Mr. HENDRICKS. It is a little difficult to see upon what ground the friends of this proposition dooThe Senfrom California {Mr. ConNEss] wants to provide for the reporters of the Senate; the Senfrom Illinois {Mr. YATEs] wants to provide for some partisan; the Senfrom . {Mr. WADE] seems to want this printing done at the Government . Printing Office, if possible. These are the 3 authoritative views exPressed in support of this measure. I knew there was something in it. I knew as soon as the Senfrom Illinois got up that we should have just what it was, so far as he chose to speak at all. I intend now to speak very briefly of these 3 propositions. 1st, the Senfrom California intimates that the Globe office is not doing exactly fair by the reporters of this body. There is no Senator who would be more earnestin demanding that full justice should be done to the 2 young gentlemen that report the proceedings of this body than myself. They are very exrt and able in their profession; they are very aborious in the discharge of their duties; and no compliment could be paid to them in too extravagant terms. But, sir, are we to decide that we will not continue a publication which has been approved for so many years because of a temporary disagreement, if such a disagreement does exist, between the Globe office and some of its employees? I suppose when the ";comes to be invest igated it will be found that the reporters in the Senate have been very well paid. I do not intend to discuss it now at any length; but I understand that 3 reporters in the Senate et the same compensation that is paid to 5 in the House. They are paid in the same way, $4 50 per column, and this is paid to 3 reporters in the Senate and 5 in the House, at one session 6 in the House; it being so very difficult to report in so large a body as the House, a larger corps seems to be necessary in that body than in this. A statement that I have in my hand shows that for the 2nd session of the 37th Congress the proprietors of the Globe paid the reporters of the Senate $12,048.20, and Congress paid them $4,000. For the 3rd session of the 30 7th Congress they received from the prorietors of the Globe $5, 464 92, and $4,000 om Congress. For the 1st session of the 38 h Congress they received from the proprietors of the Globe $11, 450 72, and $4,000 from Congress. For the 1st session of the 39th Congress they received from the proprietors of the Globe $12, 784 61, and $4,000 from Congress. In all for these 5 sessions they received $66, 589 03; and at one session, as I understand, they received the 20%. voted to the employees of Congress, 20%. not only upon what was paid by Congress, but upon what was paid by the proprietors of the Globe. I am not prepared to say whether that was a full compensation or not, or whether the employment of these reporters during the vacation on courts martial and otherwise did not make up a very handsome compensation. I do not choose to discuss that, I suppose that the Senate will hardly abandon a policy that has been approved by so many years merely because of a temporary disagreement between the employees of the Globe and that office. That is all I have to say in reply to the Senfrom California. Now, sir, I come to the argument of the Senfrom Illinois. He fairly stated it so as not to be misunderstood. How far does he claim that the principle which he now indorses sIhoall fgo,: that to the victors belong the spoils? that applied to the public offices, and that it was made consistent to the moral sense of the country, because the POTUS, being charged by his oath of office with the execution of the n. it was due to him that he should have around him in important, official positions men that sympa thized with him in. views and policy. The Democratic party claimed that for the President, and I think the Whig party claimed the same for its President when it came into power. But does the Senator say that the money paid by the tax payers of this country into the coffers of the Government is public spoils to be plundered, upon by the party in power? Here is a question of work to be done, of contracts to be complied with, as I think. Is that arbitrarily to be given to some partisan that he shall make money out of it? When a house is to be built by the Government, when the mails are to be carried over some route for the benefit of the people, does the Senfrom Illinois claim that that house shall be built by a partisan without a competition allowed to all the mechanics of the country? When the mails are to be carried and paid for, does the Senator claim that the public Treasury may be plundered upon to enrich a partisan? I know very well that the Senator's party has indorsed the doctrine that to the victors belong the spoils, and illustrated it in a way never known to a free country before. He speaks of the crumbs of office. For 5 years st it has not been crumbs, it has been whole oaves, whole car loads and ship loads of spoils to the men in office and to the favorites of men in office. A few have grown wonderfully rich. Men who before your party came into power were poor and scarcely able to make the ends of the year meet are now living in gorgeous palaces and rolling in wealth. This is known; it is seen in every locality; it is seen in every city and village of the country that men, because of their party attachments, have grown rich out of the money that the people sweated that they might pay it into the public Treasury. Is that the illustration of the doctrine which the Senfrom Illinois today approves? I do not, as a Democrat I never held to an such doctrine. I say that the money which goes from the pockets of the people into the public Treasury must only be paid out according to law, and when a contract is made it must be made fairly, without a view to giving to a partisan more than it is worth. The senator does not say that the pay which has been given to Mr. Rives for the publication of the Globe has been more than was a fair return. He has not said that. He has admitted that the work has been well done, but he simply wants to take it away from these people, the Present owners of the Globe office, that the work may be given to a partisan. Mr. President, if a contract has been made to carry the mails between the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts will he claim that that contract ought to be set aside that some partisan may have the benefit of it? I understand the force of his appeal, that the men ought to have the benefit of the crumbs who have stood by the war, as he says. Why, sir, I believe one of the sons of Mr. Rives occupies a soldier's grave. Mr. Rives himself could not go to the war, but I never heard that his purse strings remained tight when an appeal was made to his gener osity on behalf of any soldier. He was liberal, generous, kind to all a model in all these s this Globe to become a opaper? Are the reports of our proceedings to be made up for partisan purposes, as is the case in the partisan papers of the country and to some extent on the part of the Associated Press, that the views exPressed upon one side of the Chamber shall be fully rePresented and that the views which are exPressed in reply on the other side of the Chamber shall be supPressed? Why is it that this shall become a matter of partisan strife? It never has been so. When the great party that the Senator speaks of was in power I never heard that work which was to be done for the Government and to be paid for at a fair price was regarded as the spoils of office or the spoils belonging to a part; triumph. w But I do not intend to discuss this question further. I believe we are committed by the bill of 1864 to give 2 years' notice. That is tWhee fair, plain reading of the law, and I think to live up to it.