Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-01-14
NASHVILLE. TENN. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY IA, 1874

to propose to the House the measure which
the House had passed, and for which the
Senate had adopted a substitute. He pro
posed to accent that eupstittite as salts
sidtory solution of the vexed question. He
did not propose to lead iG ~ .fe measure. but
wou..S1 yield the floor to the chairman Of
the select committee, 10 which the House
had originally referred the subject.
Mr.. Hale of Maine said, that in order to
bring the House to a vote on the bill with
out further complications, he would move
that the House concur iIi the Senate sub
stitute, and on that moved the previotis
question.
MesSrs. Butler and Dawes each desired
to offer or indicate some amendment, but
Mr.. Hale insisted ON the previous question
because If the House shoald begin TO make
changes in the bill, it would drift nobody
knew where and the whole subject be open
again. The bill is now nearlyia clean,
thorough, substantial repeal of the increase
last session, and he believed the House
could not do better than take it.
r.ECOx stated that he and many others
were opposed to both the Senate and House
bills, and desired to nun-cOncur in order
TO get better law.
COncurred i'm.
The previous question was seconded by
126 to 81 and the substitute was agreed to
by yeas 226 to nays %.
MThe bill now goes to the President for
approval.
The votes in the negative were given by
MeSsrs. Albert, Averill, Barry Clymer, Cox,
Grassland, Hays, Hines, Kelley, Kendall,
Lamison, Morey, Negley, Plat, Randall,
Shanks. Sloss, Standeford. Storm, Stowell.
Todd, waldeii, White, Whitley and VIII
liams of Indiana.
Parliamentary Abuses.
Mr. Garfield from the Committee on
Rules, reported a rule proposed originally
by Mr.. Holman, requiring that all bills
making appropriations Of money or proper
ty, or requiring such appropriations to be
made, or authorizing payment out of apprO-
priations already made, shall be first con
sidered in the Committee of the Whole.
The speaker in the course of discussion
stated the necessity of the proposed bill.
The existing rule on the subject, establish
ed in 1894, required all proceedings touch
ing appropriations of money to be discuss
ed in the Committee of the Whole, and if
that rule werebefore the House without hay-
Tic COilSliuOtAOAl gwen W IL Aoa
many years past, the chair would rule that
it embraced everything covered by the pro-
posed change. But that rule had received
a series of constructions which had, to a
large extent nullified the safeguard of
that rule. Bills were frequently
brought in involving an appropriation to be
subsequently made or be paid out OF some
appropriation already made, both being very
clear palpable evasiOns of the spirit Of the
rule of 1874. The scope Of the proposed
rule was to cure those defects, so that when
ever proposition involves a payment from
the public purse il shall be and of right
ought to be discussed in a Committee Of
the Whole. 1t was an invaluable improve
ment on present practice.
This rule was adopted and the House en-
tered into discussion on the right of mem
Der who had voted but was not so recorded
to have his vO.e entered after the result
had been announced, the Speaker ruling in
the negative and several members arguing
| to the contrary.
Adjourned, leaving the question to bt
| finally settled tomorrow.