Only during the war.
mission of dispatches. Now, no reason is given for increasing this item to $60,000. The chairman of the committce gives no reason for increasing it from $20,000 to $60,000. I think it would be safe to put it at $30,000. I admit it is doing it very much at random, and I would not vote to reduce it at all if anybody could give a reason why it should be $60,000; but it seems to me if $20,000 answered before the war, $30,000 will do now.
Mr. JOHNSON. The chairman of the com. mittee of course knows nothing but what he collects from the estimates. I suppose that when the State Department estimated $60,000 as necessary to meet expenses of this description, it was only because they knew that it would be required, and I think it would be perhaps hazardous to strike it down one half now without any information that the estimate made by the Secretary is an extravagant one.
Mr. SUMNER. It seems to me it is a leap in the dark. I do not think we should take it.
This shows that the year 1860-61 was an ex ceptional year, for what reason I do not know.
I think, therefore, that it would not be safe under the circumstances to go below $40,000 in this particular clause, and perhaps we ought not to go below $60,000 in the clause which my friend from Pennsylvania moved to reduce to $50,000.
Several SENATORS, (to Mr. TRUMBULL.) Say $40,000.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I will modify my amendment, and move to strike out "sixty" and insert "forty;" so as to make this appropriation $40,000.
Mr. SUMNER. Again I say the Senator leaps in the dark. He does not know why he reduces it to $40,000. The Senator from Maine has already given us estimates for preceding years showing that sometimes it has gone even above the estimates for this year. The estimate before us is one that has been supplied to the committee in the other House from the Department. They had a reason for it. We do not know what the reason is. I am not informed of it. My attention has not been directed to this subject. Had it been, I should have looked
Mr.JOHNSON. They have not been diminished that I know of; and that estimate was an estimate to meet the contingent expenses of the missions which were abroad; and it would not be advisable, perhaps, to reduce it now.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Twenty thousand dollars answered before the war. The expenses were put up in consequence of the war and in consequence of the difficulty of communicating, as I presume. It seems a large portion of this money has gone for arrangements in regard to the trans-being, on a division-ayes 9, noes 18.
The amendment was agreed to. Mr. FESSENDEN. I would suggest to the Senator from Pennsylvania whether he had not better raise the other item, which he moved to strike down, to $60,000 instead of $50,000. Mr. BUCKALEW. I move, then, to reconsider the vote adopting my amendment. The motion to reconsider was rejected; there
appropriation "for increase and expense of the
The amendment was agreed to.
A joint resolution (H. R. No. 140) to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to furnish to each State one set of the standard weights and measures of the metric system; and
A joint resolution (H. R. No. 141) to authorize the President to appoint a special commissioner to facilitate the adoption of a uniform coinage between the United States and foreign
The message also announced that the House of Representatives had disagreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 563) to regulate the time and fix the place for hold ing the circuit court of the United States in the district of Virginia, and for other purposes, asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. WILLIAM LAWRENCE of Ohio, Mr. FRANCIS THOMAS of Maryland, and Mr. JOHN L. DAWSON of Pennsylvania, managers at the same on its part.
all. If there is nobody to nominate they cannot be appointed.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Will not the practice of appointing be continued unless we stop it? Why not make it certain that it cannot be done?
The next amendment was in line twentyfour to increase the appropriation "for repairs of officers' quarters" from $1,500 to $10,000.
Mr. FESSENDEN. When some have been appointed from the free States during the war it would be very invidious to refuse a few ap
The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was to insert these pointments on the nomination of loyal Repreitems after line thirty:
For reflooring academic buildings and barracks,
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was to strike out the following provisos at the end of the bill:
Provided, That no part of the sums appropriated by the provisions of this act shall be expended in violation of the provisions of an act entitled "An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes," approved July 2, 1862: And provided further, That no part of the moneys appropriated by this or any other act shall be applied to the pay or subsistence of any cadet from any State declared to be in rebellion against the Government of the United States, appointed after the 1st day of January, 1866, until such State shall have been returned to its original relations to the Union under and by virtue of an act or joint resolution of Congress for that case made and provided.
Mr. WILSON. I hope we shall have an explanation of that amendment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The first proviso is entirely unnecessary:
That no part of the sums appropriated by the provisions of this act shall be expended in violation of the provisions of an act entitled "An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes," approved July 2, 1862.
That is the law now, and we propose to strike the proviso out, because it is a mere repetition of the existing law. The next proviso, "that no part of the moneys appropriated by this or any other act shall be applied to the pay or subsistence of any cadet from any State declared to be in rebellion against the Government of the United States," &c., if it should stand, would prevent the President from appointing any cadet from those States even though nominated by loyal Representatives. It can apply to only a very few individuals, and it was thought to be invidious and unwise to insert such a provision. Most of the vacancies from the rebel States have been filled up by the nominations of cadets from the free States. I suppose there are some from Iowa appointed for Virginia, and some from Massachusetts appointed for Mississippi. There are but a few of them left; how many I do not know, but the number is very small. It looked to the committee to be rather small business to say, while there are more or less loyal people down there, that the President should not have the power, on the nomination of a Representative who may be loyal, to fill up these places. It is throwing very small stones at the object we propose to hit. We thought it best to reach that object directly.
Mr. WILSON. I have certainly no objection to striking out the last proviso, but the proposition to strike out the first struck me as rather strange.
Mr. FESSENDEN. We have struck it out in all the bills, and the Senate have agreed to it, because it is only repeating what the law now is.
Mr. WILSON. With the Senator's explanation I am entirely satisfied.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.
Mr. HOWE. In reference to the amendment just made touching the appointment of cadets from the southern districts the proviso was struck out, I understand. I wish to inquire if there is any authority under the law for appointing cadets from those districts until there are Representatives here to nominate them.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know that there is. If not, they will not be appointed at
Mr. RAMSEY. I should like to inquire of the chairman of the committee having this bill in charge whether there is any provision prohibiting the appointment of a cadet at West Point who has served in the rebel army. There is a case of that kind in the Naval Academy where a young man was appointed who had served in that army. I think that at this time probably it would be well to put in a provision against such an appointment.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not think it is to be presumed that that will be done. If it was done in one case by misunderstanding probably it will not be done again. I do not think it worth while to take it for granted such a thing will occur. I do not think there is any danger of it.
Mr. RAMSEY. What is to prevent it? Mr. FESSENDEN. I think we have some law on the subject preventing payment to any such persons. It is a matter that I care nothing about. The Finance Committee came to the conclusion that it was not worth while to interfere with the matter, but that it was better to let it stand as it now is.
Tho amendments made as in Committee of the Whole were concurred in.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.
Mr. WILSON. Is it too late to move an amendment?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is not amendable after it has been ordered to its third reading.
Mr. WILSON. I move a reconsideration of the last vote for the purpose of allowing me to offer an amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. What is it proposed to offer?
Mr. WILSON. I wish to add a provision that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or permit the appointment as a cadet of any person who has served in any capacity in the military or naval service of the so-called confederate States during the late rebellion; but any such appointment shall be held to be illegal and void.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is no objection to that.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts moves to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I now move to amend the bill by adding as a new section the following:
And be it further enacted, That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or permit the appointment as a cadet of any person who has served in any capacity in the military or naval service of the so-called confederate States in the late rebellion, but any such appointment shall be held illegal and void.
Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator from Massachusetts will not accomplish his purpose by that. His amendment is that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize this. There is nothing in this act about it. He wants to put in a provision that nobody who has served in the rebel service shall be appointed a cadet, but this amendment would simply limit appointments under this act.
Mr. WILSON. I will put it in this shape: And be it further enacted, That no person who has served in any capacity in the military or naval service of the so-called confederate States during the late rebellion shall hereafter receive an appointment as a cadet at the Military Academy.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am inclined to think that there were a good many young men of some fifteen or sixteen years of age who were em.