Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-12-10
The House Rules.

1t Is probable that there will be a lengthy
4 debate on the proposition to change the
rules of the House. The rules have been
discussed again and again, and changes
have been made. They appear to be
J about as unsatisfactory now, however, as
they ever We're.
( The plan of Representative Springer for
| getting rid OF some OF the difficulties
which grow out Of the rules will hardly
meet with rs much favor as that submit
ted to the House yesterday by Represen-
tatiye Morrison.
Mr.. Morrison's plan is TO relieve the
Committee on Appropriations of more
than half Of the appropriation bills, ana
to distribute them among other commit
tees; also, to prevent legislation in appro-
prlation bills. These are the main points
Of his plan, and the ones that will engage
the attention of the House.
The argument IN favor Of them is that
the Appropriations Committee Is able, to
a large extent. TO control legislation by
holding back or pushing forward appro-
priation bllls-the Appropriations Com
mittee always having the right to fix its
own time for the consideration Of appro-
priation bills. 1t is also argued that the
control OF nearly all OF the appropriation
bills by one committee gives that CON-
mittee, and especially the chairman OF it,
too much power.
There can be no strong argument in IA
yor Of putting legislative riders in appro-
priauon bills. 1t is generally done TO
force through some measure that would
have no chance Of getting through on its
merits.
The main argument against Represent
alive Morrison's plan, so far as it relates
to the distribution of appropriation bills,
is that distribution would be followed by
increased appropriations. This argu-
ment doubtless has some founda-
ton. The agricultural bill, as soon
as it was taken from the control
of the Appropriations Committee,
began to grow IN amount, and it is prob
able that the same thing would happen
with respect to other bills if Representa-
tive Morrison's plan we're to be adopted.
1t may be that there were good reasons for
increasing the amount of the agricultural
appropriation bill. Whether there were
or not, the fact that it was increased is
urged as an argument against taking any
more bills from the jurisdiction of the APP
preparations Committee.
The members of the Appropriations
Committee are not honester nor ADLER
perhaps than members of other commit
tees, but where one committee has con-
troll of all the appropriation bills there is
an effort TO keep the whole amount appro-
priated within certain limit. This can
be done where all the appropriation bills
are under the control of one committee be-
cause the committee is familiar with each
bill. 1t could not be done, however, if the
appropriation bills were distributed
among a half dozen commit
tees because each committee would
make such appropriations as its Judgment
dictated, and would refuse to reduce its
appropriations if 1t became apparent that
the amount of all the appropriation bills
was greater than it would be advisable to
appropriate. Each committee would in
sist that every other committee should
cut down the amount of the bill COM
mitted to its care. The House would have
to undertake TO do what the committees
ought to do, and the consequence would
be that the appropriation bills would take
up more time than they now do.