Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, as an Indianian the result of this debate is very gratifying to me. The distinguished SecyTreasury is a citizen of the State of Indiana. He and I have never been of the same political party; but allow me to say that he did not come to the Secretaryship of the Treasury without a well established reputation; a reputation very well known to my colleague and myself, and I think I may say, known to the whole country. At the head of the State banking system of our State he so conducted its affairs as to promote the prosperity of the people, fo promote their commerce, and to secure to them all the while a most reliable currency. He did not come to that Dept upon any political reputation that is oftentimes obtained without very high merit, but he came there as a rePresentative in some sense of the business men of this country, and I believe today that he is entitled to the confidence of the business men and the people of this country. Mr. President, the Senfrom Illinois has spoken of the rebuke that I gave him. What rebuke, sir? For 2 hours he has been ar raigning somebody, as I thought, about the accumulations in the Treasury; exactly who we could not tell. Now he says that he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the senate to the fact that there had been so much money accumulated in the Treasury. Is it a rebuke that when the Senator was discussing that question I asked him a very plain one that if he found fault with this condition o affairs how he could get away from it, that I asked him the straight question what it was the duty of the SecyTreasury to do with this $97,000,000 of gold? He did not bring it into the Treasury; he did not enact the law which brings it there. All that he can do is to expend money according to law; and expending money according to law this day, under existing laws, we find in the Treasury $97,000,000 of gold too much, as I think. There would have been some great value in the Senator's criticism if he had told us what to do with that gold. I am not much in favor of going into the NewYork market every month or 2 and selling 15 or 20 millions of gold, disturbing the prices of all the property of the country, thereby stimulating prices for a few days a stimulation which is to be followed by a dePression a few days afterward. What shall we do, I ask the Senator, with the gold in the Treasury? What shall the Secretary do? We are discussing him, the discretion that we shall allow him, and upon that question the Senator brings to the attention of the country the Present condition of the Treasury; and I ask him under existing law what the SecyTreasury shall do with that money? He speaks of the danger to the liberty of the country because there is so much money in the Treasury. How are we to avoid that? I will ask the Senator shall we not collect through a tariff and through the internal taxes enough money to meet the pub ric obligations? The SecyTreasury is to have, to some extent, under his control during the course of the year above $400,000,000. If you had told the people a few years ago that there ever was to pass through the Treasury in the course of a year $400,000,000 they would have been astonished. Perhaps persons of more sensitive herves than the Senfrom Illinois would have been frightened at the prospect for the liberty of the country. But we must have it; it must be collected; it must be paid out; and we must trust some body. Who is the responsible man? In some sense the SecyTreasury is a responsible man; but, Mr. President, directly and personally he does not control a dollar. The money that is in the Treasury is in the custody of the law. It comes there according to law, and is ctousbteodpyaoidf out according to law. It is in the the agents of the Government appointed according to our will. Does the Secretary hold the money? Does he have the key of a single safe? Does he control the expenditure of a dollar? Not one. He is more powerless today over the money in the Treasury than the Senfrom Illinois. As a senator, the Senfrom Illinois can say, as far as his voice and vote shall go, what shall be done with the gold; the SecyTreasury can but look to the law to see what shall be done with it. I confess my inability to solve the difficulty very satisfactorily. The Senator has again spoken of a censure. I made no censure upon the Senator; intended none. That will not quite do, Mr. President. that will hardly answer the Senator's purpose. I say that directly in connection with the question whether it was safe to trust the SecyTreasury with the discretionary control of $50,000, the Senator brought this matter before the Senate, and bringing it before the Senate for the purpose of argument and for the o of criticism, I have asked him where is the with the Secretary. He has not yet answered it, and he cannot answer it. I know he spoke about not being able to make me understand him. I heard that about 20 years ago in the justice of the peace court. I heard one lawyer say to the other, “I am not responsible if that gentleman cannot understand my argument.” It is neither with nor originality thus to answer me. I asked the Senator in what respect the SecyTreasury was in fault in regard to this accumulation in the Treasury, and if he makes a criticism he holds himself responsible to the Senate to make his criticism complete. If the SecyTreasury has refused to pay out money when a demand was made according to law, let us know the case. The Secretary tells us in this document, from which the Senator has read, that there is now due of the public debt not Presented for payment $15, 791, 456.31. That is the showing; that there is a debt due and not paid of over 15 million dollars. It is not Presented, and can the SecyTreasury pay it if it be not Presented? Can he anticipate debts not due, and pay them according to his own pleas ure and not according to law? Mr. President, I do not say that in every respect I have agreed with the opinions ex: by the SecyTreasury, but know him to be a man of unquestionable integrity, of high ability, and entitled to the confidence of the Senate and of the country. Unless the Senator can show that the Secretary should have used this money in some way according to law no criticism based merely on the fact that the money has accumulated in the Treasury will hurt distinguished gentleman's good name in the country.