Mr. GRIMES. I was there, but the body was not there. The distinguished tinker at the head of the tinkering committee was not therethe gentleman who of all others was most denounced, I supposed, but who now, forgetting that, defends in the mostlaudatory mannerthe gentleman who thus denounced him and his associates. I confess that I have not so much of that spirit of forgiveness which the Senfrom Maine is willing to manifest upon this occasion. I have remembered the occurrences of that evening, and the manner of the speaker at the time that he gave his utterances to the mobthat was before him., it thief. guilty of mean and low actions in the But then the Senator says that it is very improper for us to speak of political questions upon a matter of business. What political questions have been discussed here by the gentlemen who have opposed this amendment? I understand thatthis proposition is toinvest the SecyTreasury with a discretionary power to dispose of one or 200,000 dollars, giving it to such and such clerks as he chooses in his Dept. It is a power that has not usually been granted. It is adding to the uni nut that was appropriated at the last session 0 Congress and yet unex' ended. It is an extraordinary amount. Senator says that he is unwilling to intrust the SecyTreasury with the disposal of this money, and why? Because he has not got confidence in him. Why has he not of. confidence in him? Because he has not 0eed the law of Congress passed 2 years ago enying him the power to appoint anybody to office unless he should take a certain oath. Is not that a legitimate argument to be urged against the adoption of this amendment? gI‘he Secretary appointed persons whom he had no authority to appoint. We required that every appointee, under a certain law, should take a certain oath, and he disregarded that oath. The Senfrom Maine says he would have regarded it; he would have obeyed the law of Congress. So would I. I think that any man who had a due regard for his conscience and the laws of Congress, and a proper respect for the tauthority of the Government, wou d have done it. I say it is a legitimate reason for expressing a want of confience in the SecyTreasury, that he refused to obey that law. Another Senator says that he has lost confidence in the SecyTreasury for the reason that he has not disposed of the gold belonging to the U.S. in such a manner as be deemed most economical and to the advantage of the Government. Is not that a legitimate criticism? Are we to be denied expressing our opinions on a question of4hat kind because the SecyTreasury is absent, is not here, and cannot be here, to answer for himself? If it be true that in that instance he has employed a relative; if it be true that that relative made by the sale of the gold $40,000 during the month of May; if it be true that after the rise in gold he sold several millions of gold at 31 as the outside and highest price, when it had been going in the market 2 or 3 hours before at 34 and 35, is not that a legitimate criticism? And have we not authority to know, and ought we ’not to know, and is it not, I beg to ask the Senfrom Maine, somewhat in the (int of the ComFinance to inform the Senate, liowit happened that he sold so many millions of gold after the market had risen above 31 to 34 and 35, and who wereJhe purchasers of that gold, making the difference on several million dollars between 811 and 84 or 35 that it had been sold at during the day? I submit that because the SecyTreasury is not present to answer these questions himself, these matters that are pubicly discussed in the newspa ers, that are in the mouths of everybody, an that have, no matter what may be the opinion of the Senfrom Maine to the contrary, exceedingly lowered the SecyTreasury in the opinion of the financial men of this country, and in the opinion ofsome of the best of them destroyed all confidence whatever in him I say that these matters are fair subjects of investigation, fair subjects of criticism; and I, (or any other Senator.) in my judgment, have a right to urge them when such a question as this is under consideration. Now, sir, when you take into consideration these facts, and take into consideration the proceedings of a public meetin, which were read by the Senfrom Neva a [Mr. Nina to the Senate the other day, held and preside over by Treasury clerks denouncing me and denouncing the Senfrom Maine in most unmeasured terms as usurpers, as men who were attemptin to establish a tyranny in this country, I say that I am not willing to intrust any such extraordinary discretionary power in the hands of the Secretary. I should like to know whether or not the SecyTreesury has taken any notice of the action of those clerks in his Dept. Does the Senfrom Maine justify that proceeding? If he were still SecyTreasury, and his clerks should denounce Congress in the manner in which we were denounced at that public meeting, would he still retain those clerks in his employment? I am not willing to make any appropriation to enable Mr. McCulloch to pay those clerks or any other clerks who may become associated with them in that deptal club in denouncing Congress. Every gentleman has his own ideas as to whatselfrespect requires of him; I do not pretend to quarrel with other people as to what may be their ideas of what their own self respect requires of them; but it seems to me that myselfrespect requires that I should not do it. I have not been disposed any more than the Senfrom Maine to impnte improper motives to the SecyTreasury. I judge of him by what has gone before; Ijudge of him by what has already occurred; and 1 am free to unite in the opinion expressed by the Senfrom Massachusetts, that [ do not have the confidence in the SecyTreasury that I had and that I would desire to have in a person occupying the prominent position that he does in the councils of the country and before the people. It