Mr. LANE, of Indiana. When this bill was under consideration yesterday morning it was thought best by some Senators that we should “ fiX by legislation the compensation to be paid of these pension agents. I find by an examination ot the laws that that compensation has already been fixed by legislation. The histOry of the legislation on the subject, in, brief, is this: upon the passageof the 1st pension act, it was made the duty of the War Deptto "appoint agents for the payment of pensions with "out an compensation. The agents were apointe at the discretion of the SecyWar. It was then thought that the use of the deposits would pay for any expense or trouble in disbursing the money and for many years the Officers of banks made the payments. In 1847, for the 1st time, a law was passed fixing the compensation of pension agents at $1,000 perannum, and subsequently the same discre ti on was given to the SecyInterior as to the appointments that had been lodged in the SecyWar when the Pension Bureau was in the or Dept. Another act or resolution, approved July 17, 1862, extended the maximum of compensation to $2,000. another act, approved une 30, 1864, allowed to every pension agent disbursing $50,000 annu ally, $600 for clerk hire, rent of othee, and office expenses, and $750 to every agent disbursing $100,000 annually, and $250 in addition for every additional $50,000, the maximum to the agent in no case to exceed $4,000. The opinion of the SecyInterior and the ComrPension is, that the present lawsrestricting the amount of compensation to these agents are amply sufficient, and that they are just about right. The maximum runs now from $2,000 to $4,000, including clerk hire and office rent. There is, therefore, no need for any amendment of the bill on that subject, it already having been secured by legislation. Thereis one other pointu on which an amendment was suggested ycster a, tolimitthe number of these appointments. it is the opinion of the SecyInterior and the ComrPensions that it is impracticable to make any restriction at present, or this reason: there are 4 States now having 3 pension agents each, the States of Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and NewYork; they are the only ones having as many as 3; the most of the others have 2, and some of the States have but one. These are thought now to be amply sufficient to answer all purposes. If we were to adopt the nmendmentsuggested yesterday, saying that no State shall be entitled tomore than 3 agents, ” every State now having but one or 2 would at once insist upon havine the full comlement. It is the opinion of the Dept that such an amendment would make it almost indispen sably necessary, under the pressure that would be brought tobear, to appoiiit 3 agents for each State. We do not propose a limit less than 3, because if we do it will come off from every State that has now 3 agents. If, therefore, we should adopt an amendment providing that no more than 3 pension agents shall be apvointed for each State, instead of restricting tenumber we should be authorizing 20 or 30 additional appointments, for each State would insist upon having 3 agents. For this reason, it is thought best to leave the bill preciSely as it is, the restrictions on disbursements having been sufficiently provided for by previous laws. I will state to the Senate that the reason why the laws fixing the compensation of pension agents were not found yesterday and were not accessible so that we might refer to them, was that they have been adde to appropriation bills and where they were precisey no one could inform us, but they seem to be complete in their character.