Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I believe it was on my motion that this matter was brought to the attention of the ComPostOffices, and was afterwards referred to the PostMGenl for an opinion and for data. Subsequently a special committee was organized in this body to examine the question more completely. I am free to say that the report of that committee, as far as it oes, submitting a bill for the organization o a new company, does not fulfill, in any manner, the idea which I had 'in the premises; that is, the propriety of the government taking this subject of telegraphing in hand as a legitimate postal business, reducing it to a uniform rate and establishing a minimum of charge. I believe that much can be accomplished, and will be accomplished yet. The eadin foreign Governments have recently move in this direction, and I believe that the Government of the U.S. will have income to that at last as the only means of curing the evils under which the telegraphis system now labors a vast monopoly an an enormous public burden. Since I had occasion to bring this subject to the attention of the Senate, the companies then in existence have goneon and consolidated themselves still more closely, until, I believe, there is now a single control that governs the whole subject, rendering competition an impossibility. Under that aspect of it, I shall have but little objection to this bill which has been introduced by the committee, or to any other bill which proposes to facilitate the organization of another company. I think, therefore, the amendment sug ested by the Senfrom Iowa is a very goo one, as that will enable all the companies that maypec fit to organize to go into this business, and, in so far, break the force of the monopoly. I shall therefore favor the amendment, and shall offer no objection to the bill itself, although it comes so far short of the true remed for the evil. It may prove on entering we ge, prearing the way or a final consummation, when under Governmenteontrol the telegraph shall be open to all as cheaply and as extensively as are now the 1facilities for transmitting messages by the mm s. I have one other word to say in regard to the communication of the PostMGenl. I think he has shown himself in that communication utterly unworthy of the position which he holds one public officer so far as a comprehension of the necessities of that service goes. I think that he has exerted himself rather to throw before us details antagonistic to the project than to seek out and collate any information that would hear outthe enterprise. Substantially he has collocated and presented here only the relies of the different telegraphic compa nies which are directly interested in this monopoly, and who have arranged their figures to suit their interests. He has given, it is, true the statement of Mr. Prescott, in which he endeav ore to rebut and deny his own ublished works and published statements on this subject details and facts given by him when he did not anticipate that any such movement as the present would place his publicationsin antagonism with the interests of the telegraph companies. How unfair the whole of this farrago of figures which has been laid be ore us is, may be gath cred from a single remark; and that is in the statement of Mr. Prescott, who is combating his own published works heretofore, and says: “I will dismiss this brief review of, his (Mr. Brown’s) speech by adding, in regard to his suggestion, that the telegraphicchargeson ordinary commercial correspondencemay be madeasinexpensive as the present postal rates, that the messengers receive more than the price of a letter stamp for de‘ luivpeorninlz eachdispatch and that the Governmenttux the gross receiptsof the telegraphcomanics nVcragesmore permessagethan Mr. Brown a estimateof the entire expense." I believe that the Government, in its charge of 3 cents perletter, undertakes not only to transmit thoae letters to distant parts of the country, but it also undertakes the delivery to the individuals in cities of those letters themselves; so fliat the assumption here that more is given to the messengers for delivering tele graphic disatelies than the Government post age is simply ridiculous. Government carries them and delivers them both for postal rates, and yet makes money. They could deliver them just as easily as the Government delivers its letter, and just as cheaply. Therefore, it is clear diet the illustration has no bearing at all, and is delusive and tricky. The same may be said of the statement “that the Government tax upon the gross receipts of the tele raph companies averages more permessage than Mr. Brown’s estimate of the entire ex‘ pense.” What hearing has that on the cost of telegraphing? The Government tax aver ages more permessage than my estimate of the expense of telegraphing a dispatch because the telegraph company charge such an enormous price for every dispatch that it ’makes the tax amount to more than they could really be carried for. That is the answer to the attempted illustration. But it is not my intention this morning to make any extended reply; to the hostile criticisms on my remarks which the PostMGenl has deemed it proper to gather up and present here under the disguise of a re rt. I will do that at some future time, when shall renew the motion I have hereto fore made, urging upon the Government the extension of its postalsystem so as to embrace telegraphic messages. I do not think it probable that anything will be done at the present session in this connection, in the face of the adverse report which has been presented by the PostMGenl, and I shall therefore have no objection to taking up the bill which has been reported by the special committee, and doing what may be done in that behalf. I give notice, however, that I shall renew at the next session of con' gress the attempt in this behalf. Let me say, owever, in conclusion, that I ’think the PostMGenl has reflected more discredit upon himself as a public officer in this connection than erhaps has transpired in regard to any high publicfunctionary in this Government for a long period of time. Those who have heretofore held the position of PostMGenl have en'deavored to sig nalize themselves by defending it against the inroads of monopolies, by advancing the service, by giving to it the money order system, the free delivery system, the registration sys tem, by facilitating the convenience of the people, and by carrying forward the service instead of standing in their places and repressing by illiberal and unfair reports every effort that may be made to extend and expand its usefulness and scope. And then such reasons as are lugged in to sustain this consolidated tele graph espotism, and prevent Congress from legislating for the relic of the people! Take one illustration. He says in his report: lut“i oAnstohfe 3 sSueltnoaftem, gianmveosftitghaetioopni, nuine dnetrhtahteitrewsioll not be wise for the Government to inaugurate the proposedsystemof telegraphs asa.part of the postal service, not only becauseo itsdoublt‘ul financial success.but also its questionable feasibility under our political system." Doubtful financial success? Pshawl and that in the face of corporations that have expended themselves from 5 millions, which may be held to represent their construction account, to 50 mi lions, which is the proposed capital stock on which they design to base their divi dends. And again, “feasibility under our political system, ” as ifthe bearings of our political system had anything to do with determining whether the postoffice should send its mes sages and letters on the rail or on the wire, by post roads or by telegraph lines. It is too ridiculous for further comment.