Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair man, I desire to remind the House that during this discussion I have sat. silent for a greater portion of the time. I have done so, not because I was uninterested in the work which the committee have been doin yesterday and today, but because I desire to bee how far it would proceed in the way of definin a policy fortheadmiiiistrationof the Navy, an iv ether in the progress of the discussion anything amounting to a system of naval administration should be developed. 1 have found nothing of that kind; and it is for that reason, and because this branch of the public service has seemed to be regarded as of small importance to us, either in our domestic or in foreign relations, that I wished to say what I have already said and what I shall add. Now, sir, gentlemen argue the question of appropriations for these navyyar s on the theory that they are State institutions; and as if it were true that in making an approprintion to a naval station at Portsmouth. NewHampshire, or Boston, or NewYork, or Phil adelphia, or Norfolk, or Pensacola, we were making appropriation to the respective States or local communities where they are located. Wh, sir, these appropriations are no more may e for those local communities than are the appropriations that are made to build forts for the national defense at points where our coast is vulnerable. There is no argument whatever that has been made in favor of withholding appropriations for these navyyards that will not apply with equal force to withholding appropriations from U.S. arsenals an forts within the rebellines. Are gentlemen prepared to say that this Government has not. power enough to protect itself and its property in its navyyards and in its forts and arsenals? If that be so, then the time has come indeed when it would not be wise to make appropriations for our naval stations. But our ship s are not upon one ocean only or one part of the seas; they are scattered where over our commerce goes. Where our commerce goes there our ships must be. It is contrary to all economical theories and all economical facts that your ships shall he brought from all parts of the world to one point for repairs. As to the particular appropriation for the navyard at Pensacola, it is not to build a navy yard. It is to keep in condition what we have now there, for the purpose of repairing vessels attached to the Gulfand West India squadrons, and such other vessels as are in the waters adjacent thereto. Let me say the argumentiu favor of bringing these vessels to NewYork and other places has lost all force since you have stricken out the appropriations necessary to keep those yards in an efficient condition. Let me tell you that ifwc have been able to sustain the Navy during the war it is partly because we have had all the private yards in the country to assist us. Without them the navyyards would have been insudicientto sustain the Navy. Do gentlemen wantto estimate the comparative cost of repairing ships and engines in public and in some private establishments? Let them look at the hills recently investigated and returned to the Navy Dept, and they will be abundantly satisfied. Here the hammer fell.]