The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1880-02-14
POLITICAL RIDERS.
The Debate in the House.
Four Independent Democrats.

The political debate which occurred Thurs
day, when that clause of the 21st rule was
reached which provides that no provision in
an appropriation bill shall be in order which
changes existing laws, excep, such as, being
germane to the subject matter Of the hill shall
retrench expenditures, was as sha p and ex-
cited as the most radical partisan could have
desired. 1t was rendered bitter upon the
Democratic side by the fact that Mr.. Speer Of
Georgia, an Independent Democrat, made q
caustic speech in advocacy of an amendment
to the clause prohibiting annexing political
riders to appropriation bills. Mr.. Speer who
is an independent, affiliating with Alexander
II. Stephens, Ben Hill and FELTON, in their
contest with Senator Gordon over the confirm
alton of Simmons to be supervisor of census for
Georgia, disagrees with the leader OF his par
ty upon several important questions, and is OBJ
stinate in his refusal to submit to the party
lash. He announced some time ago that he
intended to offer an amendment prohibiting
political riders, in defiance of the position oc-
cupied by his party, and his remarks in sup
mort of it were anticipated with interest. The
debate opened Thusrday with somel heated re-
marks from Harry White of Pennsylvania and
from Mr.. Conger in support of an amendment
made by Mr.. White formulating the Republi-
can opposition to riders They dwelt upon the
mischieyous effects OF the rule in enabling the
House to annex extraneous matters to appro-
priation bills which the President feels
obliged to eto, and in so doing defeats the ap-
preparation also, and thus the House dictates
to the rest OF the government. Mr.. Goode OF
Virginia claimed that it had been powerful
assistance in the attempt made by the Demo
cratic party to
EFFECT RETRENCHMEKr
and reform in the administration Of the gov
ernment. He claimed that it had enabled the
Democrats in Congress to effect saving of
$500, 100000 since their accession to power in
the House as well as remove from the statute
books obnoxious legislation. Mr.. Reed OF
Maine said he had neglected to name the most
important benefit conferred by it upon the
country, namely, the thorough airing it had
given the Democratic party before the country.
A proper exhibition of their intentions and
methods was enough for the people, who will
see at the next election that they no longer
have an opportunity and majority to abuse
this convenient rule. After some remarks
from other members, Mr.. Speer delivered the
most interesting speech of the day in support
OF his amendment, in which he arragned his
party for the way in which they used this rule
to embarrass the government and clog legisla-
tion by tacklng on political riders. He was in
the midst of description of a hypothetical
bill, appropriating for the support of the postal
service, upon which, under this rule, political
legislation which the Executive could not ap-
prove, would be annexed, thus making the
money necessary for the successful operation
of an important branch of the public service
dependent upon a violation by the PRESIDENT OF
his conscience and his convictions. Then his
ten minutes expired, and Mr. Coffroth of Penn
sylvania, q Democrat, objected to continu-
| ance of the remarks. So he sat down and wait
| ed an opportunity to finish his speech Mr..
Hawley Of Connecticut had prepared
A TABULAR STATEMENT
| Of the provisions of the constitutions and laws
of the various States upon this question of ex-
| traneous political legislation upon appropria-
| ton bills, and he declared that from it he found
| that 25 out of the 3S States forbade it by law
Mr.. Cox, of New York said he only favored po-
litical riders as means to effect the repeal of
| obnoxious laws passed in the form of riders.
| To Mr.. Reeds remarks that one of the 'bene-
| fits of the rule was the airing of the Democrat
| ic party" he replied that the people liked to
| have doctrines of economy and retrenchment
aired. Finally Mr. Speer got the floor again
| and finished his illustration and his remarks.
He condemned the Democrats for their action
in regard to this rule in no mild terms, and
| declared that, from the day when Madison and
| Hamilton wrote the Federalsts to the present,
1t has been the accented theory of political sci
| ence that liberty could only exist when execu-
/
| ly separate; but under the operation of these
| riders the House of Representatives dictates
| terms to the rest of the government, and re-
| strains necessary appropriations until its de-
mands shall be acceded to. His speech created
| a profound sensation and evoked much irrita-
| BILE criticism from Democratic members, but it
| did not stop with him. for, after a weak at
| tempt by Mr.. Blount of Georgia to refute er-
teD1pore what Mr.. Speer had carefully elabo-
| rated, Mr.. Mills of Texas another indepen-
| dent, followed in fiery speech OF the same
tenor as that Of Mr.. Speer's. Mr.. Whitthorne
! of Tennessee opposed the rule as reported. He
| spoke earnestly in favor Of Mr. Speer's amend
| ment. These Democrats reiterated Mr. Gar
| fields assertion that this rule was the rock on
which the Democratic party split. After some
| debate, Mr.. Mcmahon of Ohio one of the lead
ers of the Democracy, rose to support the posi-
tion OF his party and rebuke the spirit Of revolt
| exhibited by Messrs Speer and Mills. He said
| Speer ought to
SHAKE IN HIS BOOTS,
when he heard the applause of the Republi-
cans. He reproved his forwardness in attempt
ing, while so young, to instruct the leaders of
his party. Mr. Speer interrupted him to say,
almost in the words of Pitt: II am young, but
l hope am not one of those whose folies do
not cease with their youth" Mr.. Mcmahon
said this rule was one of the bulwarks of re-
trenchment and reform, and he begged to say
to Mr.. Speer that REIMBURSEMENT of it would
be fatal to Democratic success in the next
Presidential campaign. An amendment, Of
fered by Mr.. Garfield as a substitute for Mr..
Speer's, providing for the striking out of any
sum in an appropriation bill, or the insertion
of a less sum, was voted down by tie vote
121 to 12l, Speer, FELTON,, Whitthorne and
Mills voting with the Republicans in favor of
it. After further debate an amendment OF
fered by another Democrat, Mr.. Warner OF
Ohio, was adopted by a ote of 124 to 70. II
provides that no change amendment shall
be made in an appropriation bill, except that
| 1t shall be In order to rP0uce amOunfS Of m
ey provided for by existing law and covered by
the bill. The long and acrimC nious debate was
cut short by motion to adjourn, and will moi
be renewed until Monday,