The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-11
clearly dictated by reason and impregnably

clearly dictated by reason and impregnably |
by authority.
Now, In reference TO the tecopd require |
ment. Does tho amendment rotrenoh ex'
nendltures IN either OF the three ways point
ed out In The ruler
The chair will have tho clark read the
clause OF the bill which the amendment
proposes 90 strike out,
The CLERK read rs follows; For pay OF I'VE
| dian inspectors, st 81 800 per apnum,
sl2 $50
TAe Cnalrman-I( the amendment be
agreed to. tina, clause Is stricken out, aud
he chair has no difficulty "a holding tast
Ia that way retrenohment Is ouecsed by
the "rgduotlon Of the amounts OF money
covered by TIVE bill.n PROFESSIONALLY the
amendment rirlkes from the bill an item OF
sl25 SOC.
But il Is said, and on this point the chair
desires TO BE- definitely Understood, that
the amendment involves two proportions,
one being the proposition TO ttrl Ike out ana
tho other being proposition To insert mat
the former proposition does retrench ex'
penditure. while the latter does not. To
ias, position tho ready answer is that
motion 10 ftrike out aud insert, under the
rules OF this house, Is indiysiole.
But IL IN said further that the matter
and that seems 10 be the point most strongly
relied on by some geutlemen-that the
poses to insert contains two distinct and
Independent propositions, that one o! these
propositions Is obnoxious TO the rule and
and therefore the whole amendment Is
vitlated. Aud in support OF this ruling
l. cited, made during the last congress- The
Jerk will read the ruling.
Ine clerk resd as follows; TAe chair now
hollis that point OF order against sub
stantiva provision which upon its face has
no relation 90 the amount which is reduced
IN another substantive proposition 10 well
taken. Ia this case the amendment en-.
hracs. two propositions. One ~ 10 reduce
the amount covered by the bill. TO that
substantive proposition point ~ ORDER
will not 10 because IL Is within the
rule. But es tas second ropostiou-that
"it shall rot be lawful for any contractor
hereafter 20 sublet bis contract, but he
shall be required 90 fulfill the same &C.
cordinc 10 LAWS not Il necessary part OF
the reduction OF the amount covered By
the bill, point OF order will lie against H.
The chair holds that under the rule point
OF order may be made against any substan'
tive provision not directly connected with
the amount covered by the bill.
The Char mAr-No1, tho chair thinka he
Is not in antagonism with this ruling. but
comedies that if an amendment contains
two independent aubsIontiye propositions,
one OF which reirenohes expenditures, while
would be fatal 10 tho whole
Amendment. AZ least until Il Ia 40 perfected
az 10 he cnred of the vice.
su,h. In the opinion OF the chair, Ia not
tho case win the present Amendment.
What is the Amendment? Simply thit:
n pronoses 10 deyo We on certain military
officers dnries now performed by five In.
dian inspectora. and thereafter the employ
ment of these Indian inspectors shsll cease
and he delermined. The chairman submits
that thee two clauses. the ono which pro-
viIes for deyolylng on certain military Off
cars certain duties now performed hy ia.
spsctora, ard The other. with terminates
the emnlovment of these inspectors. are not
independent spbstantiye propositions, but
are conpruous and coherent parts OF one
nroposition.
Tns cnsir feels that he nigh. 20 further
and safely assert chat one OF these clauses
which provides for the Termination OF the
emnlovment of The inspsctols. IL the neces.
ssry and inseparable Incident 10 tho other.
which transfers Tho duties of the insoectors
TO the army officers.
mt to nresent The matter In vel another
nsuect. the proposition OF the amendment
Ia 10 carry on a particular and existing
branch Of the Indian service, Now. il the
to clansea be separetei. that is. If Inc
ri ause which deyolves upon army officers
'.s", V''o' - s'.~a
tne uuli' . uon pS',p me- " to p,h.
loiS - oiihh.ue tao p.SPNSI We