Mr. FESSENDEN. I find, on reading the debate of last year, that the charge daffaires at Brussels at that time came home on leave, and this gentleman, who was with him as a sort of vo untary secretary under no ay, was by him, when he came home, put in c arge of the legation, and incurred some expense, and was recognized by correspondence With the Dept as acting charge daffaires. He had no appointment, no commission, or anything of the kind, but continued there to discharge the duties. He was not, therefore, apointed an officer. There was no law under which he acted. We were payin the solar at the same time to the person who came ome, as we always do in such cases. Perhaps it is not an unfrequent case, but I do not deem it to be a properone. It is copeeded that there was no appointment made, and consequently, there being no appointment made, there was no law under which he could be aid. He continued there at the request of the person who came home, and having continued there a given length of time, at the end of 5 or 6 years for the 1st time because, as was said in debate, he is a very modest man he makes his claim, presents it to Genress, and it is recommended to be paid by the Dept on the ground that be having performed the duty there it was a debt that the Government ought to pay, because he performed those duties. I inferred from the debate that he was a gentleman of fortune and did not care much about. it; and it was stated In the debate that finally his friends urged him to make the claim while he was here in this city, and he made it. He is a very worthy gentleman. no doubt, but there was no law under which he was appointed and no law under which he could be paid, and on that ground the claim was put upon the appropriation bill. The rule of the Senate is a c ear one that no private claim shall be put upon an appropriation bill, and the question was 1st left to the Senate whether it was a private claim, and they decided that it was not, as they do in a great many other cases directly contrary to the whole fact, because they thought it ought to be paid. If the rule of the Senate isa rule of any value, and I think it is of great value, in protectin the appropriation bills, it ought to be adhere to. Acting upon that rule, the ComFinance invariably strike 06 all these private claims thatare utu on the appropriation bills. There were ha f a ozen of the m in this bill, very meritorious claims probably. I know nothing to the contrary. an fact I know one of them to be so the claim of William Handy, a very admirable clerk in the Treasury Dept, for work done some 6 or 7 years ago, for $500. That was put on by the HoRep. Then there was another claim for $100, for extra work of some kind, which was also stricken out by the committee, and also a claim of a laborer for work for a year and a half, all withoutany law. I should be glad to have them paid; they oughtto be paid, probably; but we struck them off because they were private claims. Now, there is no reason in the world why the claim of this Gentleman for $6,000, whatever may be the justice of it, should be put on this bill by the Senfrom Massachusetts, or anybody else, because he is a gentleman and man of fortune and an acting c arge, when on strike of? all the claims of these men, cler and others, who performed services precisely in the same way, on the ground of our stringent rule that it is necessary to protect the appropriation bills against these private claims. I do not feel inclined to discuss the merits of this claim. I am perfectly willing, for the sake of the argument, to allow that it is meritorious, although it struck me on reading the debate that this. gentleman did not mean at 1st to make any such claim. He allowed it to lie dormant for 6 years, and then presented it because his fhends urged him to do so, and said he could get it. That seemed to be the amount of it. There is no law to authorize it. The Senfrom Massachusetts in the debate last year said the reason why it was here was because there was no law to authorize it. I do hope that the Senate will adhere to its rule and lgefip these private claims off the appropriation.