The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1885-12-24

with an argument in opposition to the abolition of
the clause of the new rule known as the Holman
amendment, which enables legislation to be en-
grated on Apr DpriatIon bills II 1t Is in the in
terest of economy He maintained that before the
adoption of this amendment general legislation
was placed IN nearly every appropriation Dill, ana
generally in the direction of extravaganza. He
argued that the Holman amendment instead Of
having been as evil as contended by its enemies
had saved to the people who pGid taxes many mil
lions of dollars. After warning the democratic
psrty not to exchange rule which prohlOlted leg
lation, except in the interest of economy,
for one which would allow legislation which would
increase expenditures, he passed to the question
whether appropriation bills should be distributed
While he admitted that the river and harbOr fort1-
cations and District of Columbia appropriation
bills might appropriately be given to committees
haveng Jurisdiction of these subjects ne argued that
other bills coud not be distributed without causing
great confusion and disorder in the methods of ap-
preparation.
Mr. WeIlborn of Texas, confined his remarks to
the discussion of the distribution feature of the re-
port and made strong argument in its support,
disclamng, however, any purpose to criticize the
committee ON approprlau0ns W1lcn was
composed of men of ability and honesty
Under the present rules the destnies of 6O,OUO,OOO
of people who inhabited the country, so Tar as
those destinies were affected by law were In the
hands of fifteen members of this house, practically
and virtually subject to their control. The other
committees even the great ways and means COM
mittee. were subordinated to the appropriation
committee. For instance, the committee on judi
ciary, formerly so powerful, was to-day but hum
BILE grave in which was buried some of the greatest
! legal talent in the world. He was much struck by
| the statement made by the gentleman from New
York (HisCOck that while chairman of the commit
tee on appropriations he held back appropriation
bills in order to force the passage OF two tax bills
which he considered wise legislation. The gentle
man had said he had the power to do this and had
evidence of that power. His (WellbOrn s. opinion
was, that this power, however wisely, however
fairly exercised, was power which no man and no
set of men shou exercise on this floor With all
respect for gentlemen who were voting Tor a con-
tnuance of the power of the committee on appro-
priation he submitted that power was not only in
antagOniSm but utterly subversTe OF the represen-
tatiye principles upon which not only the house,
but all free institutions were constructed. rms
condition of things ought not to be perpetuated a
! day longer. The house had been told that great
inconvenience and evil would follow from dislri-
button of the. appropriation bills; Concedlng 1or
! the sake OF argument that that was true,
yet he gave it his deliberate judgment that it
would be better to submit to the evils than to sub
nit to the domination of the house by handful OF
| members. Applause. He vigorously opposed
the idea that power should be centralized, even II
it was asked in the interest of unity and harmony.
| The founders of the government had built upon a
noble principle Theirs had been grand cOncep-
tiOn-that of a representative democracy. In the
realization of this grand conception there existed
! to-day the American government, for which the
| past furnishes model, and the future would
never be able to copy Other men might vote to
| continue the power of the appropriations commit
tee but, for himself his voice would be raised and
his cast to su)vert rather than perpetuate the
mischieyouS domination. Applause
Mr.. Blount, of Georgia, thought the real issue
had not yet been presented in the debate. The pro-
per remedy to take away from the committee
| AUTHORIZATION the power TO put a single leglS-
lative proposition upon the appropriation bill and
then give to other committees the right to secure
action the important business reported by them.
| He believed that the committee on appropriations,
if it had no power to place legislation upon appro-
priation bills it could report them at an early day.
The explanation OF the power exercised by the sen
ate the house to be found in the fact that
appropriation bills were not reported at an early
period in the session Referring to HiscOck S
statement to withholding appropriation bills in
order to force action upon other measures, he con-
tended that if that were true the distribution OF ap
preparation bills would extend that power to nine
| committees of the house, each of which would
keep bill in its pocket until the passage of some
| other measure.
Without concluding general debate the house ad-
| jCurned until tomorrow.
| WASHINGTON, December 17.-After reading the
journal the newly elected senator from Oregon, Mr..
Mitchell, was sworn in.
| The chair laid before the senate letter from the
secretary of the treasury, transmitting the report
of the superintendent of the coast and geodetic
| survey
! Mr. Hoar from the committee on privileges and
elections, reported favorably the bill to fix day
for the meeting of electors for president and vice
president and to provide for and regulate the count
ing of the vote for presiient and vice pre- ldent
! and the decisions of the Questions arising there
| from.
Mr. Hoar said he would call up the bill immediate
vi after the disposal of the presidential succession
bill and the blu fixing district judges salary. The
! bill went to the calendar.
The chair laid before the senate the resolution of
Mr. Butler, relative to the alleged organization of
the territory of Dakota into state, and the alleged
election of United States senator's
Mr. sHarrison-The efforts of Dakotalare per
| fec.ly respectful to the United States. Its con-
sttution has fully recognized the authority of the
! United States, and stayed the hand of new state
| organization until the constitution should be
| approved by congress.
| Mr.. Butler inquired by what authority United
| States senator had been elected in Dakota.
Mr.. Harrison replied that senators had hereto
fore been elected under precisely similar circumJ
stances. :
Mr. Butler remarked that if the proceedings in
| Dakota were regular and proper, no one would
more quickly recognize the fact than himself. He
had offered the resolution to ascertain the facts.
Mr. Butler inquired whether Harrison would sus-
tain action by the territory of Utah similar to the
recent action of Dakota.
Mr. Harrison replied that he would, but reserved
| to congress the power to approve or dlsapprove
| their constitution and that power was recognized
and admitted by Dakota.
| Mr. Mcmillan said Minnesota had been admitted
to the union without any enabling act, and demo-
cratic senators had always been ready to take their
seats Immediately upon the passing of an act OF
After further debate the matter went over till
to morrow, and the presidential succession was
| taken up.
Mr. Evarts addressed the senate on it. He took
the ground that the succession provided for by the
! bill now before the senate was the only possible
constitutional exercise of very limited power &C
| corded by the constitution to congress.
Mr.. Evarts spoke about an hour and was listened
to with the utmost attention. both on the floor and
| in the galleries.
After a few words from Mr.. Ednunds in reply
to Mr.. Evarts, and differing from him to the very
limited power of congress, Mr. Edmunds' amend
ment was voted down-yeas 81, nays 81.
Mr.. Edmunds amendmsnt was one striking out
the clause. The bill was then passed without di-
| vision reported from the committee.
After some remarks of Mr.. Evarts, in reply to
Mr.. Edmunds, a vote was taken on Mr.. Edmunds
| amendment THAT amendment was to strike out
the clause of the bill that dispensed with a new
! electionl.
The vote rejecting Mr.. Edmunds' amendment
was, yeas p, nays 81, as follows
| Yeas-Aldrich, Blair, Cameron, COckrell, Con-
GER Edmunds, Hawley, McMillen, Malone, Man.
derson, Mitchell of Pennsylvania, Morrill,, Palmer
Plumb, Sewell Sherman, Spooner, Stanford, Tell
er, Vance and Vest-21.
Nays-Allison, Beck, Berry, Blackburn, Brown,
Butler, Call, Chase, Coke, Colquitt, Cullom, Dolph
Eustis, Evarts, Frye, George, Gibson, German,
Gray, Harris, Harrison, Hoar, ingalls,, Jackson,
Jones of Arkansas, Logan, Maxey, Mitchell of Or
egon, Morgan, Platt, Pugh, Ransom, Salisbury,
Voorhees,, Walthall, Wilson of Iowa, and Wilson
of Maryland-37.
Mr.. Edmunds explained that yielding to the
wishes of senator's, he would not offer to this bill
the amendment referred to by him some days ago,
relating to the regulation of the presidential count
The bill was then put on final passage, and passed
| without division in the form reported from the
| committee.
| The chair then laid before the senate the bill
fiyino the United States iudoeS with