Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-12-18

10 The tafiH. river ami harbof and fntss-
STATE scnotrse eflls, the Committee
On Appropgiati oos never had interposeo
except when 10 vas essential that Con
ere@s shoaId rs.s the APPROPRIATED
bilis- The policy which the COMMITTEES
On Appr1pristious had adopted shen
onser contrI OF the Democrats party
had b4en ooe Of ecsnomy, and be failed
TO dad anyxhere declarations OF bis
ptrtv in convention where thsf princt-
pie was not announced as tbs one when
you'd D. followed II tue people eutrust-
I'd 10 With power. He tRsndAh) bad
c1sre here during toe war. be Was not
eoiug TO refer to What bis coarse
Of eosdocs had sses during that imme-
di.te psrIod. tut when tna, v4r vas
over be wanted the country 10 go straight
back 10 q strict copstrustiou OF she COD
stiiution, TO the teachings Of the founder
Of democracy. Jsf.rson sid thai there
saould be 10 money appropriated Tor
sny plrpose nnlsss there gas direct ao-
tnority 10 the Constitution OF the United
states Ihs RIVER snd harboE bill was
only obiected Is when II vent outside OF
the constitution. and Congress bad no
right 20 coilect taxes IN order to make
such a distribution Of them. DE re-
membered very veil the declaration at
the late cansidste for the Presidency
on the other side, when be proposed 10
divide the surplus funds in the treasury
among the States Tne peoples reply
had beea that tais Government pas-
sessed no poxsr to taks fIom the
people OF the United States taxes to
distribute among the States. and that
-. IN
made the States yassals of the Federal
Government. He did not say SIZE set
Of men we're ADLER than another, nor
that IL possessed more Integrity of pur-
pose than aaotssr. He insisted upon
the proposed change solely because 70
b-llev-d 1t was entering on a dangerous
tisld Of sppropriatisn of public mones.
and be affirmed with pssitiveness that
to distribute these bills was to take
away that unity and harmony OF ac-
ton which Was essential TO every par
ty in power, that II might come
up to the requirements Of toe
pledges that had placed IL in power.
Morrison, of Illinois, said the as
sumption Of the gentleman from Penn
sylvania that anybody found fault with
the Appropriation Committee, or any
member of IL, because 10 had helped to
reduce expenditures. was IN large part
qratuitous, and the assumption or In
ference intended to be drawn from the
rules. that any body who had participa
ted in making this change for this par
pose in the case of expenditure, or that
the adoption of this report would in
crease expenditures, vas equally Rrsto-
ltous.
After a few remarks by Burrows, of
Michigan, in support of the proposed
change, the revision was read BY clauses
for amendment.
Springer of Illinois offered An amend
ment for division Of the Committee
on Railways and Canals into two oou-
mittees. and this proposition vas favor.
ed by Henderson OF Illinois. Murphy of
Iowa, and others OF the advocates Of the
Hennepen Canal project. who contend
I'd that the interests OF railways and
canals were 90 antseoDistic that they
shoald not be combined in the jurisdic-
tisa OF one committee. The House.
however, refused to order division by
a vote of 81 to lS3.
A proposition to create a Csnstitu-
tiouai Amendment Committee, repre-
sented by Mr.. Btyne Of Pennsylvania.
having been defeated through the Wig
orous opposition of Tucker of Virginia.
an amendment was offered by Payne of
New York to give tue Committee on
Revision Of Li~4 jurisdiction over the
proposed amsndm, nts to the Constitu-
ton. Ihs amendment Vas lost.
The membership of the Committee
on Accounts vas i creased to Minis.
Springer made several attempts to
abolish committees which be deemed
useless, deslarioa that some of them did
no business except to select clerks. but
his efforts were unsuccessful. Pending
al effort on his part to abolish the com
mitte.s GA public expenditures in vari
Gus departments, and to create Que com
mittee on expenditures ia the Executive
Department, she House adjourned.