The Clerk read, as follows: NAVY Dirrnriiirirr, February 1, 1866. Sin: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letterof the Edithultimo, calling myattention to the 2ndsectionat a Jtresolution to provide for the expensesattending the exhibition oitheprod netsof industry of the U.S. at the Exposition in Paris in 1867, and respecttullysubmit the following replies to your sever. inquiries: 1. There are no vesscls belongingto the Navywhich are not dismantled now unemployed or likely to be unemployed during the year}, adapted to the contcmliluted service. 2. iival vesselsare not adapted to the carrying of bulky freights. Every; portion of a war vosse is speciallyarrangedfor that service and not for freight, and these arrangementscannot be in erfered with without material changes and much iscomiort to officers and men. The expense of converting a war vesselinto a lreighting shipwould bevery great and thento restoreher to her original conditioniis a naval vessel after such servico was performed would involvo asIngmar a greateramount. It would doubt less be more nomicalforthe Government to charter a vesselrequiring no alterations. 3. There is not a surplus of unemployed ohicers and men in the service, the number of each having been promptly reduced to the lowestpeacestander when hostilities ceased. The Dept cannot, therefore. perform the proposed irregular duty for which it has madeno estimatesand has no appropriation, without inconvenienceand cmbarrassment. 4. Ihere is no "general naval appropriation." All the appropriations for this Dept are s ccific, and can only beusedfor the purposes specific in the act which authorizesthem. The only appropriation of a general characteris that for “contingent of the Navy, " which amountsto $250,000.As the expenses of courts martial. travel of officers, and the vast multitude of mine r matters are paid from this appropriation. for which careful estimatesare made, it will be apparent that no portion of that appropriation can O diverted for any such purposesas those prIotpeoosendgrinestshe resolution. at thereis no other. decides to cm ark in this Exhibition, I would suggest a special appropriation train the Treasury. honld the matter a evolved upon this Dept. I should doubt if the service could be properly executedfor amuch lesssum than $300,000. 1 c proposed expenditureis, however, in no sense a nava expenditure, has no connectionwith the na val service is not undernaval supervisionor control and the amount which the Paris Exhibition maycost tag Government oiight not to be drawn from any of the naval appro nations. The resolution is in conflictwlth law an us e, which requiresthat all naval appropriations shall e for specifiedpurposes. N ei ther the Dept nor anyofits bureau shnsiuade estimates for any such expenditure, nor should their estimateshethus interfered with. It hasnot beenusualin our past legislation for congress to direct that one Dept of the Government should be subordinate or subservient to nnother Dept, or to place the resourcesof oneDept at the disposalof another. A true and correct exhibit of the expensesof theNavy Deptwill not go forth to the country if the naval appropriations are by ution transferred to the State Dept to be usedfor other than naval purposes. I have the honor to be your obedientservant, GIDEUN WELLES, SecyNavy. HoMn.aJin., W. Gamas, Glimnm Gnnmtmeon Naval U.S. Senate.