The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-04-29
House of Rcprc.cntntIvc.

and
House Of Representatives. Agreed TO.
-
House Of Representative.
Mr.. Banks Lib, Mass) introduced "A bill
to extend the scope aud efficiency Of the Home
stead law. Referred to the Committee on Pub
lie Llnds. lie said that he introduced 1t ut the
request Of n very large number Of people In dir
iercnt states, mechanics, persons engaged In
M ming and manufacturing pursuits. Sc He
added thai these people sought the aid OF the
Government to enable them to emigrate to the
agricultural and mining districts of the frontier
win their families IN communities or settle
mcnts' AFTER the manner proposed by Dr. Frank
lin In the settlement Of Pennsylvania. und as
more recently adopted with success IN Mexico
ana the most PROSPEROUS States OF South
the speaker laid before the House a cominu-
nicniion from the Sergeant-at-Arms. with the
decision at tho Chief Justice of the Sunreme
Court OF the District OF Columpia. dlschargtnz
from custody Hal.t, kilbourn, the recusant
witness. Referred to the Judiciary Committee.
ON motion Of Mr.. Lord Dem. n. " pcrnis-
sion WAS given to the Managers ~ the nelkuap
impeachment to examine rs witnesses on the
trial any member Of the Committee ON Expendi-
lures IN tie W IT Department. or any member II
tue House whose testimony they may deem
requisite.
The House then proceeded to vote on thew
rious amendments TO the Legislative Approprla-
ton bill, All those amendments on which a
separate vote was not askedl were agreed to in
bulk. The first amendment on which a separate
vote was taken WIS one offered by W. Hurlbut
(tep., I'D increasing the compensation OF Terri
torial Judges from e. 800 to $3,OO0 ii was re-
jected, 80 TO 10.
The next vote was on the amendment offered
by Mr Caldwell dem, Ala appropdatine SJ.UU
for the collection of AGRICULTURAL statistic. Re
Jected.
POINT OF oRDIR.
Mr.. Scelvc Rep.. Mass.) made a point " order
on section T. which transfers the Indian Bureau
from the Interior Department to the War De-
partmeut lie argued that II coutradictrI the
following rule. adopted on Jan. L. 1876: Nor
snail any provision In nnv sucn bill or amend
ment thereto changing existing law ne In order
ID n aFAF .tasF
matter Of the i'll shall retrench expenditure"
TINS was n change Of existing law and white he
did not raise the point OF order that u would he
a manifest extravaganza aud increase Of expcn-
diture although lie believed that II would bel.
he submitted that IL was not manifestly for the
retrenchment of expenditure, and was not ger
man To the Appropriation bill.
Nr. Randall Dem, Pa) argued that the sec
ton came not only within the spirit, but within
the letter Of the law. 1t was . retrenchment.
and SO aupearcd ON its face, because It contained
these words: The OfliCe OF the Commit ioncr
OF Indian An IFS IL hereby abolished" lie
quoted from the minortyreport OF the Commit
Mr.. Seclye. in which II was stated that the
transfer would at least save the salaries Of In
| dian agents. amounting possibly to $4,000. lie
thought that the saving OF SljO0 90 brought the
section within the spirit and letter Of the rule.
! so that, ID he, Tout Of your own mouth / con
MIR. Garfield Glep., Ohio argued that there
| was nothing In the bili Itself on which TO hang
this section, nor was there anything on Its face
TO show the speaker that II was Ia the line Of
| economy.
Mr.. Banks (Iib., Mass said that the question
| before tn Speaker Was simple and ye- most
| mi urtant one. proposition Tor Tetrench-
ment was IN order, So that retrenchment was
| the point In Issue Retrcnchment had To be eN-
pressed IN ngures either In the bill Itself IN rela-
ton To other propositions, or Ia the bill In rein
ton to existing laws. There was no use In talk
ing IS t. wat his colleague (-eeyel or any one
| else admitted or as to what was inferred. The
Speaker could not act ON differences ON this
question. lie could not evade and DESTROY all
| the protection which the House had IA regard
10 legislation on differences. The Ietreuchment
must pear in sums "a figures. IL was inpos
slble for the Speaker TO assume that one system
or the other would cost more or less.
Mr.. Cox dem, y. YJ.said that he had had the
honor OF reporting 10 the House the rule on
which this section was sought 10 be sustained,
but lie h al never dreamed that the rule would
have so loose an Interpretation as had been given
10 IL. He argued that the section was not germ u
to an appropriation bill at all and in the next
place no one, unless gifted with presctencc
could tell whether or not IL was retrenchment
Mr., Wood dem, y. " expressed his surprise
that his two intelligent friends from Massachu-
sets (hessrs SeelSe aud Banks and his iutelli-
gent colleague (Mr. Cox could not see In this
section proposition OF economy. He did not
understand how they could view proposition
to abolish public Office Ind to impose lis dates
on other existing officers as not beng PROPOSE
ton Of rctrenchment.
TUE spEAKERs RULING.
Alter further argument, the speaker an
nouuced his decision. He SAID that he nad been
more than willing TO hear the somewhat loug
discussion on the point OF order bee luee IL " az
n itself novel and intrinsicay very important
to the House aud to the country. lie COME ssed
TO a feeling OF embarrassment IN ruling on the
point II was not free from doubt on the con
trary, 1t was very much involved ana compli-
Gated. Bur, as II WIS his duty to make a ruling,
he would us briefly as possible state the reasons
which controlled him. Could he go outside of
be the eject OF the section or
was 1t his duty TO limit his inquiry
land, and the parliamentary rules ana usages of
the House? In his Judgment the latter VAS the
range Of his investigation, and he could not
urouery 60 beyond those three considerations.
Much had been said upon the question whether
ject matter OF the bill was indicated in its title
nut II Was further to regulate the salaries
Of officers, and In some instances to
retrench expenditures by the abolition Of
other words, the subject matter OF the bill
was 50 comprehensive that in pis judgment IL
could not be very foroioy said that a section
proposing the abolition Of numerous offices was
not german. The Chair, therefore, was not en-
barrassed as to whether the secHon was german
OF not. His embarrassment arose out OF the
substance Of the rule. Did this section rettench
expenditures2 In answering that inquiry the
CHAIR could only look at the section, and the
law, and the Parliamentary rules and usages Of
the House. There WAS no provision In the bill
for the practical management of the Indi n
bureau wnen transferred; there was m regula-
ton or indication as to now the duties OF that
bureau, after It's change, should be performed or
by whom, otherwise than In general Ian
guage II was apparent on the face OF the
section that tho section itself contemplate
ed further aud important legislation on
the same subject matter, Ia other words, the
section, II embodied in the bill, would not ac-
COmplish the OBJECT intended by IT'S friends
without the aid OF additional legislation. Tho
inquiry then REQUIRED, " Did this section re-
trench expenditures, and did that appear on ITS
face = lie might admit that the abolition Of an
Oiice was retreuchment Of expenditures, and 4
such abolition were begun and completed in
this bill he would have no hesitation In holding
that such an BOLTON did accomplish re.
trenchment OF expenditures There would he
no doubt upon tie point. lie might also hold
that 10 was the intention OF the section TO re-
quire the duties which were now performed by
Indian agents to be performed by other persons,
without additional Compensation but that fact
did not appear; that was not perfected result
that would follow tue enactment Of this section (;
nothing could result from II, except by the AID
of further and direct legislation.
Mr.. Rand II suggested that the section trans.
ferfinE the bure ~ stood on Us own feet, and
needed no farther legislation.
Mr. Hamilton Cten., N.J.) sid that the lam
guage Of tho serupu WIS pr, ci~,lt the Same as
that hY which the Indian liucuu was tr rs
ferred nom tho War Deyartmeut to Tue Indian
Departments.
sir. Il ul.s objected to the Speaker being IN
terruIted.
Thg POINT or ORDER srSTAlSLD.
The speaker, rcsumng said tn me- nod heard
with great pleasure the suggestions Of tur l'rl-
ueman from fenus. wanna auJ aIpIsci4l.1