Mr. MOliRllili. The SecyIn ver faithful officer; his duties during the war but just to a faithful Government officer to let not longer than 6 months. As another rea tendent to visit different institutions in other of his office on his return. The Secretary as nnt superintendent in the absence of the super this matter should be definitely understood. Dr. Nichols, the superintendent, is a very valuable oiiieer: none more so in his line. I give him credit for discharging his duties well and faith fully and most devotedly. I have no doubt he is perfectly competent to the management of ‘the institution. He erected it, and has man aged it with ability. But this is nothing more nor less than a proposition to give a public officer an opportunity to travel in Europe or elsewhere for 6 months at the expense of the Government, rendering no service; and we must have somebody in his place while he is gone. If Congress thinks it worth while to establish a precedent of that kind we are establishing new precedents of' all kinds nowadays with reference to public officers, it shouid be properly understood. If Dr. Nichols, the superintendent, was outof health, if he was a sick man, I should not hesi State. When I wasin authority in a differentplace Itook the responsibility of giving leave of ab sence for 6 months to one ot the officers of my Dept for the purpose of allowing him to go to Europe and see if he could re'e'stablish his health. I allude to Professor Bache. unfortunately he did not reestablish his health, and I am afraid we shall have his services but a ver short time longer. In a similar case I would do the same again. I suppose the SecyInterior has the some authority in this case. if he deems it proper to give leave of absence to the superintendent of the asylum, if the circumstances of the case are such as require it. I think the responsibility should be upon the head of the Dept. He can 'exercise the power if he sees fit, he being responsible for the exercise of it. I see no reason why he should not take the responsibility that I took and that the head of a Dept ought to be willing to take underproper cirenmstances. I think, therefore. this amendment is unnecessary. I believe it is unwise for Congress to begin to legislate in this' direction with regard, to public otheers.