evidence came before us, we became satisfied that, for any amount over 25,000, $16 per gun would afford a fair profit to the manufacturer. A contract for 40,000 of these muskets at that rate has been recently taken by an experienced and responsible firm, Messrs. E. Remington & Sons, of Ilion, N. Y. And it should be here stated that to Mr. S. Remington, of this firm, we are indebted for the first trustworthy information received touching the actual cost to private manufacturers of this arm. His public spirit, in frankly and voluntarily making this disclosure, is worthy of all commendation, and should it result, as we believe it will, in fixing the price of this gun at not exceeding $16, his action save millions to the public treasury. It should be added that the holder of one of the contracts for 50,000 Springfield muskets confirmed by us consented, as a part of the conditions of the confirmation, that 25,000 of the guns should be paid for at $16 instead of $20 each. A similar reduction to $16 was made on the proposal of another contractor for all the guns emder over 25,000.

Thirdly. The neglect to obey the law of the 3rd of March, 1809, and the stringent regulations founded upon it, which provide that call contracts for army supplies shall, except in cases of emergency requiring and admitting of "immediate delivery," be preceded by public advertisement inviting proposals, has been prolific in evil results. Indeed, it is to the persistent disregard of this law, which for more than fifty years has been the guardian of the integrity of the contract service, that speculators and "middlemen" are indebted for the saturnalia of success they have enjoyed since the commencement of the war. Nor can such disregard of law and duty be excused on the plea that the pressing exigency of the case afforded to opportunity to conform to the provision in question, since in all the contracts for domestic arms the deliveries were fixed at distant periods of time.

That bt have been obtained for the Government is conclusively shown by the fact that when, a few weeks since, under your direction, proposals for the manufacture of arms were thus invited, responsible bids of the Springfield musket were put in as low as $16, while almost all fell below the price of $20.

In October last E. Remington $ Sons solicited an order for the manufacture of their revolver - acknowledged to be in all respects equal to Colt's army revolver - at $15, but could a contract for only 5,000. At the same time an order was given to Colt's company for an indefinite number of his army revolvers at $25, and under this there has since been delivered 31,000. That company, under the recent advertisement, proposed to furnish this revolver at $14.50, and a contract at that rate has been executed, thus proving that the charge made and submitted to was $10.50 in excess of the worth of the arm, and showing that in this single item of pistols alone there has been paid to that company within the time named at least $325,500 beyond the full value of the arms received. The proposals for sabers indicate a still more marked reduction in price - a responsible offer being made for the best cavalry sabers at $4.12, for which $8.50 has been heretofore paid, and an offer of $5 by the very party who has been, under the private contract system, receiving $8.50.

But an enforcement of the law in regard to advertising would effect more than a more reduction in price. It would cut up by the roots an abuse which during the present war has threatened, in this branch of the administration,serious injury, alike to the interests of the service and to the public morals. Contracts based on private proposals