Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1882-12-14
NO. so.
If so, requesting that specifications be fur

if SO, requesting that specifications be fur
nished.
Mr.. kasson of Iowa advocated 81
| amendment in the phraseology of
resolution, contending that the secretary
OF war ccsld not report that any work
was unnecessary, as every brook was OF
local Importance.
MIR. Horr, of Michigan, thought Kas-
sons statement of the case visionary.
MIR. Page said the river and harbor bill
was a good thing, despite the fact that
"howhng demagogues" had cried it down
The secretary of war ought to be REQUIRED
to explain why he did not send in the en-
glneers estimates for the work of next
| year.
Mr.. Cox, of New York, in = ferv
speech, opposed the resolution. He told
Mr.. Page that the howling demagogues
seemed to have had the majority in his
(Pase,s) district, and, in fact, they had a
| majority all over the country. The peo-
pie had set the seal of their disapproyaI
on the river and harbor bill. Those river
and harbor bill members who were not re-
elected criticised the president severely
tor vetolng the last river and harbor bill
Mr.. McLane called attention to the fact
that, because New York had twenty-seyen
feet of water in her harbor, she objected
to the Improvement of the harbors of
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Mobile, New
Orleans and Galveston. Applause. If
there ever was veto which deserved to
be overridden is was the veto of the har-
Dor bill by the honorable gentleman who
now holds his seat at the end of the ave
nue.. That veto offers you no opposition
to the principle of the bill. That veto
tells you that the amount is too great.
Whose business is it to regulate the
amount when the principle is right? II
to improve navigation and commerce be a
wise policy, must not congress say how
much money shall be expended? For the
president to take no exception TO bill
except that we give more money than he
would deprives him of the respect which
our judgments ought to render TO him.
And the more so when he follows that
veto with an annual message in which he
tells us that may be some of the objects
will require further appropriations. If
the money has not been expended, whose
fault is it? And if the executive has
taken it upon himself not to expend the
money, what excuse can he offer? His
statement that $17.000,000 are still on
hand is fallacious.
Mr.. Kasson-I understood the gentle
man to blame the president for vetoing
the bill for the largeness of the appro-
priation.
Mr.. McLane-That did.
Mr.. Kasson-In other words, the presi-
dent should expend all that is appropri-
ated?
Mr.. McLane is another question
l challenge the gentleman to Justify any
preaidppt rxhn nsoc his
congress has appropriated the money.
Mr.. Kasson-I accept the challenge
and say that | will support any president.
republican or democratic, in expendin v
as little as he can, unless required by an
express law to expend it. General Grant
took the ground of discretion, and. fur
tner than that, President Arthur, contra
fy to the statement of the gentleman
vetoed the bill on the grounds of extraya-
gance, and also because it apprcp rated
for objects not within the constitutional
limitations.
Mr.. Cox enquired whether McLane
meant to say that the representatives
from New York were influenced in their
action by the railroad interests L?
Mr.. McLane replied that he h ad not
addressed himself TO that question.
Messrs. Townshend, of Illinois, Ather-
ton, and others asserted that the papers of
the west, as well as the press of New
York. had opposed the river and harbor
bill, and Mr.. Robson suggested, in ex.
planatiOn, that the great lines of railway
run to Chicago and st. Louis, and Incl
dentallY mentioned that there were
eight railroads In his district.
Mr.. Co1-And then you didn't get
through.
The discussion, which had been carried
on amid great noise and confusion, here
elcsed.
The house adopted the Page resolution.
MONDAY, DEC. IL.
SeaGts-At the clo3e of the morning hour
the senate took up the bankruptcy bill,
the question being on Browns motion
made on Saturday to postpone the subject
indefinitely. The debate ended. and at
half past two the senate refused bv vote
Of "a 10 26 to postpone indefinitely, and
by vote of "a 10 80 adopted the Lowell
bill introduced by Hoar as a substitute for
the one reported by Ingalls, of the judi
ciary committee.
On motion of Sherman the bill was sent
to the judiciary committee for revision.
The following is q vote on Browns mo-
ton to postpone indefinitely the bank
ruptcy bill: