Mr. SUMNER. I can assure the Senfrom Maine that the Senfrom Massachusetts was not quite as ignorant of what he undertook to speak about as the Senator imagines. I have in my hand the bill which is under consideration, and I find in that that the keeper of the stationery is to have $2.500. Then I find that the asst doorkecper is to have $2, 160, and that the clerk to the Sergeant at Arms is to have $1, 800. I find these provisions in this bill, and I say this is a' bill which is to equalize the salaries of public servants here connected with the Senate. Does it equalize them when it undertakes to give these sal aries and leave the clerks of committees with their present salaries?Isay that it does not. I say that if you undertake to pay the keeper of the stationery $22,500, you cannot make a mistake if you give to any clerk of a committee of this body what I have proposed, $1,850. The Senfrom Maine says that many of these committees have very little to do; but it is perfectly well understood that the clerk of the committee represents to a certain extent, the labor of the chairman. He aids the chair man in his work; he is his private secretary; and I remember perfectly well when the sys4 tem ofclcrks ofcommittees was 1st established in this Chamber. When I 1st came here, I think there were only one Or 2 committees that had clerks. Afterward the system was greatiy extended, one by one, and it was always with the understanding that the clerk was needed by the chairman of the committee in the discharge of his public duties, in the copying of papers, in drawing bills and resolutions, and in aiding him in reports. He might not have work, perhaps, to o in the committee room; but he was to accompany the chairman r to his own home, and to be there his private secretary. That was the understanding when this system was inau rated some 12 or 14 years ago. I anyone chooses to refer to the Globe, he will find those reasons assigned for its introduction. I remember them perfectly well, as they were exressed on this floor. Now, sir, the system as gone on. Our committees are provided with clerks. They had not them at rst. When I came into this Chamber there were only one or 2 that had clerks. Now all the committees have clerks; and the question is, whether we are going to degrade those servants of this Chamber below the keeper of the stationery, below the clerk of your Sergeant at Arms. I do not see how you can do it. I think, ifyou insist upon that degradation, you cannot pretend that your bill equalizes the compensation of the employees o the Senate. I do not know that the clerks of committees may not, as the phrase is, be graded. There run be certain committees that may be justifie in having a clerk who shall receive a higher compensation than another. I am not able to enter into that discrimination. In the motion that I have made, I have attributed to them all an equality. Iwent upon thisidea, thatif they were not all engaved to the same extent in committee services, they would be engaged equally in the service of the chairman of the committee, whom they would be aiding in the discharge of his public duties. It is on that account that I are made this motion, I make it in good faith, believing that if you are going to remodel these salaries and compensation, you ought not to neglect this other class. I believe that this other class is as deserving as the classes that are already protected by this bill.