The scientific work of the Commission has always been conducted with reference to definite and practical results, and the economic side of the work of the Fish Commission is comparatively in a still more advanced condition.

It seems scarcely necessary to dwell upon the results in fish-culture attained by the Commission under Professor Baird's direction. You are thoroughly familiar with the manner in which certain fisheries, such as the shad fishery of the Atlantic coast, the salmon fishery of the Pacific coast, and the whitefish fishery of the Great Lakes, have been saved from destruction; how the Asiatic carp has been planted in the 20,000 or more ponds and lakes in almost every township in the United States; how the shad fishery has been established in unfamiliar waters, such as the Ohio River and Pacific Ocean; and, in addition to this, how many other steps of great magnitude have been made in the art of fish-culture.

I dare not attempt to estimate the practical value of the work of the Commission to the country, but can not doubt that it amounts to very many millions of dollars. I presume you are familiar with Mr. Goode's "Review of what has been accomplished by the Fish Commission in fish-culture and in the investigation of American fisheries;" but I venture to send herewith a copy of this pamphlet, and to direct your special attention to pages 26 to 34, in which are quoted numerous commendations of the Fish Commission from the principal authorities of Great Britain, Norway, Holland, Germany, Belgium, France, and other European nations. Professor Huxley, in an address at the London Fisheries Exhibition, said that he did not think "that any nation at the present time had comprehended the question of dealing with fish in so thorough, excellent, and scientific a spirit as that of the United States;" while M. RaveretWattel, the principal French authority on this subject, states that "to this day pisciculture has nowhere produced results which can be compared with those obtained in the United States." No one can question that the peculiar excellence of the work of our Government has been directly or indirectly due to the presence of Professor Baird at the head of the Commission. He had no rivals, and during his administration no word of criticism was ever uttered by competent persons.

All this, it may well be remembered, was accomplished while filling effectively the distinct duties of an officer of the Smithsonian Institution, for which alone he was paid. And it may be added that during the first half of his term of service as Commissioner, and while he was assistant secretary of the Smithsonian, his entire salary was less than that received by several of his assistants during the last few years.

In reference to the possible precedent of the action of Congress in the case of the late Professor Henry, I would state that a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury was received by the House of Representatives June 4, 1878, and by the Senate June 5, 1878, recommending an appropriation of $500 for each year during which the late Professor Henry was employed as a member of the Light-House Board, for the benefit of his family. On June 20, 1878, an act was passed "to pay to the legal representatives of the late Joseph Henry, for services rendered by him as member and president of the Light-House Board, $11,000." (Second session, Forty-fifth Congress, p. 214.)

In the absence of time for a fuller statement, let me ask your attention to the few words in which the benefits to his country of Professor Baird's labors were described by a recent most competent biographer:

"The Fish Commission was an agency of research; but it was more. He made it an agency by which science is applied to the relief of the wants of mankind; by which a cheap, nutritious, healthful, and luxurious food is to be given to the millions of men. He affirmed that for the production of food an acre of water was more than equal to 10 acres of land, thus giving to the gloomy doctrine of Malthus its ultimate refutation, and clearing away the veil of despair from the horizon of the poor; for when the sea shall serve man with all the food that can be gathered from its broad expanse, the land will not contain the millions whom it is thus possible to supply."

Professor Baird's services as Fish Commissioner were entirely unremunerated. When he knew he was dying, looking to the position of his family and the slender provision that the sacrifice of all opportunities for private gain had left, he only told them that he could not but think that Congress, in view of these sixteen years of unrequited service to his country, might be trusted to see that justice was done. I am, sir, yours, very respectfully,

Hon. JAMES B. BECK,

U. S. Senate.

July 27, 1888-Senate.

S. P. LANGLEY.

The sundry civil bill being under consideration, an amendment was offered to insert, on page 49, after line 19:

To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay Mrs. Mary H. C. Baird, widow of the late Spencer F. Baird, $50,000, in full compensation for the services and expenses of the said Spencer F. Baird during his administration of the office of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, from February 25, 1871, to the time of his death, in August, 1887.

Mr. JAMES H. BERRY. I would like to inquire of the Senator from Iowa how it is that, although Professor Baird was to receive no salary, this full sum is now due for the entire time of his service? My recollection of the law is that the Fish Commission should be appointed from employees of the Government and was to receive no additional salary. This appropriation of $50,000 is for the entire time that Professor Baird was in office, from 1871 to the date of his death. I would like to inquire how this comes.

Mr. ALLISON. If the Senator from Arkansas will take the report of the committee (Report No. 1814), and will turn to page 100 of that report, and read carefully the statement made there respecting the services of Professor Baird in this regard, and his relations to the Government as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, I think he will be convinced that this is a just and proper appropriation for the eminent services of Professor Baird during the long period of his service as Chief of the Fish Commission. And in order to give Senators an opportunity to make an examination of this testimony and statement, I will ask that this amendment may be passed over until the bill is gone through with, or at least until Senators may have an opportunity of examining the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be agreed to if there be no objection.

July 28, 1888-Senate.

The sundry civil bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole. Mr. JAMES H. BERRY. When the amendment now under consideration was reached yesterday I asked the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Allison] to state why the salary of Professor Baird had not been previously paid. He referred me to the report of the committee, and especially to a statement made by the Senator from Vermont [Mr.

Edmunds]. I have carefully examined that statement, and find the facts to be about as follows: In February, 1871, there was an act of Congress passed providing that the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, should appoint from the civil officers or employees of the Government a Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, and it was especially and particularly provided in the act that he should receive no additional salary. It is stated in the report that Professor Baird at that time was assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. He was appointed as such Commissioner.

It is stated in this report that he was not an officer or employee of the Government at the time of this appointment, and therefore that the question of a double salary, which is prohibited by the statute, could not apply. If he was not an officer or an employee of the Government, then he was appointed contrary to the provisions of the act of Congress, because the act specially provided that the Commissioner should be a civil officer or employee of the Government. It is stated in the report also that subsequently to that time additional duties were imposed upon the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, and it is stated and I admit that Professor Baird performed the duties successfully and well for the period of about fifteen and a half years.

At no time during his life did he ever apply for any salary for acting as Fish Commissioner. It is further stated in the report that he occupied and used two rooms in his private dwelling as an office for the purpose of discharging the duties pertaining to this commission; and it is also stated that a reasonable rental for those rooms, or, rather, if they were paid for as the Government usually pays for renting property in this city, they would have been worth probably $1,500 a year. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] says that this is not a private claim. I submit, Mr. President, that if Professor Baird had a claim against the Government for rent paid for the Government, then it should be presented as a claim, and it ought to go to the Committee on Claims, and there be reported to the Senate and take the usual course of any other claim.

Mr. I. G. HARRIS. I wish to ask the Senator from Arkansas if his investigation has enabled him to inform the Senate what salary Professor Baird received as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and if he is not able to answer, then I should be glad to have the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or some other Senator give that information.

Mr. BERRY. I am able to answer that. He received a salary of $6,000 per annum as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; that was the sum he received in that capacity from the time of his appointment in 1878 until his death in 1887.

As I was stating, if this is a claim against the Government, either for salary or for house rent, then it ought to take the usual course of

claims and ought not to be placed on this sundry civil bill. The Senator from Vermont, however, in his statement says that it is not a claim; he says that it is "a miscellaneous donation;" and because it is a miscellaneous donation, Mr. President, I am opposed to it. If the Government is indebted to Professor Baird, then the Government ought to pay whatever it owes him; but if this is a donation, miscellaneous or otherwise, as stated by the Senator from Vermont, then I submit that we have no right to make it.

The money in the Treasury of the United States comes from taxes collected from the people. The money is collected for public purposes, not for private purposes. It is collected by authority of the Constitution, which authorizes it to be collected to pay public debts, to provide for the common defense and the general welfare, and if it is to be treated as a fund which belongs simply to members of Congress to donate to whomsoever they may think worthy and deserving, then it simply becomes a question as to what persons can bring the most influence to bear on these two Houses in order to receive that donation.

If the Senator from Vermont is correct when he says this is a donation, then Congress has no right to donate the money. If it is a private claim or debt, then it has no business upon this appropriation bill.

I submit, furthermore, that when the law expressly provided that no salary should be paid, when for fifteen years Professor Baird made no claim for salary, it can be nothing else than an absolute donation or gift to Professor Baird's widow. If he was not willing to perform those duties without salary, if it was intended that eventually the Government should be called upon to pay a salary, then it ought to have been stated in the act of Congress under which he was appointed, and we ought not to have been misled by saying that no salary should be paid and now come in with a claim of $50,000 as salary.

If it is true that he was not an officer of the Government, if he was not an employee of the Government, then he was appointed in direct contradiction to and in the face of the statute which provided for this appointment. If he was such officer, then he was receiving a salary of $6,000 a year, and I care not whether it was paid by the Government or paid by the Smithsonian Institution. There is a general statute that says that no officer employed by the Government shall be paid a double salary; and in either case this can not be paid.

I have no doubt Professor Baird performed the duties attending the position which he held with great fidelity; I have no doubt his widow is a worthy lady; but I insist if he has no claim, if we do not owe him this money, Congress has no right to make an appropriation to give her this money.

Another thing: If this is a donation or gift, why shall it be put upon the sundry civil bill, a general appropriation bill? It may be held, and the President of the United States may conclude, that Congress

has no right to donate the public money; he may take that view of it, that his oath of office and the Constitution of the United States require him not to sign a bill which is a mere gift, as the Senator from Vermont says this is. If that be true, then you propose to put upon a general appropriation bill and force him either to approve that which his conscience does not approve, or to veto one of the general appropriation bills of this session of Congress. That, it seems to me, ought to be a sufficient objection to putting it upon this appropriation bill. If there is a just and valid claim either for rent or for salary, let it go to the Committee on Claims and let it take its chances with every other claim that comes before this body, and not seek upon this general appropriation bill to give $50,000 of the money which we have no right to give, which does not belong to us, which the Constitution does not authorize us to give. If we do not owe the money, then it is simply a gift and can be nothing more and nothing less.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. J. J. INGALLS). The question recurs upon agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Committee on Appropriations. Is the Senate ready for the question?

Mr. J. H. REAGAN. Mr. President, I knew Professor Baird very well during his life time and respected him very greatly, and I take it that no one knew him but did respect him and respects his memory; and in what I shall say I shall bear in mind the great value of his services and his worth as a citizen and as a man.

This amendment proposes to give his widow $50,000 in consideration of services rendered by Professor Baird to the Government. The question is raised whether he was an officer of the Government of the United States in his capacity as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. By the act of Congress of 1846 for the organization of the Smithsonian Institution, it is provided that a Secretary shall be appointed. It does not specify what his compensation shall be, and I understand that his compensation has been paid out of the fund arising from the interest on the donation given by Mr. Smithson. So, while he was not compensated out of the Public Treasury, he was appointed under an act of Congress. I do not know whether that would preclude his right to receive an additional salary or not, and it is not material, in the view I take of the question, whether it would or not. In Europe, under Great Britain, Germany, and other governments, we find large appropriations made for individuals out of the public treasury. The amounts paid annually out of the public treasury of Great Britain to the royal family go up into millions, because it is the policy of that country to maintain royalty and to maintain an aristocracy. In this country it has not until lately been any part of our policy. We are gradually drifting into the policy of creating an aristocracy supported out of the Treasury, who render no service and who are paid at the expense of other people. I do not wish to see this go