The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-12-18

Tucker (Virginial saw no reason why
the measures should have precedence,
and he objected to their introduce
ton.
The subject of the rules then came up
for discussion, Morrison (Illinois) stat
ing that he would try to close the gen.
eral debate at o'clock to-day.
Long ( Massachusetts, agreed with the
gentleman who demanded the largest
parliamentary freedom for representa-
tives oil the people here. There was
only one way in which the House
could have absolute liberty; that was
to abolish all rules and all committees,
and all restriction on debate, and to re-
mand itself to the condition of debating
solely. Nobody proposed to 90 that.
The simple question before the House
was whether, having agreed that re-
form measures were necessary
to cure the evils under which
it was suffering. il should go
further and take from the appropria
ton committee the bills heretofore in
lis charge, and distribute them among
INT or niEe her commits Csc The
result would be friction ami delay and
possibly combinations. The thing to
do was to shear the appropriati) IN
committee of every veStIge of bower of
enacting general legislation in the
form of riders or amendments to ap-
preparation bills. This lower should
De taken away, but appropriation bills
should be left with one committee. The
question was not simply to distribute
bills; it went further than that. The
proposition now was to destroy, abol-
ISL and annihilate the appropriation
committee, as far as responsibility for
the expenditures of the country was
concerned.
Mcmillan (Tenn.) did not believe that
the question presented was one of con-
fidence or want of conide nee in the
integrity of members of the House. The
question was whether the House should
have a committee tor supervising the
expenditures of government, and he
would oppose the distribution of appro-
priation bills for the same reason that
he would proposition to divide the
duty of the committee on ways and
means, to give the subject of tariff to
one committee and of internal revenue
to another. He regarded the proposed
change as one which would permit
amendments increasing the expendi-
lures and rule out those tending to
reduce them.
Several other speeches followed.
Randall (Pennsylvania), in closing
the debate in opposition to the ma
jority report, said he knew, and mem
bers who had served upon the apDro-
priations committee knew, that
in the effort to resist undue
appropriations they had been engaged
in a thankless task, but he had never
known that there would be those in
public station who would rise up and
condemn a man or set of men who were
engaged in the laudable purpose OF saw
ing the expenditure of public money.
The gentleman from New York His
cock) had stated, as he (Randall)
thought, to his discredit, that on one
occasion, in order to execute a certain
policy he had found it incumbent on
him to delay the appropriation bills.
He (RandalD submitted, that, as to
the tariff, the river and harbor
and interstate commerce bills, the
committee on appropriations never
had interposed, except when 1t was
essential that Congress should pass the
appropriation bills, The policy which
the committee on appropriations had
adopted when under the control OF the
Democratic party had been one OF
economy, and he failed to find, any
where, the declarations of his party in
not announced as the one which would
be followed if the people entrusted it
with power. He (Randall) had come
here during the war. He was not going
to refer to what his course of conduct
had been during that immediate period,
but when that war was over he wanted
the country to go straight back
to a strict construction of the
Constitution, to the teaching of the
founder of Democracy. Jefferson said
there should be no money appropriated
for any purpose, unless there was direct
authority in the Constitution of the
United States to that end. The river
and harbor bill was only objected TO
when it went outside of the COnstitu-
ton, and Congress had no right to col
| Iect taxes in order to make such dis
trfbution of them. He remembered,
very well, declaration OF the late can
didate for the Presidency on the other
side, when he proposed to divide the
surplus funds in the Treasury among
The States. This peoples reply hao
been that this government possessed no
power to take from the people of the
United States taxes TO distribute among
the States, and that the great OBJ
lection was that 1t made the
states the .-fd5SdlS Vi IA.C
government. He did not say one set OF
men were ADLER than another, nor that
it possessed more integrity OF purpose
than another He insisted on the pro-
posed change solely because he be-
fieved it was entering on a dangerous
field of the appropriation Of the public
money, and be affirmed, with positive
ness, that to distribute these bills was
TO take away the unity and harmony OF
action which was essential 70 every
party in power. that it might come up
to the requirement of the pledges that
had placed it in power.
Morrison, of Illinois, said the as
sumption of the gentleman from Penn,
syIvania, that anybody found fault
with the appropriation committee or
anv number it, because IL mad
helped to reduce expenditures, was
in a large part gratuitous, ana
the assumption or inference INTENDED
to be drawn from these rules, that
anybody who had participated Ia max
ing this report had for his purpose an
increase Of expenditures, or mat the
adoption of this report would increase
the expenditures, was equslly gra-
tuitous.
After a few remarks by Burrows