Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, there is one general remark that I would make in rely to what has fallen from the Senfrom l time. He complains of the disposition which is now so revalent to increase the compensation of public servants. Sir, we cannot forget that we are at this moment in whatI may call a transition pe wrfrioodm, pass1n from the old time to the new time, the 01 system to the new system, and the incident of that transition period is a change in prices and the consequent necessity of an increased compensation for public servants. Sir, you will not do your duty as legislators if you do not take into consideration that condition ofthings and its essential incidents. When the Senfrom Maine reminds us of the present disposition to make these appropriations he must not forget that that disposition arises from the nature of. things. We are in a period of transition; we must not be insensiblo to it; we must accommodate ourselves to it. That is the 1st remark I have to make in reply to the Senfrom Maine. But the Senator goes further and says that if we make an appropriation for the eniployes in the State dept, we must make it for the employees in other Depts of the Government. Sir, that does not follow. It may be so, I admit, but it does not follow necessarily. It may be that the need of these appropriations is greater in one Dept than in another. at, sir, admit that we must follow this example and make these appropriations in other Depts, is that any an swer to the case that I present? Not at all, air. Let us go forward and consider the case of each Dept on its own merits, and if on these merits we must make this appropriation let us make‘it 20%. Ihc Senfrom Maine gives us his testimony with regard to one dept with which he has been so honorab y associated. I refer to the Treasury Dept. He says that he knows that the clerlis in that Dept as a body do not deserve this addition. Very well, sir; then it must not be made. I accept his testimony on that case, but there is no such testimony on the case which I now have the honor of resenting. nd that brings me to another point made by the Senfrom Maine. He says that this appropriation is not recommended by the head of the Dept. Sir, let me state how this appropriation is recommended. It comes before t resenate 1st on the petition of the clerks themselves. The petition was duly presented many months ago; it was referred to the appropriate committee; the committee took it into most careful consideration, not once or twice but several times, and finally directed the report which I have made, and which is now under consideration in the amendment moved. They have directed me to press that. This case, therefore, is presented to the Senate by one of the committees of this bod. What more, sir, do you need? The Senfrom Maine says that it is not urged or recommended by the head of the Dept. it is recommended by a committee of this body, having that subject speciall in charge. But vthe Senator is entirely mistaken when he so. s that it is not recommended by the head of the Dept. The head of the Dept, it is true, has notin a formal letter recommended it to the Senate. He felt a motive of delicacy on the subject, and declined thns dircctlyto interfere, but he has, in aletter addressed to the committee, expressed a strong desire that this appropriation should be made. Sir, I have not introduced this testimony before in this argu ment, and I do it now only in direct reply to the Senfrom Maine, who virtually challenged it by saying in advance, or complaining in advance, that no such recommendation has been made. I belive that I have now answered point by oint all that the Senfrom Maine has said. [here is one other circumstance connected with this case to which I call attention. The number of employees or clerks in the other Depts, especially in the Treasury and the nterior, is very great. When you undertake to deal with their case you have a very large giestion, but the number employed in the State dept is comparatively limited. I have in my hands now a list of all those employees. From this list it appears that there are distributed annually among the 25 permanent clerks in the State dept for sal aries, $41,000. You have there 25 permanent clerks of the State Deputment, among whom are distributed $41,000 and it is now proposed to add to that sum total 20%. Sir, the appropriation is small. I think ithardly justifies the protracted debate which it has ha now running over portions of 3 difierent days. The Senator inquired this afternoon in debate not only as to the number of these clerks but what they received. I had not at the time a memorandum of what they received, but I have received it since. I have already given the sum total received by the 25 permanent clerks, $41,000. Of this sum the chief clerk receives $2, 200; the disbursing clerk, $2,000; the superintendent of statistics, $8,000; then there are 8 clerks of the 4th class at $1, 800 each, making $14, 400 which that class receives; then there are 9 clerks of the 3rd class at $1, 600 each, receiving a sum total of $14, 400; then there are 3 clerks of the 2nd class at $1, 400 each, making a sum total in that class of $4 200; then there are 3 clerks of the 1st 0 pass at $1, 200 each, making a sum total in that class 0f$3,000; the whole being a sum total of $41,000 distributed among 25 permanent clerks. There is then an Immigration Bureau with one clerk of the 4th class at $1, 800, and one of the 1st at $1, 200, making a total sum in that bureau of $3.000. There are also temporary clerks, about 8, who receive 4 dollars a day when they work full days, and proportionately for parts of days. And lastly, there are a few, say 3 or four, temporary clerks who co y for the compensation of ten cents a folio 0 100 words. Among these public servants there are many who have given their life to the service. At the head of the list is William Hunter, chief clerk, who has served in that Dept 36 cars.