35TH CONG....1ST SESS. Legislative, etc., Appropriation Bill—Mr. Brown. Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. Four dollars and fifty cents a column. SENATE. alter the sense; but if you go beyond that, nobody can see the point at which it is to stop. But it has been complained, in the course of this debate, that this is an extravagant and wasteful expenditure. How? If gentlemen will but take the pains to investigate, they will see this to he true: that the Congressional Globe and Appendix is published at a smaller price than any book that ever was printed. There is not a stereotyped edition of the Bible itself published in the world so cheap per word as the Congressional Globe. I undertake to say that the volumes are bought, ever was printed for, in this or any other country. I dare say Mr. Rives makes money out of it; but how, I cannot understand. I know the fact to be, upon a critical examination, as I stated, that, counting the number of words in the Congres that if the House of Representatives were to pay commute rather than take the trash. That is one all his workmen, and pay for his type, and pay of his grievances, and I think we ought to make for his paper, and for his binding, it would bethat up up to him. By law he says he is entitled to come the honor of the Senate to pay it too. If furnish sets to new members of the House of Repthey take money out of the Treasury to pay those resentatives; and that of one hundred and thirtywho set his type, and to pay his house rent, the one new members, there was not one who apprehonor of the Senate is concerned, that this honor-ciated his learning, or your wisdom, and therefore able body must not be excelled in profligacy by he says the dogs commuted and took money, or their brothers in the House of Representatives, got another set somewhere else. You can make and therefore ours ought to be on the same basis nobody take his paper except by law; it requires -those who report here. That is all the argu- an act of Congress to make any human being take ment. You do not even show that he does not the Globe at all. That is one of his complaints, pay them enough. Who knows what is paid to and it is true. I am not surprised at it. Our peo-counting the words, for less money than any book them? ple are too sharp for that. Even the young members of Congress who come here are too sharp for that, and they take half the money instead of the Mr. TOOMBS. How much does that amount books. I would sell you mine to-day for half the to by the day, or week, or month? Do not come contract price. My constituents are tired of them. at me with columns, or ems, or picas. You had Nearly all the little mail carriers in my country|sional Globe, it is printed at a less price than the better come at me with Greek or Latin, for I curse me for sending these books, which break could brush up on them a little. You had better down their horses, and I lose ten votes where I come at me even with Hebrew, for I believe I make one by circulating them. I should be glad looked at that when I was at college. Anything to sell them for half price, but I have no idea that but ems and picas. Whenever you come at me I shall find a purchaser. I do not want to pay with that, you might as well talk Choctaw to me. anything more than I have agreed. I will do that, Nobody here understands it, and it is not intended but I am not willing to pay Mr. Rives's workmen that we shall understand it. I take it that Mr. in order to enable him to complete the job. If he Rives, who has been bred to this business, and could not print, it would be one of God's mercies, has made a fortune by it, knew what he was about as Cromwell said after the battle of Naseby: it when he agreed to do this reporting and printing would be a crowning mercy if he was to break for $750 a column. He knew what he was about down in this printing; but I have no such hope as when he got us to give him a cent for five pages. that. I will, then, put all the weight I legitimately He did not make any mistake then. I do not can on him; I will make him comply with his conknow what it amounted to by counting his ems tract, and pay his own men; and I will not put and ens; but I find, on looking at the items of ex- my hand in the public Treasury to filch money, penditure reported to us by the proper officer, that to use the ugly word of the Senator from Missisthat gave him an increase of fifty per cent. on hissippi, to pay his men. I am for making him to old terms. I could not work it out in ems, but I can in dimes. He knew how many dimes it would bring. Now, without knowing whether his pay is sufficient or not, whether it is a good contract or a bad contract, whether he pays these people half enough or three times too much, you say it concerns the honor of this assembly of conscript fathers to pay as much as the House of Representatives pays to Mr. Rives's servants and employés-that they are not to exceed you in what you choose to call liberality, but what is really squandering the public money. Perhaps here, in accordance with the history of the world in all ages and all countries, the people will take pay in the lip service of which I have before spoken; but I am inclined to think that public extravagance is a self-limiting disease, though it oftentimes kills the patient. We speak of the corruptions of Mexico, of Spain, of France, and of other Governments, with a great deal of truth, according to all accounts; but from my experience and observations, which have been somewhat extensive, I do not believe to-day there is as corrupt a Government under the heavens as that of these United States. Mr. HALE. Nor I either. Several other SENATORS. I agree to that. Mr. TOOMBS. And most of all its corruption is in the legislative department. Mr. CAMERON. Is not the majority responsible? Mr. TOOMBS. No, sir; the man who gives the vote is responsible; and if the people ever come to understand that, we shall have a reform, but not till then. I am responsible for my vote, and not for another's. Every tub should stand on its own bottom. If the people want to put an end to extravagance, let them punish the men who give the votes-and my whole object is to bring the subject to the attention of the country. It is my deliberate judgment, that this is a wrongful expenditure of the public money; I think it is a wasteful one. It will go out to the people, and they will take hold of it. Perhaps, if I have time, I shall write out this speech, and put it in a newspaper, or have it printed, and sent to my constituents. In that way it will get before them; but I have no idea that it will get anywhere, in the Globe, except the cellars and garrets about here. One of the complaints of this printer is, that nobody will take his books; and that when new members come in, to whom he is authorized to sell a set, our younger brethren of the House of Representatives-Young America-knowing that they are worth nothing, stand up to his bargain. The Senator from Mis- way. Mr. BROWN. I want to say, in the outset, a word in reply to the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] in reference to Mr. Rives's note. The note struck me, in the beginning, as it did the Senator from Virginia, as being a little impertinent; but never having known the author of it to say or do a palpably foolish or absurd thing, I read it again and again, and the more I read it and studied it, the more it impressed itself on my mind as proper. The conclusion to which I came in the end was this: Mr. Rives had entered into an agreement with the Government to publish the debates of Congress. He represents that he had no agreement, no engagement with you to publish what was not said here. He had no engagement to publish, at the public expense, essays and things written outside. He had no engagement with you which obliged him to publish a speech which never was delivered in Congress, nor to allow a gentleman to take back all which he had said, and publish something which he never had said. He had no engagement to make one Senator ridiculous, in replying to a speech which apparently never had been made. He waited some six or seven years for Congress to apply the corrective. Congress did not do it. Speech after speech was published, as all of us know, which never had been delivered, and parts were thrown in which never had been made. Not only did it happen once or twice, or thrice, but very often, that Senators not only published new speeches for themselves, but published such speeches as they would like to reply to for other people. Mr. Rives interposed. His proposition was this: "If you simply want me to print what you send me as printer, I will print the manuscript you send me; but if I am employed to print the debates of Congress, and am authorized to employ men to report them, I will publish the reports, and nothing else, simply allowing verbal corrections. That commended itself to my judgment; it does now; because otherwise the reports make great nonsense. If one man may go and alter his speech another may go and alter his; the right of one is the right of another; and you make a sort of hotchpotch-a jumble of nonsense of the debates. It is better to take them down as they are said here, allowing members to do what Mr. Rives, in his circular, said he would allow-make simple verbal corrections; not to go beyond that point; not to Bible was ever printed for; and that, I believe, is considered the cheapest book in the world; it has become the object of the whole Christian world to print it at the least possible price. How the publisher makes money out of the Globe I cannot understand; but I know that his profits must necessarily be small; and that he can afford to add to the pay of the corps of reporters is not true. As I said in the beginning of this debate, he submitted his estimates, when he first undertook this job, that it would cost him so much to have the reporting done, so much for paper, so much for the composition, so much for press-work, so much for binding; and that the profits would be thus and so. Now, are we to demand from him that he shall take from his meager profits $4,000 per annum to add to the pay of the corps of report ers? It was in that sense that I used the phrase; it would be filching by the Government from the pockets of the man whom you employ, to pay the persons who must necessarily do the work." It has been suggested, in the course of this debate, that we had better employ our own reporters; and, if they were our reporters, then there would be no objection to paying them this extra compensation Sir, you undertook that. Who does not recollect-I was not a member of this body, but I was in the other House-when you had a man named Houston to report for you; and a wretched job he made of it! Who ever consults his book? It is hid away in your cellars. There may be a copy in your Library; but does any Senator think of sending for Houston's Debates of the Senate as a book of reference? Does anybody have the least respect for it? That was a senatorial job. You employed Mr. Houston to make a book. He made it; and when he made it, and you had paid for it, that was the end of it. You adopted this last plan-that of getting some competent man to have the reports made, to have them made accurately, to have them published by him, and then to pay him for the whole in bulk. I think the reports under this new system are better than they have ever been before. So far as I am concerned, I am in favor of continuing them. Mr. Rives has never taken the ground, as has been charged in this debate, that he would allow no corrections. He took the ground which I stated before-that verbal corrections might be made; that sentences might be recast; that grammatical construction might be changed or altered or corrected; but that he would not allow a new speech to be substituted for one which was made in the Senate; and in that I maintain he was exactly right. Your contract was for him to report what was said, and to print the report; not to per mit anybody and everybody who thought proper to write speeches out of doors to bring them, and have them published under the sanction of senatorial and House of Representatives reports, and printed at the public cost. I have had no difficulty-I doubt if there is a Senator on the floor during the whole winter who has ever had any difficulty-on this score. As I said in the outset, I seldom ever look at the reports of what little I do say here; but when I do, I find that, while they may not be precisely accurate in all there is no just reason to complain. I think I respects, they so nearly approach accuracy that have not had occasion but once to change the phraseology in the report of what I have said at this session. Therefore, I think these charges that Mr. Rives has improperly and impertinently interfered are not just. He is doing what you employed him to do, reporting what is said, and printing the reports. You never employed him, I repeat again, to print what was not reported, and if he does that, where is he to stop? Is everything that every Senator and member of Congress thinks proper to write out at his leisure, to be drawn into the reports and published as part of the proceedings of Congress? Are speeches in the House of Representatives, which we all know must be confined to an hour, to be drawn out to three, four, and five hours in length and published in the reports? Must Senators and Representatives be allowed to suppress proceedings entirely, to break off the whole current of debate? Who does not know that that has been done, that a speceh has been abstracted out of the middle of a debate by the Senator or Representative who made it, thus breaking the chain? Somebody is reported as having replied to this speech, but you cannot tell whether the reply is just or unjust. A man gets overturned in debate, and to recover his position, takes out his speech entirely, does not allow it to appear. Some, still bolder, make new speeches, write out something they never said, never thought of saying, and have that published as part of the debate. That was done heretofore. I protest that Mr. Rives was not employed by Congress to publish any such stuff as that. He was employed, I repeat again, to report what was said, and when the report was made to print it. He has, in the proceedings of this session, undertaken, and has, to a very great extent fulfilled his contract to the very letter, and I honor him for it. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire to read two or three extracts from the Globe of 1853 on this question. I observe here, on looking into the Globe of 1853, that Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, in the House of Representatives, moved this amendment to one of the appropriation bills: "I move this additional section: To enable the said John C. Rives to pay the reporters of this House for this session the sum of seven dollars per column instead of four dollars, for the reports of the Congressional Globe, the sum of $3,000, or so much as may be necessary for that purpose, and the Clerk of this House be authorized to pay the same to the said Rives for that purpose." Mr. STEPHENS then, in a very brief speech, stated the object of the amendment. He said: "The committee can perfectly understand what it means from the reading of it. I will state that the object of the amendment is to increase the compensation of the reporters of the Congressional Globe in this House, three or four hundred dollars, it may be five hundred dollars, for the session. We pay them under the arrangement with Mr. Rives for reporting in the Globe at the rate of four dollars per column. The object of the amendment is to make it seven dollars per column, and simply to increase their compensation for this session." Mr. CLINGMAN, of North Carolina, stated that he intended to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. McMullin, of Virginia, however, following very much the line of argument which the honorable Senator from Georgia to-day has pursued, used this language: "Mr. Chairman, I dislike very much to make opposition to this amendment, but really it does seem to me that if this committee design to deal even-handed justice to all portions of this Government, and unless they mean to interfere with private contracts, they ought not to pass this amendment. I understand that these gentlemen have been employed by Mr. Rives by contract, and here is an amendment proposing to pay them more than Mr. Rives has contracted to pay them. If I am misinformed as to the facts of the case, desire to be corrected. If it is the policy of Congress to pay these gentlemen more than they have heretofore received, why do so. But when these gentlemen have come forward voluntarily and made a contract with Mr. Rives” Then interferes Mr. TooMBS, of Georgia: "This amendment [says Mr. TooмBS] gives Mr. Rives an additional amount to enable him to pay his reporters a larger sum. It does not interfere with his contract at all." Mr. McMullin says again: "I desire information. Is it contemplated that this provision shall have a retrospective effect ?” "Mr. TOOMBS. It provides for this session only." Now, I have but a single word to say. The speech of the honorable Senator from Georgia to-day was a very earnest speech, an amusing speech, and but for the fact that it is not altogether original, it might be regarded as a very able speech; but Mr. McMullin, it seems, gave the original of this speech when the honorable Senator, then in the House of Representatives, took precisely the other ground: that the object was SENATE. law, he was allowed so much to pay his reporters, whereas he was allowed $7 50 for reporting and printing. So far as I am concerned, I believed then he was entitled to more, and since I have been in the Senate, I think, on the representation of my honorable friends from Arkansas and Mis not to break up the contract with Mr. Rives in Mr. TOOMBS. It seems that I am called upon to answer the reporters; for, doubtless, they have been speaking through the Senator from Wisconsin. I suppose that is the reporters' speech, and the Senator has not a word to say. My answer is, that since that time from fifty to seventy-five per cent. has been given to Mr. Rives to carry on this work. The Senator, however, is entirely mistaken as to the date; for I was not in the House of Representatives in 1853. It seems he cannot even read a report correctly when the reporters give it to him." Mr. DOOLITTLE. Will you be kind enough to read the book yourself? Mr. TOOMBS. I know that it is not true, for I sat in this body in March, 1853. I am sorry to see, backing this man in every claim he makes on the Treasury,) I have voted for increasing his compensation. I am not certain that I did not vote for the cent on five pages, and one Senator here to-day, my honorable friend from Connecticut, told me that, at the time, he did not suppose it would amount to $100, but it has turned out it amounts to thousands. It is upon these cents for pages, and ems, and picas, and unknown quantities, that the Senate and the House have been defrauded. The difference between the honorable Senator and myself is, that when I get light and truth, I no longer aid in plundering the public Treasury, and he continues it when the facts are before the public. Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. The Senator from Georgia has a very strong way of speaking. He knows very well that the personal relations between myself and him are certainly of the most Mr. DOOLITTLE. I read from the proceed-friendly character. The Senator now talks of ings of the House of Representatives of the 28th of February, 1853. Mr. TOOMBS. Oh, I was there then. I came into this body in March, 1853. Since that time, however, double compensation has been given to Mr. Rives. The object then was-and it was an open object-to increase the compensation; and I supported it. You have gone further since that time, by making his paper free, for the reason I stated before, that nobody would read it unless by act of Congress; and you have given him one cent for every five pages, which is fifty per cent. on his printing. Now, I suppose the reporters sit here to prompt just such Senators as he is on these subjects, and good work they do; for the reporters have agents here. They have had them in both Houses. They keep them here. They know the men to get hold of. They know the men who suit them; and they never miss their man. There is never any mistake with them never. Mr. SIMMONS. They made a very good hit in 1853; did they not? [Laughter.] Mr. TOOMBS. Then the proposition openly was to pay Mr. Rives on the ground that $7 50 a column was inadequate; and for some time, on the various representations which were made, I believed it; but since then we have added from fifty to seventy-five per cent. to his contract price. What have the reporters to say to that argument? I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will go behind the bar and get their answer. We have added to Mr. Rives's compensation since that time sixty or seventy-five per cent. to pay the reporters. We have given him one cent for five pages; we have made his paper free through the book for each Senator, instead of twelve, the nummails; we have taken ninety-three copies of his ber we formerly took. We have increased him sixty or seventy-five thousand dollars on a contract of $137,000 since that, and now you want to stop? Because you "enabled" him when his com"enable" him again. Where are you going to pensation was not one half what it is now, is that a reason for doing it to-day? Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understood the Senator from Arkansas to state that the compensation of the reporters of the Senate was $4 50 a columnthe same price that has existed ever since the contract was made. Mr. TOOMBS. I am going to state another fact. The statement there was no doubt made by a reporter. I have no doubt now that Mr. STEPHENS's statement was inaccurate. No doubt it was just such an imposition as probably has been practiced on the Senator now, because the $7 50 was for reporting and printing. There was no division of it in the law, and it is not there now. It was supposed, doubtless, by my honorable colleague in the other House, that Rives and his men had reported truly that the law only allowed so much to pay them, but there was not a word of truth in it, and that is a sufficient reason for the vote, because the law shows that there is not any such thing in it. My colleague stated that, by the ems and picas. There is nothing in the law in regard to them, nor has anybody intruded them here but himself. The Senator perhaps aimed at a matter which has passed from this body, and I should be exceedingly sorry to hear it debated over again. Mr. TOOMBS. I alluded to the various accounts that have appeared from time to time in the Globe showing that he lost money. I read them. Whenever the printer of Congress comes to us as he has repeatedly, and made expositions of printing, I believe every year since he has been printer, he goes on and shows how much he has lost, how much he gets by ems, how much ems are worth, and so on. What I allude to is the representations by which many persons were misled, and are now. Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I thought the Senator was referring to the bill that passed here recently in regard to the prices of public printing. I concluded his reference was in that direction. I was sorry to suppose so, and I therefore asked this correction. In reference to the price of printing in the Globe, there is nothing of that character whatever. The resolution simply says: "Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and instructed to audit and from time to time to settle the accounts of John C. Rives, for the reports of the Senate proceedings and debates, published in the Daily Globe, at $7 50 a column." There is a great deal to be said about this subject. There is a great deal that can be said. I must say, however, that it appears to me I have never known the Senator from Georgia, for whose extraordinarily strong and excellent intellect I have so high respect, to involve himself in so much unreasonable denunciation, and so much denunciation that is without just foundation whatever, in so short a space of time, in the course of my service in this body, as he has to-day. Mr. DOOLITTLE. The honorable Senator from Georgia has been pleased to make some allusion to myself personally-that the reporter seemed to know his man. The reporter and the Globe seem to know the honorable Senator from Georgia; and I have no doubt that the correctness of the Globe in reference to the reports which were made, will stand, notwithstanding the impeachment which the honorable Senator seeks to make in the judgment of the country. In relation to all this denunciation against profligacy, which we hear from that honorable Senator upon this floor, I wish to say to him, once for all, that I do not take his dictation to me on the score of profligacy, or profligate appropriations. Sir, the history of that Senator is known upon various public meas-. ures; and it may be well for him not to push that matter too far. Mr. TOOMBS. Any extent whatever, sir. I defy all scrutiny. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Has the honorable Senator ever heard of Galphinism? M. TOOMBS. I have. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, I do not desire to enter into a personal controversy here 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. Legislative, etc., Appropriation Bill—Mr. Mallory. with this Senator. It is not my purpose to do it. But I give him to understand that I do not receive these lectures as addressed to myself personally. I arose simply to read the extracts from the Congressional Globe, which I supposed were correct, and to call the attention of the Senator and of the Senate to the fact that on this very question the Senator, on a former occasion, if this is the correct language he used, took a different ground from what he does now. If the honorable Senator has become satisfied since that the ground then taken was not correct, and chooses now to take a different ground, I have no fault to find with him. I simply say that, so far as I am concerned, I desire to do nothing more than to do justice to these reporters here; and I understand that, from the first commencement of this system of reporting, this has been the usual compensation which has been given, both in the other House and in the Senate; and being the usual compensation, I say that if it is to be paid to the House reporters, I insist it should be paid to the Senate reporters. I had not intended to take up the time of the Senate at any length. My purpose was simply to read the extracts. tary of War came to the House of Representa- George Galphin was an Indian trader in the State of South Carolina. He bought from the Indians, with seven other traders, a large tract of land. The amount of his debt, £9,000, was audited by Governor Wright, at the commencement of the Revolution. The British Government were to sell the lands and to pay the traders' debts. There never was dispute anywhere about his debt. It went from Congress to the Legislature of Georgia, and from there here, the dispute being who should pay. Georgia said the United States ought to pay; the United States said Georgia. Georgia Mr. TOOMBS. The Senator from Wisconsin said she never used the fund; that the land had asks me if I have heard of Galphinism. I desire been used in the particular defense and in the genan explanation from him on that subject. If he eral defense of the United States. This man, becharges me, in connection with any branch of pub-ing a friend of the Revolution, called upon his own lic service, now or at any time, with any improper action on any public transaction whatever, I wish to know it. Mr. DOOLITTLE. In relation to the subject of Gulphinism, and the claim from which that name was derived, I understand that the honorable Senator-I may be misinformed as to the fact -in the House of Representatives advocated that claim, about which so much was said at the time. I do not impugn the motives of the Senator in doing it; but if I am misinformed as to the fact, I am willing to be corrected. Government. The other seven traders were Loy- Mr. TOOMBS. This is rather an extraordinary way of dealing with questions, for a Senator to make an allusion without intending an imputation. I do not understand it that way. So far as the claim of George Galphin for revolutionary services was concerned, I say that it received a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives. There are many members upon this floor who sat as members in that House with meaims did, was referred by the then Secretary of the time, and voted that it was just, that it was right; and the denouncers of it were miserable slanderers and cowards. The gentleman connected with it was every way one of the most honorable men in the Republic; and I undertake to say that he who assails the justice of it or the motives of my friend, then Secretary of War, cannot maintain as a gentleman what he will say as a Senator. That is all I intend to say on that point. I have said before, that claim received, so far as I know, the unanimous support of the Senate again and again; when it passed, it received the unanimous support of the other House, and the signature of the President of the United States; it was a just claim, founded upon revolutionary service. That it was assailed in the newspapers is true; but it seems that Senator now does not choose to intimate or know on what point the clamor was made. The clamor was made upon the allowance, of interest by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, at the instance of another distinguished friend of mine, then a member of General Taylor's administration-the Hon. Reverdy Johnson. The complaint was as to the departmental decision allowing interest. The integrity and validity of the claim have never been assailed, in my judgment, by anybody; but, if there is any, I should like to hear from the Senator from Wisconsin what fact he knows against it. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will say that I had supposed the honorable Senator himself was instrumental in pressing the claim; not only the original claim, but that he urged that the interest should be allowed upon it, about which so much was said. If I am mistaken in the facts, I am willing to be corrected. I have not made any imputation as to motives. Mr. TOOMBS. You are not at all mistaken in the fact. When that interest was allowed, I defended it in the House of Representatives, and I defend it here. I know that the then Secre the Treasury, Mr. Meredith, of Pennsylvania, Mr. HAMMOND. I merely wish to say, as to it. Mr. MALLORY I move that the Senate ad journ. SENATE. Mr. HUNTER. Let us sit out this, and finish the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FOSTER in the chair.) The motion to adjourn is not debat able. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. MALLORY. I moved an adjournment, because we had come to a very singular discussion. On the question of reconsidering this bill for the purpose of compensating our reporters, we have got into a discussion of the merits of the Galphin claim. The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in the power of a Senator to make a point of order; but the Chair did not feel at liberty to arrest the discussion, though it was rather wide of the question. Mr. MALLORY. Much has been said, Mr. President, about the circular of Mr. Rives, and the language in which it is couched. That is a question of taste. I regard the rules it lays down as well calculated to effect the object proposeda faithful report of the debates of this body. The last clause announces a truism, which might as well have been left unsaid, namely, that there is no use in having rules unless you abide by them. Mr. Rives has mistaken the fact that he prescribes the rule, and not the Senate for itself. But I see nothing there to take offense at; and even if there were, what has that to do with the question before us-whether we shall pay our reporters what they earn, what their services are worth? Sir, I have been exceedingly surprised, frequently, at the accuracy of our reporters. I have taken some pains to ascertain the facts; and I believe they are the best reporters this day in the world. There are, to my certain knowledge, some three hundred and fifty systems of short-hand writing; and the system which is pursued here is, I am convinced, that which is best calculated to give accuracy to the reports; and by that system it requires no ordinary man to make a reporter. It requires a strength of intellect, a range of accomplishment, an experience and acquaintance with the business affairs of life, which not one reporter in ten thousand possesses. Here the three main reporters we have, have not only practiced this system by themselves, but practiced it with each other, so that each can read the others' marks. Not only have they done that, but they have acquired a familiarity with the style of different gentlemen here; with their intonations of voice; with their emphasis; with their manner; with their peculi arities of mind; and with the range of their mind, which enables them to report us with exceeding accuracy. This is a body mainly of lawyers; and we are frequently engaged in legal investigations. We had long treatises delivered to the Senate on national and commercial law, recently, upon the fisheries. During the Kansas debate, we sat up one entire night discussing the law of slavery and points of order, congressional law and parliamentary law. A few days ago, during the discussion of the cod-fishery question, I deemed it proper to make some few remarks, which amounted to three columns in the Globe. I saw none of the I did notes of the reporters; I asked for none. not see the report until two days afterwards; and I was surprised at the accuracy of everything in it. Now, the question is, can we retain the best reporters when we have them at the compensation we are now giving them? Do they get enough to compensate them for their labors? Compare it with the compensation we give to others. We give our messengers $1,200; we give our clerks of committees, some of them, $1,850; we give our pages a large amount for their services; and these reporters, upon whom the reputations of many gentlemen more or less depend, are receiving less. The reporting for the present Congress, I understand, will amount to about twelve thousand dol lars, or $6,000 a year, out of which the reporters and their assistants, copyists and amanuenses, must all be paid. The report in to-day's Globe of yesterday's proceedings is, I think, unprecedented. You see there more than twenty-five columns reported. I the American Senate such a report as that. The do not recollect ever to have met in the history of morning until four o'clock, some nineteen consec reporters were employed from nine o'clock in the utive hours, in business connected with reporting and in preparing that report; and it was so done as to render it unnecessary for gentlemen to revise their remarks. Well, sir, when we have such reporters, it relieves members of the Senate of a great deal of labor; Senators are not anxious about looking at the reports; they can confide in them; but get an inaccurate set of men, a new set of reporters unfamiliar with this body, and you will find that almost every sentence you utter will be reported wrongly. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not now. The engrossment must first be reconsidered. Mr. HUNTER. I move to reconsider the engrossment. The vote ordering the amendments to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time, was reconsidered. Mr. HUNTER. I now move to strike out the provision which the House have made, giving $800 to each of their reporters. The amendment is from line one hundred and thirty-one to one hundred and thirty-seven inclusive, to strike out the following words: The Senator from California regretted that we had not adopted some more simple system, as he says, that of making a compendium; and the Senator from Georgia, too, regrets the publication of "For the usual additional compensation to the reporters so much matter. Well, sir, I think if there be for the Congressional Globe, for reporting the proceedings of anything about the debates of Congress at all that the House of Representatives for the next regular session of is worth preserving, it is necessary to preserve the Thirty-Fifth Congress, $800 to each reporter, $4,000," nearly every word that is said. I do not say that It is not my purpose to make any speech about it is necessary to print so many volumes and dis-it. The whole matter has been discussed. I tribute them; but a record of a man's thoughts, hope the question will be taken. Let us determine and the motives of his actions, are precious to him, whether we shall strike it out. That will make the and they should be retained. If we look upon it two Houses equal. in that light, we cannot dispense with good reporters. I think if gentlemen will inquire into the compensation paid to the reporters in the cities of New York and Philadelphia, paid to itinerant reporters who are sent to public assemblies and gatherings all over the world, who are the cheap est class of reporters, ours are inadequately paid. Mr. TOOMBS. I ask the Senator whose duty it is to pay them under the contract? Mr. MALLORY. I would ask the Senator the same question. If the Globe speaks correctly, whose duty was it to pay them before, when the increase was offered in former years? Mr. TOOMBS. Do you show that the present compensation is inadequate? Mr. MALLORY. I know the fact. Mr. TOOMBS. Do you show that Rives does not get sufficient compensation for public printing to give his reporters fair wages? Mr. MALLORY. Of public printing I know nothing; on that subject I am as ignorant as the gentleman himself; but I know what the reporters receive, and I know that in comparison with the compensation we pay others they are not compensated at all, and I know they can leave this body to-morrow, and get double what they now receive. I know that they have had offers to do so, and they will do it, unless they are compensated for their labor. I do not care for that; all I wish is to see that those who bear this important relation to us shall receive a fair equivalent for their labor. As to Mr. Rives's statements, I believe them. I would believe Mr. Rives as soon as any man in Washington. If the life he has passed in Washington, as well known as he is, for some twentyfive years, more or less, connected with Congress, has not given him a reputation which will support him here in the simple statements he gives us in relation to this printing, then public reputation is not worth the strife of an honorable man. I would as soon take Mr. Rives's statements, unsworn to, made as a gentleman and a man of honor, as I would those of any other man of my acquaintance. Knowing the fact that we have repeatedly made attempts to have our debates reported accurately; that other gentlemen who have taken a contract to do it have had to resign it because they could not be compensated, I regard the pay we give to him as enabling him to allow no more to the reporters than he now gives, $4 50 a column, and reserve proper compensation to himself. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senate ready for the question on the motion to recon sider? Mr. HUNTER. I hope the question will be taken. Mr. PUGH called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resultedyeas 28, nays 16; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bell, Benjamin, Bigler, Broderick, Brown, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Green, Hamlin, Harlan, Houston, Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, King, Mallory, Polk, Simmons, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-28. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Bright, Clay, Clingman, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Hammond, Hunter, Johnson of Arkansas, Mason, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Toombs, and Yulee -16. Mr. HUNTER. Is the bill now open to amendment? Mr. PUGH. I call for the yeas and nays on the motion. Mr. BROWN. I want to say a word before that vote is taken. Mr. HAMLIN. Let me make a suggestion take the question on striking out these words, it to the Senator himself, and it is this: before we is parliamentary to perfect them, and let us see whether we cannot insert our friends here. Mr. BROWN. That is just what I am going to do. When we had up the deficiency bill, the Senator from Virginia took precisely this course. An amendment, a copy of which I have in my hand now, to the original deficiency bill was ruled out, and I had a sort of quasi promise from the Senator from Virginia, that if the House insisted upon paying their reporters, then that ours were to be put upon the same footing. It was not done. Now, before this motion passes to strike out, I insist upon what I insisted on doing then: that we vote our amendment in, and, then, if you choose to strike it all out let it be done; but I want to file a caveat with the committee of conference, if it comes to that, that we mean to protect our own reporters. Therefore, I want to get the amendment in protecting our reporters so as to notify the committee of conference, however it may be composed, that we mean to put our reporters on the same footing with the House reporters. I insist, again, that it is degrading to our reporters, for the Senate to agree, as we do when we pass laws by the joint action of the two Houses, that they shall receive $800 each less than the House reporters. Mr. HUNTER. The Senator is mistaken in supposing that he had any promise from me in relation to the matter. Mr. BROWN. I so understood it. I put it on that ground, and I understood there was acquiescence in it; that if the amendment was not adopted, the committee of conference on the part of the Senate would take care of our reporters. The broad principle I have stated again and again, that it is degrading to our reporters that we allow the House to pay their reporters $800 more than we pay our own, by a bill for which we vote. I want to put an amendment in, placing our reporters upon the same footing with the House reporters. If they insist that we can get the bill upon no terms except that their reporters are paid, then let ours be paid the same compensation. Therefore, I hope this motion to strike out, just at this time, will be withdrawn, until I can offer this amendment, or have it voted down, and then we can take the motion to strike out all together. I believe I have a right to perfect it. Then I offer this amendment. After line one hundred and thirty-seven to insert: To enable John C. Rives to pay to the reporters of the Senate the usual extra compensation for the third session of the Thirty-Fourth Congress, $800 each, $3,200. To enable John C. Rives to pay to the reporters of the Senate the usual extra compensation for the first session of the Thirty-Fifth Congress, $800 each, $3,200. To enable John C. Rives to pay to the reporters of the Senate the usual extra compensation for the second session of the Thirty-Fifth Congress, $800 each, $3,200. Mr. HUNTER. I will ask if this comes from any committee? There is a rule in regard to that matter, I see. This is for deficiencies, not only to go forward, but to go back. I ask if it comes from a committee? SENATE. Mr. BROWN. I do not move it on the recommendation of any committee, but I do it because it is germane to the subject. It is a part of the same proposition. I leave it to the Senate to determine whether I shall move the proposition or not. Mr. IVERSON. Is that amendment in order now? The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FOSTER.) There is no amendment that would be in order now. This is proposed as an amendment to an amendment, which must be acted upon. Mr. IVERSON. I will read the rule, if the Chair pleases. I think the amendment is clearly out of order. Rule 30 is: "No amendment proposing additional appropriations shall be received to any general appropriation bill, unless it be made to carry out the provisions of some existing law, or some act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session, or moved by direction of a standing or select committee of the Senate, or in pursuance of an estimate from the head of some of the Departments." That is the rule on the subject. I think an individual member cannot move the amendment. Mr. BROWN. With all deference to the Senator, I make this suggestion: that this is simply an amendment to increase an appropriation already proposed in the bill: it is not a new and original proposition. I do not bring in a new proposition. I simply propose to increase the amount of the appropriation to pay the corps of reporters; and, if it be said that we must vote in the absence of a proposition which comes from a committee or a Department, without the power to lessen it or to increase it, then we had better give up the whole business of legislation to the committees and to the Departments. I do not propose anything new; but you already have a proposition in the bill to pay a portion of the corps of reporters, and I simply propose to add something to the amount-that is all-to amend an already existing proposition in the bill. I grant you that I have no power to bring in an entirely new subject without the consent of a committee, or without a recommendation from a Department; but this does not stand on that basis. Mr. FESSENDEN. It is manifest that there favor of this proposition; and I really think the is a very considerable majority of the Senate in Senator from Virginia had better withdraw his objections on a mere point of order. Mr. HUNTER. I have no right to withdraw a point of order. It is for the Chair to decide. Mr. FESSENDEN. I think in a little time a committee can be found who would recommend it; and I move that the Senate adjourn. me Mr. BROWN. I hope the Senator will allow Mr. FESSENDEN. If it is excluded on the point of order, you cannot put it in. Mr. BROWNŇ. Then I will vote for an adjournment. Mr. TOOMBS. I hope not; let us get through with the bill. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I appeal to the honorable Senator from Virginia to withdraw the objection, on the ground of a question of order, and to allow the sense of the Senate to be taken. Mr. HUNTER. What right have I to withdraw a question of order? The matter of order has been forced by the rules. It does not depend on me whether the rules of the Senate shall be enforced or not. Mr. KING. I desire to ask the Senator from Virginia a question. Does he suppose that it is not competent for a member to move to increase or diminish an appropriation in a bill? Mr. HUNTER. He cannot move to increase it unless the increase be recommended by a committee, or an estimate from the head of a Depart ment. Mr. BROWN. If the point of order is insisted upon, I move to refer the proposition which I have just introduced to the Committee on the District of Columbia. I think we can settle it by to-morrow morning. Mr. HUNTER. If the Senate choose they can overrule the point. The Chair has not decided yet, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has not decided the point, but was about to suggest that he would take the opinion of the Senate on the question of order. Mr. BIGLER. Let that be a test. 35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS. Legislative, etc., Appropriation Bill-Mr. Pugh. Mr. DAVIS. I think the point of order is not applicable to the amendment moved by my colleague. There is a law which is found in your appropriation act, for reporting the debates of the Senate, and, under that law, he merely moves to increase the compensation, if you please to change the form of the compensation. It is a mere question of dollars and cents. He is introducing, as he says, no new subject, but under cover of law is merely proposing to change the amount of compensation. Mr. TOOMBS. I take issue with the Senator from Mississippi. There is no law paying these reporters, and there never was a law for it. Mr. DAVIS. The law is for reporting the debates of the Senate. Mr. TOOMBS. Yes, sir. Mr. DAVIS. And the mode of compensation is to pay the printer a gross sum. Now you may change the mode of compensation certainly under that law for reporting your debates. You may pay your reporters a certain sum, and the print ers a certain sum. Mr. TOOMBS I submit that the Senator is in error. A contract to do a certain job of public work with one man cannot be changed in this way by paying money to another. That is the case here. We have got a contract with one man that he shall pay all the expenses of printing and reporting. The Senator says that under that law we can pay anybody else. think there is a clear majority of the Senate in favor of it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the question to the Senate. The Senator from Virginia proposed to amend the bill by striking out certain words, which he specified. Before taking the question on that motion, the Senator from Mississippi moved to add certain words to the clause proposed to be stricken out, in order to perfect it before taking the question on striking it out. The Senator from Virginia, and other Senators, have made a point of order, whether the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi is in order. The Chair is about to submit that question to the Senate to be decided. Mr. TOOMBS. I ask for the yeas and nays on that question of order. I want to see this settled regularly as a precedent. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is whether the amendment to the amendment shall be received-whether it is obnoxious to the point of order which has been raised? Mr. WADE. .I am satisfied that we shall not get the question this evening. ["Yes, we shall."] It is out of fashion to finish anything here. We get very near it, and go no further. I do not expect that we shall finish anything until the last night of the session; and I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was not agreed to; there being, on a division-ayes 15, noes 26. Mr. BROWN. I hope the Chair will state the The form I take to be this: will the Senate receive the amendment? In that form, everybody understands how to vote. Mr. DAVIS. If the contract were made so that it could not be changed prospectively, if it were a contract which bound the Senate to the expend-proposition, so that Senators will comprehend it. itures of the present and second session of this Congress, then I think the Senator would be right; but if the contract be one which we make with the printer for a certain work, and we now propose for this session and for the next session of this Congress to pay an additional sum, it is a variation of the contract, which we have a right to make. Mr. TOOMBS. We have law to pay Mr. Rives for this work, and now it is proposed, in violation of that law, to pay other persons for it. That is exactly the point of order, free from all ambiguity. We have hired one man and agreed to pay him. There is another more specific law than the one which the Senator from Arkansas read, but that is sufficient for me. By that law we do not pay for reporting specially, but for reporting and printing, $7 50 a column. That has been increased by adding to the number of copies of the book you take, and by giving a cent for five pages. Now, it is proposed, in violation of that law, and without the least authority of law, to pay persons who are not our employés, or in other words to pay persons unknown to that law for the discharge of this work. Mr. HUNTER. So far as I am concerned, I will not interpose the question of order against the sense of the Senate. My opinion is unchanged; but I will not press it. Mr. TOOMBS. I renew the point of order. Mr. STUART. I wish to have the amendment read, as I understand it is to pay the same per son. The Secretary read: "To enable John C. Rives to pay" Mr. STUART. That is enough. Mr. TOOMBS. That, I think, is within the express rule of the Senate to increase salaries. My friend from Virginia is familiar with the rule; you cannot raise salaries without the report of a committee. Mr. HUNTER. You cannot offer an amendment increasing an appropriation, except on the recommendation of a committee or the estimate of a Department. Mr. TOOMBS. That is the rule as to the increase of the salaries of officers recognized by law. The rule is clear and plain. Gentlemen, no doubt, will get over it in some way; but I simply want to have it settled, so that we may know what the rule is. Mr. BROWN. I hope the Senate will allow this amendment of mine to be referred to a committee, and that then we shall adjourn and we can settle it in the morning, Several SENATORS. Pass it now. Mr. TOOMBS. I hope not. The question of order, which is made, is that it is contrary to the rules of the Senate to receive the amendment. Mr. BROWN. How will you take the question? Mr. TOOMBS. The Chair has determined to submit that question of order, and the question to be submitted is: is it according to the rules of the Senate to receive the amendment? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the question as he supposes it to stand. SENATE. in order or out of order; not whether they will receive it. Everybody can see the folly of putting the question in that way; because, if the Senate vote for an amendment, that vote receives it, and thus the point of order could never arise. The question of order is to defeat the majority of the Senate, who wish to violate their own rules. The object of the rules is to prevent a majority from doing what they want to do out of order. I simply ask-the Senator from Virginia having raised the question of order, but he having withdrawn it, and my friend from Ohio and myself having renewed it-that there shall be no indirection in this matter; that the question of order shall be stood up to and voted upon. I have no doubt the Senate will vote me down; but I want it done directly. I think it is right to have it done directly; and I think that gentlemen in their eagerness to do this thing should not care about how it may stand in their way in the future. I have an amendment here myself. ["Question! question!" Never mind calling the question yet. You will not have it before I am ready. I have an amendment which I may wish to offer. It has not got the sanction of a committee; but it is very important to the public. It is to carry out some experiment made in reference to the coins of the United States, and is recommended by the Treasury Department; but has not been before a committee, owing, perhaps, to my own neglect. If it is in order without coming from a committee, I desire to move that amendment to one section of the bill. I simply ask the majority to do this thing decently, and in order. Mr. STUART. I suppose it will be unques tionably admitted that the Chair will put the ques tion to the Senate in such form as he thinks is right, governed by his own judgment; and I only rise for the purpose of saying that since I have had the honor of a seat in this body, a question of this kind has always been put in this form: Will the Senate receive the amendment? The question has been put a great many times in my pres ence, and always in this form; and I think the honorable Senator from Virginia will say so. It is a question of order, it is true; but that is the form in which it was always put. Mr. PUGH. The objection which was made by the Senator from Virginia, and renewed by the Senator from Georgia and myself, is that this proposition is in violation of the standing rules of the Senate. In my judgment, it is in open, un Mr. DAVIS. I understand the point of the objection is to increasing the sum to be paid for reporting for the Senate. The objection is that my colleague had no right, not speaking for a committee and not having the estimate of a Depart-equivocal violation of those rules, and that ques ment, to propose an amendment which was in aid of the execution of the law for reporting and printing the debates of the Senate. It does not matter whether his purpose is to direct the payment of a certain portion of this money to the reporters of the Senate. I do not think it would vary his right to present the amendment if it were to provide for paying a certain sum to the reporter and another certain sum to the printer. It would still come under the general provision of reporting the debates of the Senate. Mr. TOOMBS. I wish this question understood, and not got round. Of course I know where it is going to. This is a clear equivoque. Can the Senate receive any amendment out of order? Otherwise, why make such a question as this? The Senate voting for it is receiving it. You get rid of your rules entirely by the mode proposed by the Senator from Mississippi. An amendment is moved which the Senator from Virginia says is contrary to the rules and orders of the Senate. It is the rule that the Chair shall first decide such a question, and that then an appeal may be taken from his decision. Now, it is suggested, however, that the Chair put the question whether the Senate will receive the amendment. Has the Senate a right to receive it out of order? Mr. BROWN. I understood the Chair to propose himself to submit the question. I only suggested the form in which it should be done. Mr. TOOMBS. I want to put the form so as to get at the substance. I know what Senators want. It is to get in this amendment without being bound by the precedent. I wish the Senate to decide whether this amendment is in order, so that there may be one rule which shall govern the body in all its transactions. This is nothing but hon esty and fair dealing. I wish the question submitted to the Senate whether this amendment bel tion is made to the Presiding Officer of this body. If he decides that it is in order, I shall appeal from his decision; and then I ask of the Senate the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? How is it proposed to circumvent my right as a Senator to ap peal from the decision of the Presiding Officer? Why, sir, it is proposed to put the question to the Senate, not whether the amendment is in order, but whether the Senate will receive it in order or out of order? What are your rules worth? You must give one day's notice before you can amend a rule of this body. If any Senator rises to-day and moves to amend a rule, I have a right, individually, to insist that it shall go over twentyfour hours; and why does the majority undertake to trample on my right to insist that there shall be twenty-four hours' delay before the rules of this body are altered? Therefore I say whatever may have been the usage heretofore I do not know and I do not care-the question which the Senate is to decide and put on its record, and to which 1 shall refer hereafter, is whether or not this amend ment is in order under its rules? I say it is out of order, and this is an attempt to violate the right of every Senator on this floor to insist that the rules shall not be changed under less than twenty-four hours' notice. of Now, sir, is it pretended that because the House Representatives have sent to us a bill appropriating money to a certain class of individuals, therefore we can appropriate to another class of individuals? Is it pretended that because, by law, or by usage, or by resolution, we have given one man $1,000 a year, therefore any Senator can move to increase it to $3,000 a year? Is it pretended that because, by law, the salary of the President of the United States is $25,000 a year, I, as a Sena tor, can move, on this bill, to give him $100,000 |