Mr. LANE, of Indiana. [‘his subject was referred to a special committee on the motion, I believe, of the distinguished Senfrom Ohio. That committee was constituted of the chairmen of the different standing committees the business of which was connected with the Interior Dept the chairmen of the Committees on Patents, on Pensions, on Indian Affairs, on Printing, and on Public Lands. We had before thatspecial committeealetter of the SecyInterior and a full exposition of his wishes on the subject. The committee then sent for the head of every bureau represented in the Interior Dept. They all came before nsin person, and gave us a full exposition of the present amount of clerical force and the amount contemplated by the bill. The bill is perfectly satisfactory, not only to the SecyInterior, but to the Asst Secretary, and to the head of every bureau in that Dept. But the objection meets us here which is raised by‘the Senfrom Ohio, that it is an increase of salaries. That is doubtless true, so far as the clerks retained are concerned; but there is a decrease of $6,000 in the aggregate expenses of the Inte rior Dept. It is the opinion of the SecyInterior, and of the head of every bureau in that Dept, that by reducing the clerical force by the amount of 46 clerks, and dividing their comcomtion among the remaining clerks retainc, they will get a higher quality of clerical ability, and that the business of the Dept will be administered more promptly and more elliciently. This, then, is no proposition to increase the salaries of clerks in one sense, although it may be in another. for the aggre gate expense is decreased, and the ciliciency of the service is increased. The Senfrom Iowa asks the question whether the clerks with whom it is proposed to dispense will not be really retained as tem porary clerks. Under your present law tem orary clerks may be employed; under this bill temporary clerks cannot be employed, for the number is limited and the compensation is limited. I have no doubt, then, that you will secure a greater and more efficient amount of service for $6,000 perannum less, than you have at present. So far from the argument being good, that by raising the salaries here you are re'quired to raise the salaries in all the other Depts, I hesitate nothing in saying that if the same kind of special committee was today raised, to reorganize and fix the compensation of the clerks in every Dept of the Government, you might save from 50 to 100,000 dollars perannum, and satisfy the wants and requirements of the country much better than you do under the present system. I think there should be such a committee raised in reference to the War Dept, the Navy Dept, the Treasury Dept, and the postoffice Dept; and by reducing the number of clerks and paying a greater compensation to those retained. you would have more cilieientservice, more able clerks, and save from 50 to 100,000 dollars peranunm. I do not see the argument resulting from the allegation of an increase of expense when we reduce the egate expenses of the Dept more than 6,000 dollars a year and in the opinion of avery mau familiar with the subject get abler and more competent clerks. That is the whole of it.