The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-10

| The Char decides ibis amendment 10 be an oIder The
result will be- that II this amendment be ia ORDER there
be objection 10 the introduction OF any amend
meDt provided The original appropriation contemplated
by the committee be retained, The practical result will
be that every species OF new propositions may be IN
troduced without the sanction OF any committee. by
simply retaining the appropriation which sanctioned
by the committee, and diverling II from It's original OBJ
ieet. and applying II TO new Ii that decision is
right The first decision is nugatory
] Mr.. HALE. should be Obliged 10 the Chair il he
would stae the grounds OF his decision Ii would satisfy
me. kbave no doubt, and probably the Senate.
i Mt RUSK. think can very clearly the distine
ton between the two propositions The amendment of
the senator IRON Wisconsin, rs presented provided
for additional appropriation. and that excluded by
the rule His amendment now offered, takes the ap
preparation proposed by the committee, and proposes TO
divert IL TO different object.
| Mr. WALKER. Not a different object, but TO the en-
ploymeh of different means Tor the same object.
Mr. BUTLER. must be permitted 10 say that | differ
from the Chair in regard TO this point think the
tor from Ohio has placed it in the true point OF view
When amendment to an appropriation bill comes from
a standing committee and has had the advantage OF their
deiberaon, il comes here under the sanction OF their Off
cal Judgment but when that is diverted used for the
purpose of having engraed upon it an amendment look
ing entirely 10 different objects, but using the mere sum
appropriated the means OF carrying out those objects,
they essentially different Now analyze these prop
osilons. am not in favor of the amendment OF the
aor from Ohio but he introduced an amendment 10 APP
proprlate certain sum, $l50.O0O, to accomplish partc
ular object not exactly defined. The honorable senator
from Wisconsin introduces an amendment 10 appropriate
TIE sum to elect the same general object IN very
Objectionable 10 some persons for, as understand he
introduces amendment not only TO give public lands
for the purpose OF making allroad but 10 give the alter
nate sections and to give the remaining alternate sections
10 actual settlers and 10 foreigners al that SO that the
particular object OF the appropriation is entirely different
from that indicated by the committee The object and the
appropriation are nseparabe IN their nature, and II seems
| to me must be regarded.
Mr. CHASE. In order that the of the Senate may
be clearly asceained these two propositions, will ask
| Tor the yeas and nays
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr.. HALE. | wish to repeat my desire that the Chair
would state its reasons for its decision
| The PRESIDING OFFICER, [Mr. BADGERl The
Chair will state to the Senate the upon which
this decision is founded II will be observed in the rst
place that there is rule OF the Senate by which amend
mens any proposition before this body can be excluded
on The ground OF relevancy That is clear According
TO the general parliamentary law, ls not question OF
order 10 be decided by the Presiding Officer whether
amendment is relevant or not, whether It be amend
ment to an original bill or amendment to proposed
amendment. Any senator may move any matter, how
foreign inconsistent with the provisions of the
bill or subject before the Senate, as an amendment, if he
peases If its rrelevancy be objection. il is for the
Senate to decide by voting down. 1t is not question
OF order.
That being so. il is clear that the amendment which is
now moved by the honorable from Wisconsin to
the amendment of the senator from Ohio, could have
been moved by him an amendment TO The bill itself 1t
amendment competent for any member of this body
to to this BILL because no other objection could be
taken to it than that it is not relevant to The subject
ter of the bill 1t has already been shown that that
not objection that can be decided by the Chair
point of order. II il can be moved amendment to
the bill, possible be assigned why
be moved amendment TO another amen dmeni to the
BILL since the only objection to il amendment the
bill is lis rrelevancy, which is found TO be entirely
avallng and there is no greater reason why rreIe
want amendment 10 amendment may not be made than
an irrelevant amendment to bill Therefore the diff
cutes or Inconvenience supposed by senators 10 exist
considering this amendment IN order, are no more than
| the Inconvenience difficulties which exist in regard
TO every irrelevant amendment proposed TO any
/ before The Senate
| ha nla pft he Sapa IN moth hat
| priatlons An amendment proposing additional appro
pTiaon cannot be moved TO general appropriation bill,
unless in one OF the five cases mentioned 10 the 30th
rule but il an amendment proposes no appropriation,
any member can move It. Now, the senator fron Ohio
proposed amendment for causing certain explorations
TO be made and appropraiing certain OF money to
execute the purposes directed by that amendment That
amendment would not have been in order if offered by
the honorable senator from Ohio his motion, but
II is in ORDER although il makes appropriation because
il is moved by direction OF standing committee What
is there in that amendment which required the sanction
OF a standing committee Nothing bu, the clause ma
king appropriation Every other part OF II the honor
able senator had right TO offer without the sanction OF
committee. Therefore Ii is just competent for a
member OF this body 10 move TO strike out everything
from that amendment but the appropriation, IL would
be 10 move TO strike out any other part OF the amend
ment He move to strike out the appropriation. He
can to reduce ii. He 10 enlarge il. The
rule prevents him from doing nothing in the world but
| from moving an additional appropriation.
The Chair sees and OF course everybody Sees the In
convenience and difficulties that may be involved in thus
/
greater than The inconvenience that may arise from
changing the purpose OF bill. As there is parlia
mentary law which excludes amendment on the ground
Of irelevancy and the proposed amendment makes
appropriation, the Chair cannot see-however inconven-
lent might be, however mschlevous might be, for the
Senate to adopt amendment OF this kind upon this
amendment and incorporate IL upon the bhow II can
be ruled out on aqueston OF order
| Mr. HUNTER. | concur IN all That the Chair has
said up TO a certain point There is one difficulty, how
ever, which have. 10 which the Chair has not referred,
and II IL this The amendment does propose an additional
appropriation Of public lands. should like 10 hear the
Chair on that question for If he can remove my doubts
on that point will 60 with him.
| The PRESIDING OFFICER. Upon that subject the
Char has supposed that The rule OF the Senate
Plies TO the disposition of The public lands al all 1t Is
rule restrictive OF the right OF making amendments TO the
general appropriation bills The meaning of the rule,
therefore, must be asceained by reference TO the sub
iect-ma,te TO which il relates. The general approprla
ton bills bills appropriating money 10 carry the
operations OF the government, and additional appropr
ations'-lhat is the term used IN the ule-must be I'M
derslood TO additional appropriations oil the
kind, 10 wit OF money. may be wrong about IL, but
| entertain very clear opinion on the subject
| Mr. CHASE. | regret very much that the question
was not taken upon the amendment OF the senator from
Wisconsin without any points oil order being raised
but, since points Of order have been made is desirable
that the Senate should be consistent with itself have
the misfortune of differing from the Chair 10 the true
import of this 30h rule, and wish 10 state to the Senate
| in very few words, my understanding OF H. The rule
provides that /" no amendment proposing additional APP
preparations shall be received TO any general appropra-
ton bill,n except under certain circumstances. The
senator from Wisconsin proposed amendment which
did contain within il proposition for appropriation.
That the Chair ruled out OF order, and the Senate by
vote very nearly unanimous sustained the Chair in that
decision The senator from Wisconsin offers the very