Mr. HULBURD. The national public debt on the lst day of March, 1866, was officially declared to be $2, 827, 868, 0 0; the portion of it funded was $1, 181, 861, 291; the portion of it not funded, bearing interest, was $1, 181, 434, 980; the portion not funded and not hearing interest was $464, 672, 683. The last item includes the matured debt not presented for payment, $985, 970, and $423, 435, 073 legal ten ers. At that date there was reported by the SecyTreasury coin and currency to the amount of $116, 018, 959. I do not see the chairman of the ComBanking&Currency here, but I see a distinguished member of that committee, the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. Hoornn] and I will yield the floor to him to make an explanation. if he will do it, in reference to the varying statements of the amount of public money in the Treasury of the U.S. Mr; HOOPER, of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the statement made by the SecyTreasury on the lat of March, he represents the amount of coin in the Treasury at that time at $56, 736, 192 12, and of currency $60, 282, 767 12, making together a total of $116, 018, 059 24. The Tctter to which the Gentfrom NewYork refers states that this is inexcusably erroneous, and oes on to state that the Secretary had omitte, among other items, the amount of money deposited in the national banks, which, the letter says, was $28,000,000. The Committee of Wu s and Means, having seen this letter, deeme it expedient to appoint a subeommittee to ascertain whether there was any foundation for this statement. That committee ascertained that the amount of money in the national banks was included in and made a part of the $116,000,000, as reported by the SecyTreasury on the lst of March. The statement of the Comptroller has been reported to have been that instead of $116,000,000 there was $170,000,000 in the Treasury. In his expla nation contained in the letter referred to by the Gentfrom NewYork, in rerd to that discre ancy, and as evidence of it, he counts in 28,000,000 in the national banks, which he says was omitted in the Secretarys report, in which I think he is entirely mistaken, as I am satisfied that was included in the balance of $116,000,000. He then goes on to state that the amount of U.S. notes and comound interest notes which had been retire, and which in his opinion ought not to have been retired, should be in the Treasury; but the fact is that the Secretary, whether he had authority or not, did retire them, and therefore that amount was not in the Treasury. He then has another sum of$1, 300,000 for the difference between the amountof seven thirties purchased and the amount of the 520 0nds sold, and he says that money ought also to have been in the Treasury, because the Secretary was not authorized to make that disposition of the bonds. But the fact is that tiiat disposition had been made, and therefore that amount could not be in the Treasury. He then adds $16,000,000 for the premium which might have been obtained if the Secretary had undertaken to sell the coin in the Treasury. Now, the fact is that the coin had not been sold, and therefore the premium had not been received and could not be in the Treasury. I do not see. therefore, that there is any reason to suppose that the statement of the Secretary is not entirely correct. The amount of deposits in the national banks is included in the Secretarys estimate; the gold was not sold, and therefore nothing had gone into the Treasury or could go into the Treasury for premium upon it. The result of the investigation made by the committee was that $116, 018, 959 24 was the correct amount, and that there was no foundation for the statement in the letter referred to that it was in excusahly erroneous.