Mr. CONNESS. I hope both provisos will be stricken out if either shall be, and I hope that both will be. I do not know any reason why the clerks who received this bonus, as it is termed, should not receive this general and regular increase of compensation. I do not think the clerks should be held responsible for the mode of distribution of the appropriation. It is not the fault of any clerk that Congress placed the discretion over that sum in the head of the Treasury Dept. It appears to me there is but one view which can be taken of that money distributed to these clerks as a bonus, namely, that it was found that they were worthy of it; that up to that time at which they received it they had received an insufficient sum, and that was given them to avoid a gen: eral increase, which at that time it was believed the Treasury could not afford; that in getting a share in the distribution of that money they got but what was their due, but what in part compensated them for the labor they had performed up to that time. It is now proposed to give an additional% age to. clerks in the different Depts, and I ask what fairness there is in failing to extend it to these knows that that was an increase which never men. Is that small additional compensation which they received out of the fund distrib uted by the SecyTreasury and in accordance with the wish of Congress to be regarded as a sufficiency for them for all time? I do not understand the justice of that view of the case. I hope that both provisos will be stricken out. If we are to compensate clerks at the capital because their Present compensation is insufficient, shall we fail to compensate the men who have proved their capacity in the Treasury to the extent of securing the approval of those who exercised control over them? Let it not be said that favoritism guided the SecyTreasury in every case in the matter of distribution. I cannot say that that officer was not guided by favoritism in any case; I do not know that it was so; but I do know that it is a mistake and utterly wrong to charge that he exercised favoritism in every case. It has fallen to my lot on another occasion in the Senate to speak of that miserable organization known as a Deptal Club in Washington. I will not refer to them further now; but I know very well that the distribution of the funds placed in the discretion of the SecyTreasury was not confined to the men who made up that club. I know men in the Dept who served through the war, were cut to pieces and incapacitated for hard labor, who have been employed there, and have won their way by their superiority as clerks to high promotion, who have filled their places with the greatest possible credit, who received a part of that compensation, and received it justly. I was about to say as much as this the other day when the discussion took place in the Senate upon this question; but that discussion was so much out of order, so much away from the immediate question then before the Senate, that I concluded to forego exPressing, not only my opinion in the premises, but giving the knowledge that Ii. against the constant asseverations that the distribution was made to favorites and favorites alone. I hope that by no vote of the Senate shall we under take to make compensation to clerks based upon any opinion that we had or have upon the merit of the other system of distribution by the SecyTreasury, and I hope that we shall not do injustice by our votes here to clerks who have proven their superiority, and thus secured the favor of those who have control over them. I trust that the Senate will strike out both provisos.