Mr. FESSENDEN. Well, the cotton rob beries and the Constitution. Now, Mr. president, I think we may as well leave those subjects out of the debate, on a more point oforder, and we may also leave out on a mere oint 6f Order the remarks made by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts on the merits of the claim. I am very much of the opinion that on the statement made by him I would vote for the claim if presented here as a separate proposition without any hesitation, because if the facts are as he stated I think this gentleman ought to be aid; although, allow me to say, that in all the apartments of this Government, so far as I know, it is getting to be too much, and has been for some time, the practice to do things without authority, because they are judged to be necessary, and then call on congress to make an appropriation for the deficiency. Sometimes they are necessary, but in a, great many cases they are not. I do not say that I expect it, but I hope to see the time when we shall get back to the old practice and reject some of these bills that are incurred without authority of law. However meritorious this claim may be, the question is whether or not we slmll protect the rules and the practice of the Senate, to keep these private claims off the appropriation bills. Every Senator who has had any experience here will hear me out in the assertion that this practice of putting private claims of this description on appropriation bills has led to very great abuses. They are put on in the heat of passing the bills themselves when they cannot e welI investigated, and the Treasury has in times past been defrauded of a great deal of mone in that way. Hence arose the rule; and a though this may be very meritorious, and I am very much inclined to believe it is, and that this money ought to be paid this gentleman, there is no more reason for paying a charge dalfaires than the humblest clerk about your Depts or Capitol, and not so much, for probably be is better able to wait for his money; and because this gentleman to render these services without any hanptpeonreitdy of law to pay him, that is the difficulty; there is no putting out of sight that there was no law to justify his payment out of any appropriation that might be made for those expenses; because that happened to be the case, and he is a meritorious gentleman and has rendered meritorious services, it does not change the rule or the reason of the rule, or the necessity of adhering as strictly as possible to what that rule is. It was founded in good sense; it was intended to protect the Government; and if, according to our fuhcy, we vary from it in one case and another, it will se on get to be a common practice, and every barrier and safeguard will be broken down and taken away. I hope, therefore, gentlemen will settle this question as they mean to stand by it, and not with reference to their feelings in any individual case.