Morning journal and courier., 1880-02-20
Mr. oonkling aereed xith him and thought

MT. Conkling agreed with him and thought special committee unnecessary.
 MT. Bayard hoped 8 special committee would be appointed. The subject was of the greatest importance and deserved the exclu- slve consideration of 8 committee.
 At 1:4O p. m. MT. McDonald called for the regular order, being the per cent. bill Mr. Merrill spoke against the bill
 Messrs. McMillan and Saunders spoke in favor of the bill. MT. Morgan favored defer ring the bill until the next session.
 At 4:15 the Senate proceeded to the consid- eratlon of executive session business, and ad-
 journed at 5:55 p. m.
 HoUsE.-Mr. Blackburn endeayored to dis
 pense with the morning hour, so as to proceed
 immediately with the consideration of the
 rules, but was unable to obtain two-thirds'
 vote, and the House resumed the bill regulat-
 ing the removal of causes from State to Fed
 eral courts. The morning hour expired and
 the bill went over withouk action.
 The House then went into committee on
 the revision of the rules. MT. Stephens
 asked leave to speak for ten minutes, as
 the debate had been closed. Con
 sent was refused by the ~Democrats.
 To accomplish this MT. Conger moved that
 the committee rise for the purpose of going
 into committee on the state of the union.
 The motion to rise was carried by 1O1 to 99.
 The House then went into committee again
 and MT. Stephens attacked the policy of put
 ting riders on bills. He thought great prin-
 ciple was involved in rule 21, and he favored
 amendments which would prevent riders. He
 did not believe such legislation was according
 to Democratic doctrine, the doctrine of Madi-
 son or Jefferson, that appropriation bills should be encountered by any other legislation than appropriations (applause on the Repub- Hcan side.) He was against riders so called upon appropriation bills. In this he was insisting on nothing but what the advance in political science has arrived at. In his expe- rience of fifteen years as Congressman be- fore the late separation and war the most mis- chfevous of all legislation came by riders as amendments on appropriation bills. So great was that evil that the members of the old Congress who met in Montgomery to make a new constitution, one of the great works, as they thought, was to put in that fundamental law clauses to meet this. He then quoted from the Confederate constitution to show tion bills, and he would be glad to see the same principle incorpor- ated in the federal constitution. He did not believe in tacking on riders to force redress of grievances and compel the Executive to.sign 8 bill. His opinion on that subject was very clearly given out not to the world, but to the Democratic caucus when the scheme was tried at the extra session. He was opposed to it then and was opposed to it now, and should ever be!opposed to such tack ing on of legislation (applause on the Repub lican side).
 The consideration of the rules was then resumed. MT. Warner of Ohio, of- fered an amendment that it shall be in order to reduce the expenditure of money authorized and required by existing law and covered by bill and to change the law only to the extent necessary to make it conform to such reduction. This was adopted as satis- factory to the Republicans and some of the Democrats.
 MT. Robeson, of New Jersey, moved to amend by inserting certain words SO as to make the clause read: 'sNor shall any pro- vision in any such bill or amendment thereto changing the effect of the existing law be in order" This was adoptep by a vote of 115 to 43, and the effect was to strike out MT. Warmers amendment previous y adopted.
 MT. Warmers amendment having, been stricken out, the Democrats who had been acting with the Republicans thought they had lost ground and turned in and voted for the amendment offered by MT. Morrison, which practically leaves the third clause as it is at present.
 The twenty-frst rule having been passed, the House at 4:45 adjourned.