1066 CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. 
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, miscella- 
neous 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 pur- 
poses, 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 dona- 
tion, then Congress has no right to donate the money. If it is a pri- 
waite claim or debt, then it ha no business upon this appropriation bill. 
I submit, caihacaidte: that when the law expressly provided that 
no salary showld be paid, eee 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 ane 
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 Ganges 
