The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-12-16

reflected upon human being He had studi-
ously in and out of this hall, endeavored to
discuss and argue the question from higher
level than an individual level He had said
with deliberation. that the tendency of division
OF the work of the committee on appropriations
was to increase the public expenditures of the
government, andshe believed that he was in pos
session of facts which would substantlate what
he had said. He lnstanced the river and harbor
bill, and presented table to show that while
the bill had been In the possession of the appro'
priations committee the average annual appro-
priation for internal improvements had been
1880 600, and that since the bill had been con-
confded to the commerce and river
and harbor committees the average annual
appropriation had jumped to $l3, 59l, 900. This
statement, he thought, would bear him out in
the assertion that separation of the approprla-
ton bills would largely increase expenditures.
Mr. Randall sent to the Clerks desk and had
read an extract from the annual message Of
President Arthur to the Forty-seventh Con-
gress, recommending that no appropriation be
made for internal improvements, and informing
the House that a sufficient amount remained
from the approximations of the previous year to
carry on all snecessary works of improvement.
Yet in the face of this message and
in the face Of the further fact
the Forty-seventh Congress had demanded esti-
mates, and had actually passed bill involving
an expenditure of nearly SIS, 100000 With this
state of facts he was quite content to leave to
there had not been tendency to increase ex-
pendtures under the plan Of distributing ap
preparation bills
Mr. ONeil. of Pennsylvania, inquired whether
mis- colleague had any evidence to show that
President Arthurs views in this particular had
ever been sustained by the people. In his
opinion President Arthurs veto of the river and
harbor bill was the most injudicious and most
uncalledf for act of his administration, which had
otherwise been good one.
Mr. Randall rap1ied that whathar the DeoDle
had sustained President Arthurs views or not,
he could point out instances where the people
had defeated candidates for reelection to Con-
gress. men who had voted for excessive river and
harbor bills.
Mr.. ONeil declared that was not 80, rs far as
Philadelphia was concerned. His Republican
colleagues, who had always voted for proper
river and harbor appropriation bills had been re-
elected to the House.
Mr.. Randall suggested that he had always
voted against the river and harbor bill, and had
been returned
Mr. Hammond, of Georgia, argued against dis
tributing the appropriation bills In the course
of his remarks he referred incidentally to the
committee ways and means, and, touching
upon the tariff question, declared that every at
tempt made by the Democratic party to revise
the tariff had been followed by Democratic
victory at the polls. Morrison" he exclaimed,
was chairman of the ways and means commit
tee when Tilden was elected President and
chairman of the ways and means committee
when Cleveland was elected President" For a
quarter of a century the Republican party had
been in power. The Democratic party had just
come into power, and was on trial. He was
afraid to try this experiment when the Demo
Gratis had been posing for years as the party of
reform.
Posing is good, suggested Republican mem
ber
YES" replied Mr.. Hammond II said posing,
and the country has been looking at our posture
and learning to admire us, until it has driven
you out of power Laughter and applause.
Mr. Reagan of Texas and Mr.. Willis, of Ken
lucky, after giving hearty approval to the pro-
posed revision, earnestly defended the commit
tees on commerce and rivers and harbors from
the charge of extravagance in the matter of in
ternal Improvements, and dwelt upon the ad-
vantages which had accrued in the past and
would accrue in the future from liberal appropri
ations for the improvement of the waterways of
the country.
Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania, though favoring
any change in the rules which would expedite
the business of the House, opposed the proposed
distribution of the appropriation bills
Mr. Gibson, Of West Virginia, said that, under
the present rules nine -tenths of the constituent
cies OF the country were practically dlsfran-
ehised in the House. while two or three set
themselves up, or were set up, as the only men
who could be trusted on account of their hon.
esty or capacity. He asserted that history had
shown that nearly every scandal Of modern times
had been found in the belly of an appropriation
Oil. he OIU UOG D6IloV6 III LUlS pFeG0HSIOu Oh
honesty that some gentlemen set up
Mr. Randall-The gentleman is mistaken as
far as am concerned.
Continuing Mr. Gibson said that he remem-
bered that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
came in on the last day of the last session
of Congress, and pressed through the House,
under threat that not to do so would cause an
extra session, an appropriation bill which con
tanned an appropriation for public building in
Pennsylvania or Indiana.
1on f1ar klav "
was defective. He had resisted every addition
to the appropriation for public buildings on that
sundry civil, bill, and his vote in committe had
been consistent with his public act AS we'll as
he remembered, there was NO appropriation in
that bill for public building in Pennsylvania.
Mr.. Gibson contended that the appropriations
committee had no business TO hold back the ap-
preparation bills and stife the voice of members
of the House. While the country had been de-
manding a general bankruptcy biI while the
mercantile interests of the West had been de-
manding cheap transit, nothing could be done
because the appropriations committee had chosen
to thrust itself the House and prevented
other members from doing solitary thing.
Why was it that the gentleman from Pennsylva-
mia and the gentleman from Indiana were the
only men who could be trusted with the appro-
priation bills? Did the record show that they
were more patriotic than other members of the
House? When those immense land grants were
given to railroads, and when appropriations were
made, where was this great committee to protect
the interests of the country9 These gentlemen
said that they objected. Why were not their OBJ
jections as potent then as now9 They were po-
tent now to stop legislation for free transporta-
ton.
Mr.. Randall never voted dollar nor an acre
of land for any railroad
Mr.. Cibson-I did not ask how the gentleman
voted.
Mr. Randall am glad to say that the Demo
Gratis voted almost unanimously as did.
Mr. Gibson-It is not a question of how the
gentleman voted
Mr. Randall thought it was
Ma. Gibson-It is because the gentleman
thrusts himself in here and makes himself a
personal feature in the discussion that he is dis
cussed. We want to amend the rules for the
peoples good, not to help or hurt the gentleman
from Pennsylvania. There is not a member
of this House but knows that millions
of money and thousands of acres of the