Mr. POLAND. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the word “now” in the 5th line. It reads: That there shall be allowed and paid, out of any noney in theo, not otherwise appropriated, to the following describedpersonsnow employed in the civil serviceat Washington. This compensation, therefore, is only given to those persons who are now, at the passage of this resolution, in service in these different Depts; but it goes back and reckons this 20%. upon their compensation since the 30th day of j.last. A very considerable number of persons have been employed in these different Depts since the 30th of last June who are not now in service there. Suppose that a man was employed for 6 months following the 30th of June last and was then dismissed from the Dept for some reason; another man is employed at the same service and at the same salary during the same 6 months and he is not dismissed from the service; is there any justice in saying that the one shall receive 20%. upon his salary during that period. i. other not? At some time during the last fall, some months after the 30th of June, there was a very considerable change in the employees in several of these Depts; and I believe it was true, although it was probably accidental, that those unen who left the service about that time were men who agreed in polities with the majority of this Congress; and by another sin: gular accident those who took their places did not. That perhaps makes no difference in relation to the application of the rule of jus tice to the case, but it perhaps would make some difference in the feelings of gentlemen in voting upon it. But upon the justice of the thing itself, Mr. President, if we go back to those who are now in the service and reckon this 20%. upon their wages from the 30th of June for ward, is there any justice in saying that that same %. of addition shall not be made to those persons who were in service for some time after the 30th of June and who have been dismissed from the service before this time? I can see no ground to make any distinction. I think it ought to apply to all persons who have been in service during this period of time; and that the man who served a fraction of a year during the 1st portion of it is just as much entitled to receive his prorata allowance from this additional compensation that is given as one who has served a fraction of the year during the last half of it. If there is any ground to make any distinction between the two, I Presume the gentleman having charge of that resolution can tell us what it is; I am not able to see it.