Mr. SCHENCK. I do not know whether they did or did not, but I suppose the gentleman does not give that as a reason for moving to cut down any appropriation. I merely wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that they are diSposed to go it blind; that in the face of the estimates made by the properDept which is informed upon the subject, based upon reports in reference to the condition of each of these several points of defense, it is proposed to cut them all down by a certain scale of reduction. Nowz it may be wise, or it may be unwise, exceedingly unwise to do so. I can imagine where a tort may be in process of construction, and those in charge may be disposed by every motive ofeconomy to hurry its completion, and to that end it may be wise to expend $25,000, or $50,000 or $00,000, more or less, in anyone year. I can imagine where a fort may be in such a condition that to appropriate half the sum asked for and needed might put it in such a condition to undergo damage and dilapidation, that you would need as much more to bring it up to its former condition when the end of the year comes around. I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that this bill is based upon estimates made by those who alone are bound to take all the resonsibility, who alone have all the knowle ge of the subject required. I admit this bill makes a large appropriation, but no lar er appropriations than former ones did, an I do not know at this particular time, when we are just coming out of the struggle in which we have been engaged for the last 4 or 5 years, no matter how much we may desire economy, whether it may be wise to exercise it just here, when we. know not what a year or less may bring forth in our relations to other countries, or even with ourimmediate neighbor. Accordingto the estimates of the Dept, the whole amount of appropriations asked for in this bill was $1, 635,000. The committee have cut of? $225,000, not by reducing the appropriations asked for in anyone case, because nowing nothing about the estimates the committee took them as they received them. But they have cut out altogether the appropriation recommended for the fort atTortugas, another for a fort in Florida, and another for a fort in California. This made a reduction of some 2 or 300,000 dollars and then, for some reason best known to themselves, they have added $100,000 to the amount asked for the survey of the northern lakes. The Dept says that $50,000 is as much, with the facilities at their command, as they can expend in anyone year for that purpose. Perhaps the committee thought it won] be good policy, and I have no doubt it would be with us in the West and the Northwest, to add 554100.000 to thata propriation, although it was notnsked for by the Government, for the Government, represented by the War Dept, say that $50,000 is all the can expend in one year to advantage. This ifference, therefore, between the estimates made by the War Dept and the appropriations in the bill presented here, are alcontained in these fouritcins: the addition to the lake survey appropriation, and the 3 items dropped out altogether, for reasons best known to the committre. The War Dept protests against leaving out those items, for have a communication here showing the great importance of at least 2 of those works, the one in California and the other at Tortugas. As to all the rest of the items, the committee did just what they felt themselves constrained to do; they took the estimates made by that branch of the Government which is responsible for them, and bound to take care of the appropriations made upon their estimates. I have made these general remarks because, wisely or unwisely, I hold it to be not a very statesmanlike course of proceeding to take up an appropriation bill and determine that it shall be scaled down 20 or 30 or 50%. in order to arrive at the right amount to be a proriated. I wilIma e one additional remark. This is no new principle of statesmanship. I remem her (I will not say how many years 2, but 20 at least) when the HoRep had aCommittee of W nys and Means with a chairman who was noted for his peculiar idea of economy. That idea consist ed"1 cutting down every estimate 20% and when he had done that upon each several 1 items of appropriation based) upon the estimates of the Government, he fe t he had accomplished a great mark in the protection of the public Treasury. The result was that they came to understand his plan at the Executive Depts, and for some 2 or 3 years it was pretty generally ascertained that they made their estimates 20%. beyond what they really wanted; and our chairman of the ComWays&Means did what he felt to be his duty, cut down the appropriations 20%., the Depts got what they wanted, and all parties were satisfied.