The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1880-06-12

| filling of the canal from Seventh street west Il
Seventeenth street west and of the cost of the in
tercept1ng sewer along the canal adjoining tn
| property of the United States government, sait
york being gZ under the direction Of the Board
| be necessary; Prorided That all payments mad
under this and the preceding appropriation shall b.
made only upon vouchers approved by the officer il
charge OF the public buildings and grounds of the
| District.
| Mr.. Ambler-I make the point of order tha
| the appropriation contained in the paragraph
| just read is not authorized by any existing law
| Mr.. Garfield of Ohio-The gentleman il
mistaken about that Congress appointed 6
board of canal commissioners who were pro
ceeding to fill up the canal, but when the bill
creating government for the District and es.
tablishing the board of public works was pass
ed, it was specifically provided that all the
duties heretofore discharged by the canal COM
missioners under the provisions of the law re-
ferred to, should be transferred to the board OF
public works. Hence for the purpose of filling
the canal and making the Improvements of the
public property in connection with it, the
members of this board have become officers OF
the government of the United States.
The chairman-The chair overrnles the
point of order.
Mr.. Ambler-Then move to strike out the
paragraph. 1t seems to me, Mr.. Chairman,
that, taking into consideration what suppos G
we have all seen as to the manner in whic h
the work is being done, it is not proper for the
government of the United States to place it,
self in the position of bearing proportion of
these expenditures. Many other gentlemen
here are doubtless better advised upon the sub
than l am, but have been shown a wall at
the western end of the canal which l am told
is to be pulled down and the filling work done
again. 1t seems to me that if we are to pay a
proportion OF the expense of carrying on these
assumed improvements, we ought i'll some
manner to have some control of the improve
+1o, hA
carried out.
Mr. Garfield of Ohio-These works are
wholly our own. The filling up of the canal
adds very large portion OF land to the public
property, and it has manfestly increased the
value of our public grounds to far greater
amount than the expense which it is proposed
the government shall bear; certainly we are
bound by all equitable rules to pay for the i'm
provement of our properly.
Mr.. McGrew-I wish TO inquire OF the Com
mittee on Appropriations whether the city of
Washington does not claim that this canal is
the property of the city?
Mr.. Garfield of Ohio-There has been a
claim of that sort; but it is now utterly
waived g.t
The question being taken on the motion of
Mr. Amber, there were ayes 80, noes 40: no
quorum voting.
Tellers were ordered, and Mr.. Amber and
Mr. Garfield of Ohio were appointed
The committee divided; and the tellers re-
pOrted-ayeS 40; noes 10. H
So the motion was not agreed to.
Mr.. Randall move to amend by adding to
the pending paragraph the following:
And that no portion of the money herein appro
prated shall be used by the Board of Public Works
for any other purpose whatever than the purpose
named in this paragraph.
I want to cut off any possibility of transfer
of this appropriation. f
Mr.. Garfield of Ohio-That is all right.
The amendment was agreed to.
This official record of the proceedings in
Congress discloses no less than seven serious
errors in the Argus report of the same tram
saction-errors which completely transform
and pervert all the material facts.
l.. One of the two apr ropriations had moth
ing whatever to do with the De Golyer pave
ment. 1t was an appropriation to pay for
filling up the stagnant old canal, which was
then poisoning the air of Washington with
malaria.
2. The appropriation of 1892 O5O was not to
pay the cost of paving the streets and avenues
Of Washington, but the proportional part of
that cost assessed upon buildings and grounds
owned by the United States at the same rates
which was applied to private property. The
United States is a large landowner in Wash
ington, and the only question was, whether the
United States would pay its part of the cost of
paving as all taxpayers IN the city were COM
PEELED to.
8. Mr.. Garfield did not eulogize the Board
of Public Works.
4. Mr.. Garfield did not reply to Mr.. Ran
dall's question, whether the appropriation for
paving should be entrusted to the Board, but
allowed the vote to be taken without remark.
And Mr.. Randall did not call for the yeas and
nays.
5. When Mr.. Randall suggested that the ap-
preparation for filling up the canal should be so
guarded that it could not be used for any other
purpose Mr.. Garfield accepted the amend
ment. lie had no discussion whatever with
Mr.. Randall. ...,4r i,fl. 3l
6. The paving was not done after the appro-
priation was made, but before.
Z. Congress adjourned June 10. Mr.. Gar.
fields services as counsel were rendered after
the adjournment. the Argus says that he
simply wrote a paper recommending the De
Golyer pavement to the Board of Works But
the pavement was down the Goth of May; it is
absurd to pretend thar Mr.. Garfield was rec.
ommending it in the middle of June; and Mr..
Parsons says that the case was important, in
volving a large fee, and that he personally en-
ployed Mr.. Garfield to attend to it after the ad.
iournment of Congress.
In view of all these errors, it is evident that
our neghbor has been deceived. 1t is right to
inspect narrowly the character of q candidate
for an important office. If it were true that
Mr.. Garfield had sold his influence as chair
man of the committee of appropriations for 6
fee of $3.50, he would not be suitable candi
date for President. But if it is not true, if the
story is incoherent, inconsistent with known
facts, a mere patchwork of seven different
falsehoods, then certainly it ought not to stand
uncontradicted. Our neighbor has appealed
to the record. We have cited the record, ant
by the record Mr.. Garfield is acquitted.