The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-07-08
Forty-fourth Congress.
SENATE.

w hShIN"lONi July :.
During the morning hour the conference
report On the legislative, judicial and ex-
ecutive appropriation bill was discussed,
and at 10 O'Clock, when the impeachment
trial was resumed, on motion of Mr.. Ed
munds il was ordered that further proceed
ings in the trial be suspended for the pres
ent ia order that the conference report on
the appropriation bill might be considered.
Nj. Windham introduced bill extend
Jog and continuing for ten days days the
act to provide temporarily for the expend-
lures of the government. Refeared to the
committee on appropriations,
Mr.. Morrill, of Maine, from the confer.
ence committee on the legislative, Judicial
ry and executive appropriation bill, re-
ported that the committee were unable TO
agree, and moved that the senate agree to
the new conference asked for by the house.
In explanation Of the report Mr.. Morrill,
sent to the clerks desk and had read the
proposition Of the senate conferees as pre-
scented in the house yesterday. He said the
committee on appropriations of the senate
from the outset had been disposed to meet
every honest disposition on the part of the
house to decrease public expenditures. He
said the course of the house was revolu-
tionary. They introduced new legislation
into appropriation bills, and tried to force
it upon the senate.
The hour for taking up the impeach-
ment trial arrived and on motion of Mr..
Edmunds proceedings therein were sus-
pended for the present that the conference
report might be disposed of.
Mr.. Morrill, then continued his argu-
ment, saying that the house had reduced
the appropriations to the extent of $780,
600, 900 only, and as the senate committee
on appropriations had reduced them to the
extent of S22,0O0,OO0 the difference be-
them and the house was only eight million
dollars.
Mr.. Morrill, in conclusion reviewed at
length the various Appropriation bills.
Mr. Morton said the question before
the senate now was whether the house had
the right to say to the senate, "We will
refuse to make appropriations which the
general laws of the land require, unless you
consent to change the laws" He thought
that the proposition involved the principle
of notification pure and simple. 1t was
Just the position taken by South Carolina
in 1882. If either house of congress said
it would not make an appropriation un-
less the other house would consent to q
change in any law it was notification.
The house said to the senate, Repeal the
the election law or we will strike down
the army" If such principle as that
prevailed it would be the end of the two
houses OF congress. 1t was the old argu.
ment of "Your money or your life The
question was whether the senate should be
driven to certain legislation by threats to
destroy the government or any depart
ment OF the government.
Mr.. Thurman said so far as he knew and
| believed there was not senator in the
chamber who was not ready to vote on the
motion to grant a new conference when 1t
was made. The very air of this chamber
for the last two hours had been filled with
alarm and notification. What ground ex-
listed for all this ? Who had made any
threat to destroy the government ? The
house in the exercise of its constitutional
right had reduced the appropriations for
the government. Who was authorized to
say that was threat to coerce the senate
The senator from Indiana alluded to the
election law and said the house wanted il
repealed. How did it become a law if moi
in the midst Of the appropriation bill and
in this very senator