The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-07-20

WARM WORK In CONGRESS,
SENATORS INVENTING NEW
DEFINITIONS OF ECONOMY.
Morrill, Calling it Revolution, and
Morton Notification.

the act so recently passed 10 proVlue
temporarily for the expenditures of the
Government. Referred to the Commit
tee on Appropriations.
Mr.. Morrill, (Rep,) said a Conference
Committee had come to mean the will OF
one House of Congress, and only one.-
On such ground the Conference was i'm
practicable, because there could be but
one side to the question. AS long as the
House of Representatives insisted only,
the Senate must consent to a conference,
but when the House got so far as to ad-
here, there would be revolution, absolute
revolution, defiance of law and that
must revolutionize this country. The
Senate conferees had met the House hall
way, and if any more could be done con-
sistent with the integrity of the Senate,
he would be glad if some one here or
elsewhere would proclaim it.
Mr.. Thurman said this debate seemed
to him to be an impeachment of the
whole House of Representatives, and he
did not know when it would end. 1t had
been charged that the House of Repre-
sentatives was revolutionary.
Mr.. Morrill, declined to yield further.
He admitted that there had been ltgis-
lative provisions in appropriation bills,
but it had been by the consent of both
Houses of Congress. The house Of Con-
gress proposing new legislation was the
innovating party, and, in case Of the
other house refusing to agree 10 it, it was
the duty Of the innovating house to with
draw it. The House and Senate were
not divided upon the question of clerks
salaries, but upon the general power un-
dertaken by the House to be exercised
over the Senate.
WHAT MORTON CALLS MULTIPLICATION.
Mr. Morton (Rep. Ind.) said the ques-
ton before the Senate now was, whether
the House of Representatives had the
right to say to the Senate, "We will re-
fuse to make the appropriations which
the general laws of the land require, un-
less YOU consent to change those laws"
He thought that 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 il would not make
an appropriation unless the other House
would consent to a change in any law
it was notification. The House said to
the Senate, "Repeal the Election Law or
we will strike down the army" If such
principle as that prevailed, it would be
an end to the two Houses of Congress-
1t was the olu argument of your money
or your life. The question was whether
the Senate should be driven to certain
legislation by threat to destroy the Gov
ernment, or any. department Of the gov
ernment. That was not an argument ad-
dressed to the reason of Senators, but to
their fears. 1t seemed to him that no
Senator could for one moment entertain
such argument.
Mr.. Thurman Dem. Ohio said, so far
as he knew and believed, there was not
a Senator in the chamber who was not
ready to vote on motion to grant new
conference when it was made. Had the
question been taken on the motion, then
it would have been unanimously adopt
ed, and the Senate would have gone on
in its quiet way. The very air of this
chamber for the last two hours had been
filled with alarm and notification. What
ground existed for all this? The House
of Representatives, in the exercise of its
constitutional right, had reduced the ap-
propriations for the government Who
was authorized to say that was threat to
COerCe the Senate?
MORTON REBUKED.
The Senator from Indiana, Morton, al
luding to the election law, and said the
House wanted it repealed. How did it
become law, if not in the midst of an
appropriation bill, and in this very SEN
ate? He argued that the House of Rep
resentatives had the right to submit this
legislation, and said if the Senator from
Indiana, (Morton) called this nullifica-
ton, what right had the two Houses of
Congress to put legislation into an appro-
priation bill and force it upon the Presi-
dent for signature. Such language as
used here to-day was idle alarm, and ex-
traordinary in the Senate at this time
1t was more like stump speeches than
ANYTHING else. He admitted it was a
vicious practice to put legislation upon
appropriation bills, but it had been done
by all parties. He remembered when a
certain Andrew johnson was President
of the United States, more than once he
was compelled to swallow distasteful leg
islation or let appropriations bill fall
There was no notification in the present
action of the House of Representatives,
and there was no disrespeCt toward the
Senate on the part of the House. He ar
gued that case might exist where the
Senate or House would be justified in
withholding appropriations for the army
and navy. Each House must upon its
own judgment. ,
Mr.. Morton said the election law was
put upon an appropriation bill, but it
was by the consent of both branches OF
Congress. When the House said it would
not pass the appropriation bill unless the
Senate would do so, it was notification.
Mr.. Thurman said notification was
like good many other terms now faun-
ted in the face of the people, full of
sound and fury, and meant nothing
What was the use of talking as if we
stood upon a volcano? No one had a
right to suppose that one house of Con
gress was less patriotic than the other
He then referred to the remarks of Mr..
Morrill,, and said he must say there was
something of vehemence and passion in
his manner this morning, which did not
look like peace conference, and when
it was followed up by talk about nulli'
fication, he did not understand the scene
enacted here to-day,
Mr.. Logan (Rep. ILL., said he agreed
with the Senator from Indiana (Morton)
that the action of one branch of Congress
in saying it would not agree to appropri-
alton bills unless the other would agree
to change a certain law, was both nulli-
fication and revolution. He denied that
the House had the sole right to originate
appropriation bills, and said if the Sen
ate should put upon an appropriation
bill any legislation which did not meet
the assent Of the House of Representa-
tives, he would vote at once to withdraw
It. The action of the House of Repre-
sentatives in the present case was to
make little capital before the country |
L. IT -, ~ ,.,Orl1 stow hnrp until the |