Mr. SCHENCK. Having had some acQuaintance with the Dept, and having had a special opportunity to know something about this matter, I will say a word about it. My brother, being in command at the naval station at the time, had correspondence with me in relation to the misfortune that had befallen this young gentleman, Paymaster Spalding:. This led me to inquire into the facts, and the result of it, I may say in a word, is a conviction that this bill for his relief ought to pass. And with the utmost respect for the Dept and for the gentlemen who may have been members of the court which investigated the case, I must say that it was a most extraordinary finding that they should thhaeve implicated Paymaster Spalding upon all facts before them. Now, the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. wilson, as has been remarked by the chairman of the ComNavAffrs, entirely misapprehended him when he put the relation between Spalding and Harvey as if it were a relation between principal and clerk or agent employed by himself. arvey was himself an asst paymaster in the Navy, ordered by the Dept to report at Mound City to the officer in command there, to serve as an asst to Spalding. But he is or was himself a bonded officer, and Spalding had nothing to do with his selection. e was, therefore, no more responsiblefor the acts of Harvey than I am responsibleas a Representative here for the action of my friendfrom Iowa. It is true that Spalding ranked him, and he being the asst of Spalding must have got his. through him; but he was like :himself a paymaster, holding a commission, having given bonds and being liable for his acts when ordered serve as such asst. Spalding had no more control over the selection and knew no more who was to be sent to him as his asst than you or I. Nor had he a right to object to Harvey. Harvey went there under the order of the Navy Dept, and acted upon his responsibility as a bonded officer, and it was not in the bower of Spalding either to select or to reject him, but he had to take whatever officer was sent by the Dept. Now, what is the proof in this state of facts? Why, that Spalding was performing not only duties at the naval station as paymaster, but acting as paymaster for a receiving ship and in various other capacities, which led him away from time to time from the yard. In his ab sence there was no one who could act for him except a 2nd officer of the staff. The other paymaster with him was necessarily intrusted, therefore, with the charge of the safe containing whatever money had been placed on deposit there. The keys were necessarily intrusted to this officer, who was sent there as asst paymaster. The proof submitted on ject this subin the 1st inquiry that was made, when the whole matter was fresh with all the facts, entirely exonerated Paymaster Spalding and threw the blame on Harvey. I desire only to add that I think there might be appropriety erhaps in suggesting to }. the Gentfrom and to the chairman of the committee of inserting a clause in this bill that it should not be so construed as to exempt Harvey from liability.