Mr. SHERMAN. I hardly know what that language means. At any rate, this amendment removes these postmasters' accounts from the ordinary supervision of the proper branch of the Government constituted to have that super vision. It seems to me to be an extraordinary provision to select the PostMGenl as a general arbitrator of claims in his Dept growing out of the settlements of the accounts of postmasters, whatever they may be, unless they involve official delinquency, which is a term vague and indefinite, and of the meaning of which he is to be the only and sole judge. There is now an Auditor for the postoffice Dept to pass upon these things. There are fixed rules and regulations and laws which govern the adjustment of accounts. This removes all these cases from that officer's jurisdiction, and allows the PostMGen to settle them, not upon the rules and regulations that govern the Dept, but upon principles of equity and justice; in other words, he becomes the grand arbitrator of all things of this kind in his Dept. I do not see myself how far this authority goes, nor am I prepared in the Present unsettled condition of affairs to f. the PostMGenl such authority. link that section ought not be added to this lii. The Senfrom Minnesota says the bill does not increase the expenses of the postoffice Dept more than about 15,000 dollars, and he gives the precise figures; but it does contain a provision which incorporated into this . will involve an increase of expenditure amounting to very many tens of 1000s of dollars. It is here provided that the chief clerks in the bureaus of the postoffice Dept shall be entitled to a salary of $2, 500 a year. If that is once enacted, how can you resist the same claim when made by every chief clerk of a bureau in every executive dept? Are you prepared for that? Are you willing to raise the pay of the chief clerks of all the bureaus to $2, 500? How can you do it in the postoffice Dept, which has always been regarded as the least important of all the Depts, and not do it as to the others? How could you resist such claim when made by the chief clerks of the bureaus of the Treasury Dept, where the accounts are more compli cated? If youingraft this provision on this bill it will necessarily involve a gradation of the salaries in all the Depts. There is also in the same section a provision raising the pay of ordinary clerks to $2,000 a year, and raising the pay of the asst topog rapher andingrafting on your postal service at least 3 or 4 new offices with salaries varying from 2500 to 3,000 dollars. It is true, the aggregate is not much, but if certain persons who are now 4th class clerks can thus by name be raised in the pay of their offices by giving them some other name, the same principle must be adopted in all the different Depts. Nothing can be more difficult than the adjustment of the salaries of the various officers of the Government, and therefore I think it ought not to be included in a bill of this kind under these circumstances. The 4th section makes 2 new offices in the bureau of the 1st Asst PostMGenl, which, after all, is but a bureau of a comparatively inferior Dept of the government a superintendent of foreign mails at an annual salary of $3,000, a service that has usually been discharged by a 4th class clerk, and one additional clerk of class 4, so that you will have the same number of clerks and besides that a new officer at a salary of $3,000 a year, instead of a salary of a 4th class clerk. Then you introduce a new officer, called the superintendent of the money order system, a duty now performed by one of the highest class clerks. The 6th section raises the salaries of the chief clerks of the bureaus of the postoffice Dept to $2, 500, as I have stated. Then it must be remembered that this bill takes effect from its passage, and if it should pass the House in a few days it will take effect in a very short time, during the Present session, when we are this evening to consider a proposition to give to the clerks an additional com: pensation of 20%. The result will be that these salaries will be increased, and at the same time they will get the benefit of the resolution which the Senfrom Oregon has charge of, allowing 20%. It seems to me these things ought not to be put into the bill. So far as the legislative features of the bill are concerned I have no objection to them; I have no doubt the Senator has stated them correctly and explained sufficiently the necessity for them; but I do not think H. the question of raising the compensation of the various employees of the Government should be introduced in this way, in a bill of this kind, because we cannot do it in one Dept of the Government without doing it in all. I remember a case where the Senfrom Iowa {Mr. GRIMEs] proposed to increase the salary of the Asst SecyNavy to $4,000, and it was adopted. The result was that from that time forward for 3 years we had a controversy about the salaries of the different Asst Secretaries of the various Depts of the Government, until finally they were all settled at $3, 500. In this case it is proposed to raise the salaries of the chief clerks of the 3 bureaus of the least important branch of the Government, and if it is done, as a matter of course the same claim will be made by the chief clerks of the bureaus of the other Depts. perhaps there are 100 and more chief clerks of bureaus in all the various Depts of the Government. It is better to meet that claim directly as a legislative measure coming up and being fully considered rather than to meet it in a collateral way. With the "exceptions I have stated I have no objection to this bill. The new section to which I have referred I think is very mischievous in its effects. We cannot now see the extent of it. It may embarrass the Government in the settlement of postal accounts. I see no reason why these postal accounts should be withdrawn from the ordinary supervision of the accounting officers of the Treasury. This section undoubtedly does that, and it appoints the PostMGenl a general arbi trator to settle and adjust all the claims that may be made by postmasters in the southern States, unless he should judge that they arise out of official delinquency. If it is in order, I move to reconsider the vote adopting that section.