Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator is a sea sible man, and a fair man ordinarily, but he is very apt to appeal to little prejudices some times to carry a point; and this is one of them. Talkaboutadministeringthe Governmentin the interest ofbanksl Who wants to do i‘t3 Do you suppose Iwant to do it? Nobody wants to do it. We administer the Government in the interests of the people of the U.S., and desire to do it; at we have established a system, and that system has gone along here until we are in the very last days of the session. That is the amount ofit. Now, if the Senator does not like it let him introduce a bill and see if it will pass, that the sub Treasury shall receive anything and everything, and then this will be consistent; but it isit cannot be done, unless you change the law entirel. If it is wise to repeal the law organizing these banks, that is one thing. If it is wise to say that we will break our contract and that the notes they put out, which declare on their backs that they are receivable for all public dues except customs, shall not be so received, thatis another thin. If it is wise to say that the sub Treasury, which is an entirely different system, shall receive everything that is offered in the shape of car rency, that is another thing. But we are not in a condition to do that at this period of the session. Then the simple proposition is to compel a collector to take a ceflain kind of money, which he must take, and which makes the largest amount of the circulation now, and say he shall not deposit that money, but at his own risk and hazard he shall every night get something that he can deposit. I hold that that is not reasonable. It will make very great inconvenience and trouble in the large cities. If we are going to change the matter at all it should be radical, and not a mere step in advance which will increase the difficulty. I will add that although there is always danger, you cannot devise a system that is not an erous with regard to banks. There will be ese failures and these difficulties probably in any system that may be devised. pto this period there has been much less of difficulty in this systemthan I antincipatd, because it never was a favorite system of p mine. I “ hate to say when I was in Amsterdam” or anywhere else; but when I was SecyTreasury I saw to it that these large balances were drawn down just as fast as they accumulated, and gave positive orders to that effect, which were carried into execution with very considerable rapidity, much more so than could be used now, because there was more occasion for the use of mone.Ihave no doubt the present SecyTreasury follows the same rule, and e] U.S., who operates that, is a very careful, rudent man, and I have no doubt that he oes it in the same way.