ton in convenient and comfortable places rather than upon the broad fields of the whole country, where their services may be of some possible use, have said that the little town of West Troy was a proper place, abandon its judgment, its business sense, and ignore all the deposits and works of nature and of men?

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes Pittsburgh as the place for these works. It is proposed to expend an immense sum of money to fortify. One bill proposes in the course of a few years to expend fifteen to twenty millions, another proposes fifty millions, and still another $126,000,000. What for? For any public purpose? For any good that can come out of it? In the name of justice and fair dealing, if this money is to be expended let it be for public purposes, for the good of all, and in a wise, economical, and business-like manner. If it is to be expended for a public purpose, let the public purpose be taken into consideration, and let the expenditure be dictated by common sense and by common reason, by the economies of business and the economies which come to us by experience. Do not, I pray you, let us be actuated by other considerations than would prompt the action of business men in the ordinary affairs of life.

Stay your gavel, Mr. Chairman, only a moment longer. If you are unwilling to locate this establishment at Pittsburgh, then give it to Liberty. Liberty is all my colleague has described, and it is near the center of our country, on the banks of a grand old river dividing the Republic in two parts.

Mr. TOWNSHEND. Oh, no; not exactly.

Mr. BURNES. Perhaps not precisely, but it is about midway between New Orleans and the Canadian border and near the center of the country, on a great water way that enables transportation in both directions, whilst railroads from Liberty run in every direction, very much unlike Watervliet.

Mr. TOWNSHEND. You have got too many of them.

Mr. BURNES. By no means. We want more and are getting them rapidly. Again I say if you do not give it to Pittsburgh, then give it to Liberty. [Applause.]

COMMENTS ON PRINTING GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.

AUGUST 29, 1888.

Mr. BURNES. I would not be betrayed into this debate but for the fact that it has been my duty, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, to make rather a careful investigation of some of the subjects involved in this bill. I desire simply to call the attention of the committee to two propositions. First, the work done on the steam-presses is undoubtedly inferior work, and when done it is more readily counterfeited than the work done on the hand-presses by the skilled men in that branch of the public service. In proof of the proposition I refer to the Government Counterfeit Detector-official organ of the Treasury Department-where you find page after page devoted to exposures of new counterfeits of the silver certificates of every denomination and bank-notes of denominations of one dollar up to one thousand dollars. In this document, which I hold in my hand, are almost endless proofs that counterfeiting has become almost universal throughout the country, and that our people—especially those who handle but little money and are not familiar with the qualities of paper money-are suffering on every hand.

The skilled banker and the skilled men who handle great sums of money are not suffering in consequence of this class of work so much, perhaps, as the people who deal in small sums of money, and take it often without thought or power of self-protection. The working people and the poor people of the country are being imposed upon by these counterfeits which are now overflowing the country. For that reason I think it is right to discard, as far as can be possibly done, the use of the steam-presses and to resort to the old, time-honored hand-press, which gives American skill an opportunity to present to the country a sound circulating medium, and gives brains an opportunity to combat inanimate machinery for the safety and protection of sixty millions of free people. Besides, it will make the safety of our paper money issues no longer a contest between the machine and the criminal work of counterfeiters, but it will be a contest between intelligent skill and honest labor against the machine and criminal work of villains, in which the former will triumph, counterfeiting will become a lost art, and the increased skill of our workmen will be a pride of the Republic.

One other proposition. I have nothing to say as to the second section of the pending bill. I know nothing of the qualifications of the present incumbent, and it is not my business to know. I know something of the good judgment of the President, and am quite content to trust him to make appointments and removals and determine who is fit or unfit to be the Superintendent of the Bureau of Printing and Engraving; but I support this bill because the use of these steam-presses, under all the circumstances, is little less than an outrage. I do not care whether such use is a saving or a loss to the Government. It is enough for me that the work done

by them is unsafe and more easily counterfeited; but, above all, the terms and conditions on which they are used are utterly abhorrent to every sense of justice, as I see it.

There is plenty of sworn testimony taken and printed as to which is the better of the disputed modes of doing the work.

There is scarcely a question as to the superior work of the hand-presses; and it is not certain that the work thereon costs any more than when done by steam; but, if it cost double as much as the latter, I would not hesitate a moment to drive these steam-presses (patented) out of the service of the Government, because of the extortion—the unreasonable demand of the patentees of such steam-presses. Let us consider it. These steam-presses are patented, and the proprietor of the patent charges the Government $500 for the privilege of building each of these machines. Then the Government is required to take the patterns from the patentee, and for the use of these patterns $400 additional are paid; and the patterns must be returned immediately after the completion of each machine, so that this $400 additional expended upon every machine goes, of course, into the pockets of the patentee. Now, there are $900 paid on each machine, or rather for the right to build it. The Government, with $900 paid for the privilege, builds the machine at a cost of $1,250. Now, mark you, that machine, for the building of which the Government pays $1,250 (and which does not then become the property of the Government), has cost the Government $900 for the privilege of building. The extortion fails to stop there. After the machine is completed at the expense of the Government the Government pays to the patentees a royalty of $1 a thousand for all the impressions that the machine makes. Upon a careful calculation we find that the patentee gets $1,700-— it may be a little more or a little less-every year for a machine which costs $1,250 to build. Whether under this system we save a little money or not makes but little difference to me. I would not stand such an extortion if the revenues of the Government were made thereby ten times what they are.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. GEAR. I would like to ask the gentleman from Missouri a question: What is the capacity of these presses?

Mr. BURNES. From 3,000 to 4,000 impressions a day.

Mr. GEAR. What proportion of the bills or notes struck on these presses are damaged?

Mr. BURNES. The testimony differs as to that, but it is undoubtedly a fact that the spoilage of paper-expensive paper, too-is a larger expense in the use of steam-presses than in the use of hand-presses.

REMARKS ON INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY SURVEY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO.

AUGUST 31, 1888.

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman in charge of this bill a question in regard to this amendment under the appropriation to complete the international boundary survey between the United States and Mexico. Can the gentleman inform the committee what portion of the boundary line between the United States and Mexico is contemplated in this provision?

Mr. FORNEY. My colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BURNES], is familiar with that question, and can give the gentleman the information.

Mr. BURNES. In reply to the gentleman from Texas, I have to say, that this is a survey, or intended survey, of the boundary line between Mexico and the United States from the Rio Grande River west to the Pacific Ocean, and it is not, as many have supposed, a proposition to survey the line between Mexico and this country from Paso del Norte south or east to the Gulf of Mexico.

In 1882 there was a convention between the Government of Mexico and the Government of the United States, and by the terms of that convention a survey of the boundary between the United States and Mexico was to be made at the joint expense of the two governments, each paying one-half. Under that treaty a Mexican party and an American party, each from the army of their respective countries, by appointment, were to meet at Paso del Norte and pursue and mark the line from that point to the Pacific Ocean.

The Mexican party failed to put in an appearance until probably four or five days after the time appointed for the departure of the expedition. They then appeared at Paso del Norte, and were informed that the American party had gone on, and requested them to follow and join further along. For some reason they failed to join the American party, but the American party went through, marked and designated the boundary line, which was reported to the Forty-eighth Congress as entirely satisfactory to the Government of this country and to the Government of Mexico; but the Government of Mexico has never paid any part of the expense of this survey. A full and complete report of this survey or reconnaissance and its record were transmitted to the Forty-eighth Congress by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and an appropriation something like $400,000, or about that sum, was asked or estimated therefor.

It was urged by Congress that Mexico ought to supply one-half of the amount and this Government half, but the Department wanted the whole of the money. House committee declined to appropriate the whole of the money, and advised the Secretary of State at that time to collect one-half of the money from Mexico, and then we would pay the other half. Nothing seems to have been done until the

Forty-ninth Congress, when $100,000 were appropriated to pay our portion, or a part of our portion, of the expenditure. That money has never been used and never been paid out. It has remained up to date an idle appropriation.

With these facts before us, to appropriate $100,000 additional would seem absurd, and in my judgment it is absurd to take any further step until, by a convention— now to be made, because the limitation of that convention, as to the performance of the work, has expired-the two nations have agreed to pay, and do pay, the money required for the contemplated work in the first treaty. For these reasons, because the line has been already agreed upon and marked, and because the Government of the United States has done its part of the original convention of 1882, and because the Government of Mexico has done nothing, it would be unbusiness-like, if not folly, for us to appropriate $100,000 more. These are the reasons why we have resisted, and now resist, the Senate amendment.

Mr. LANHAM. Has it any reference to the line between Texas and Mexico, on the Rio Grande?

Mr. BURNES. None whatever. On the contrary, it is from the Rio Grande westward to the Pacific.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Is not this appropriation recommended by the Department?

Mr. BURNES. It has not been recommended by the Department to this House, so far as I know. I presume it has been recommended by the Department, in some way, to the Senate.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Has not $100,000 been heretofore appropriated and not used because it was insufficient for the purpose sought?

Mr. BURNES. I do not know the reason why it was not used.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I think it has been stated that they did not enter upon the expenditure of $100,000 because it was insufficient for the end sought.

Mr. BURNES. Whatever the reason may be, I would state that we cannot do this now until there is a new treaty made, unless we desire to release Mexico from a share of the cost. By the terms of the convention of 1882 the completion of this work was limited, I think, to two years, possibly three, but the limitation has expired; and if we go on and do this work now, without a new convention, what assurance have we that the work will be satisfactory to or accepted by Mexico, and that Mexico will contribute under the provisions of the old treaty, which has expired?

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. There has been no work entered upon at all.

Mr. BURNES. The work that was entered upon was paid for out of the Army appropriations because it was the work of a detachment of the Army. They marked the line. They pursued it from Paso del Norte to the Pacific Ocean, clear through.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. The Department has recommended this additional appropriation that the Senate have put on this bill. I merely called this to the attention of my colleague for information more than for any other reason.

Mr. BURNES. I will say to my friend and colleague that he may be right about it and I may be wrong; but there is no question in my mind with regard to