Mr. ROSS. I have quite a number of constituents in my district who are capable of filling any of these offices, and they are willing to take them at the salaries which we have here tofore been in the habit of paying. Now, at the last session of Congress I voted for some increase of compensation to public offi cera. I did it for the reason that our currency was depreciated, and everything in the way of living was increased in price. But new the condition of the country is changed; the prices of articles are getting lower; our papermoney is approximating more nearlyto the value of coin; and I can see no necessity, in this juncture of our public affairs, when we take into consideration the condition of the peeple and the heavy burdens they have to hour, of our increasing the compensation of those Officers. Why, sir I am astonished at the excuses which gentlemen make for increasing the comnsation of these officers. They say that the bu erintendent of the Coast Survey gets $0,000, anthat the Comptroller of the Currency bureau gets $5,000. Sir, as the Representatives of an oppressed and burdened people, are we, when we find outthat an officer gets too high a compensation, to bring up the compensation of other officers to that standard? I should have supposed that my distinguished friend would rat or have been disposed tocutdown the compensation of all these otheers instead of raisin it. There is no necessity for an increase. on can et the best talent of the country to discharge the duties of these officers at the compensation heretofore paid by the government, and it is placing unnecessary burdens upon our already over taxed people to increase the compensation of otheers now, when, instead ofthings rising in value, they are tumbling all the time. It is much easier to get compensations up than it is to get them down. Gentlemen had better take no ice of this. These salaries that were raised an that are now pointed to as the examples by which we are to govern ourselves, were increased for the reason that the currency of the country was inflated and the prices of living greatly enhanced in the city of Washington. Those reasons do not now exist, and instead of inercasing, it is our duty to cut down and diminish expenses. If you increase the salary of this gentleman to $4,000, you will have to increase the salaries of other otheers in the same proportion. That is not our duty. Our duty is to commence cut ting down instead of increasing; and I ask the members of the House to come to the rese ue now and let us show that we are carrying out in good faith our pledges to our constituents to retrencb the expenses of the Government and not increase them.