Mr. FESSENDEN. If my friendfrom Wisconsin did not make an objection in that case, I will say it was a Wonderful thing, for I never knew a question that he did not object to any how. [iilaughtea] It would be an exception to his general rule. Now, the simple fact is, that the Treasury cannot get alon without something of this sort being done. With the present force of the Treasur, as organized, the business cannot be done. The reason why no new organization was made and salaries increased was simply because by doing so we should commit our selves to an increase that would cost us more money than we ought to pay. It would necessarily lead to a large expenditure of money that might be saved, and we were anxious to save it. That was my logic on the subject, and I investigated it as carefully as I ever investigated anything. I see no way, therefore, but for congress to place some discretion, to a very small extent, (for you must remember there are about 2,000 employees in the Treasury Dpt) in the SecyTreasury to tide over this dilficult time and conduct the business. The principle you may say is a bad one. So it is as a principle. But [will ask my friendfrom Illinois, if his experience does not afford him proof of many cases where he has been obliged to do a thing that he would gladly have avoided, because he could not do the other thing that he would gladly have done. It is the history of human affairs. We cannot do eve thing even in Government just as we would like to do it, and in the best way. This was the conclusion that I came to as a Senator before I went into the dept, and I was more confirmed in it after gotiuto the Dept. Now, with regard to this talk about the Secretary having his favorites, and the Secretary paying this or that man because he supports the President’s policy, and all that, it is redu cing a man of high character and standing to the level of a blackguard without the slightest foundation or reason for it in the world. I would not impute it to one of my adversaries unless I saw proof of the actual fact. I have never been known to be particularly enthu siastic in my admiration of the Democratic party; but I never took it for granted that a man who was eminent enough to be placed at the head of a Dept would be a mere management of his Dept. Sir, it is the ride of every man who goes to the head of a Dept to conduct it well and fairly. He must be impartial, he must be just. His own reputation and his position require it. The idea that because we do not like the present SecyTreasury, therefore we are to presume that he would descend to these little tricks, and s end money that is committed to him for a public purpose in accomplishing his own private purposes, is not only doing him in'ustice, but doing no credit to the individual w oever he may be, that entertains an ideao that description with regard to a public officer, without proof of the fact that it is so. Let us do men justice. Let us quarrel, if we will, about polities with those who do not agree with us; but at any rate I think we had better maintain the intercourse which is due from one gentleman to another, even with regard to our political adversaries. Now, sir, I have only to say with regard to this amendment, it makes not the slightest difference to me, of course, whether the Senate strike it out or keep it in; but I tell them if they do strike it out, as my friendfrom Illinois suggests, you will throw the dept into a state of embarrassment which will trouble not only them, but will trouble you necessarily, and trouble the public business; and it Wlll lead, from the want of ability to do the work of that Dept, to complaints from men whose interests require that the work should be done, which will not be visited upon the Secretary, but upon the Congress that refused to put it in the Secretary’s power to accomplish what he is bound to do.