Mr. FESSENDEN. As my friendfrom Oregon, who has the management of this resolution in his chapge, exPresses his determination to recede from the position taken by the committee in reference to this matter, I certainly do not feel myself bound by anything that was done in committee on the subject; and as I perceive the general sense of the senate is in favor of the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Illinois, it may be well that I should give a brief account of the manner in which the committee came to the conclusion they did and that conclusion was applicable to both clauses, the clause now under consideration, which applies to the females employed in the Depts, and the next clause, which applies to those persons who received an additional compensation out of the amount placed in the hands of the SecyTreasury. Senators who look at the resolution as 1st reported will find that it included both classes and gave the 20%. to both. In that shape it was brought into the Senate. The ground taken by the committee was that although the pay of females employed in the Depts had been permanently increased to $900 a year, on the Wi. it would be rather invidious to make a distinction between them and others who were perhaps in the same cat egory of having had their pay increased generally. Inasmuch as their compensation was not very high and there was great complaint in regard to the want of adequacy of the salaries, and perhaps in some degree from the consid: eration which has. proved to be correct that it would be impossible to resist the battery of supplications and tongues that must ensue if we did not do it, we thought we might as well come down in the 1st instance as in the last, because we felt very certain that that would be the conclusion to which the Senate would come and we might just as well make a virtue of necessity and recommend it ourselves. That was the reasoning applicable to that particular clause. The other clause was with regard to the 20%. to those whose compensation was increased during the last year by the SecyTreasury. With regard to them we supposed their pay had not been made too high o anything i.had received, and that the persons who had received it ought to have had it a year before. Indeed, we lost many very valuable men in consequence of such a compensation not having been provided for them. The money had been disbursed, as we understood, on the score of the superior merit of the recipients. It was thought it would be invidious to exclude them from the bonus here proposed to be given, particularly as they were men who had rendered special valuable services, many of them extra services. It is impossible in a measure of this kind to do exact justice. I. know, and we all know, that there are in theomany persons, young men and others who are not so young, who now receive all they ought to receive. I refer particularly to unmarried persons and those whose services are not of the highest description and whom we could replace at any moment from the 1000s of applications from men just as good as they are. Hence, in any bill giving 20%. increase you will necessarily give money to persons who now receive all they ought to receive, as much as they are entitled to, and are well paid for their services; but still in a bill of this kind it is impossible to discriminate. If you give the 20%. to one, you must give it to all. You cannot discriminate between classes because some clerks in the 1st class are very deserving and are so situated that they ought to have it, while some in the other classes may not be entitled to i.t. If you cannot discriminate between them, and if you must necessarily give it to many persons who really receive as much as they ought to receive now, why should you refuse it to those who are confessedly the most meritorious and the most deserving of any persons in the Depts? The committee, therefore, came to the conclusion that they should include both, give it to both classes, and save all complaint upon the subject. After that was done, and the resolution was brought into the Senate and was partially discussed, it was discovered that gentlemen were about to move amendments to put on a great many more whose claims were very doubtful. My friendfrom Ohio {Mr. WADE] spoke of adding the laborers and mechanics in the navy yard, and the persons employed at the Printing Office, and the laborers and mechanics employed on the Capitol extension, on the Treasury extension, and some cthers. If you put in all of these you would meet with infinite difficulties, and there is no knowing where to stop. They do not stand in the same category. My friendfrom Ohio says they do not get any too much. That is true; but they are paid by the day; they are anxious for the places; they get sure pay and the highest pay that any persons employed as they are receive anywhere else, and we were unwilling to add from 3 to 400,000 dollars, or perhaps half a million dollars, to pay extra compensation to persons who were anxious to get their places, and who were paid as well as any persons doing the same work in the country, and more surely, and who did not come at all within the category of which I have spoken. When we found that that was the case we did not know but that something might be saved by abandoning our previous conclusion; and it was under the Pressure of that idea that the honorable Senfrom Oregon brought in this amendment, which was agreed to by the committee. I am in favor, as I was in the 1st place, of striking out this proviso, and then of striking out the Rollowing proviso, to do jus: tice to all these men in the Depts; and I am not in favor of including these laborers and mechanics who are employed in this city in a resolution which had no reference to them and was intended to have no reference to them; and if they shall be included I shall feel compelled to vote against the whole resolution. The amendment to The amendment was agreed to.