Mr. TRUMBULL. I am a little surprised at the grennd upon which the Senfrom Vermont proposes to change his vote, as an expedient. W hen are expedients to end? This proposition was introduced here for the 1st time, said the Senfrom Ohio, during the The war is over; at least the conflict of arms is over; and now it is to be continued a year. It is to put into the hands of one of the Secretaries of the Government $160,000 in money to be eXpended, how? What. for? Can the Senfrom Vermont tell what the expedient is? Tell me what the expedient is. For what purpose? Why is $160,000 to be placed in the hands of the SecyI‘rcasury more than in the hands of the SecyInterior or the PostMGenl? What is the expedient? I should like to know. The Senfrom Vermont did not tell us. Hevotesforitas an expedient. Now, what is the expedient? Expedient for what purpose? Why is it' that the Secretary of one oft ie Depts must have $160,000 to be disbursed in his discretion. without rule, without guide, to create disaffection among the clerks of his Dept, all of them claiming it, and those who do not receive any portion of this gratuity finding fault with the others? Is that the expedient? Is it in order to make these clerks dependents upon the head of the Dept? Why not repeal all your laws, and put in the hands of the head of each of the depts a million, or 5, or ten millions 0 money to fly the clerks as much as he thinks proper? t amounts to that. You have fixed their salaries, but in addition to their salaries you put $100,000 in money in the hands of the head of the Dept to disburse us gratuities among favorites. This does not deend upon who is SecyTreasury. have made no remark in opposition to this measure reflecting at all upon the head of the Dept. The Senfrom Maine said, I think, that he was as much to blame as anyone for introducing this prop position; it was introduced either when he was at the head of the Dept or a friend of his, and he had continued it. I have no doubt my friendfrom Maine has a great partiality for the Treasury Dept. He has presided there, and presided there well, and he has a sort of affection for it that leads him, inasmuch as he has disbursed the money, when he had it there, honestly and faithfully, and nobody ever complained of him, to trust anybody else in that place. I think it was a bad precedent when he was there; and if he was at the head of the Treasury now, with all the confidence I have in him, I should object; for his own sake as well as for the sake of these clerks to his having such a fund put in his hands. t must be exceedingly embarrassing to distribute it. Therefore, irres ective of the speech that has been made by teSecyTreasury, which everybody thinks was in very bad taste that is a matter that I do not choose tocomment upon in this connection one way or the other independent of that, the principle is bad. So says the Senfrom Vermont. He says it is wrong; it is had every way; but he votes for it as an expedient. Now, what is the ox dient? When is yourexpedient to stop? Wk); is it necessary here and not. necessary in the other depts of this Government? Here is the at Dept, with its 100 and perhaps' 1,000 clerks, and the quarter mnster’s dept. Why is it not Just as necessary in the quartermaster’s dept, which is settling accounts amounting to how dreds of millions of dollars, as in the Treasury Dept? Why is it not just as necessary in the pay dept as in the Treasury Dept? 1 should like to he informed by the Senfrom Vermont who votes for this as an expedient.