The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-12-18

to the House and have the opinion of the major
ity of the House as to whether their propositions
should become law or not. The second thing
to do was to shear the appropriations committee
OF every vestige of power of enacting general
legislation in the form of riders or amendments
to appropriation bills. This power should be
taken away, but the appropriation bills should be
left with one committee, which could "cut the
garment according to the cloth" The question
was not simply to distribute the bills. 1t
went further than that The proposition now
was to destroy, abolish and annihiate the
appropriations committee, so far responsible
ity tor the expenditures of the country was con-
cerned To be sure, that committee was left
with half a dozen bills, but everybody knew that
divided responsibility was not responsibility at
all. 1t was a question as to whether the House
was prepared to enter upon a more liberal expen-
dlture of the money of the people. Let things
be called by their right names. This distrbu-
ton meant larger expenditure. Were members
on the other side who were in power. or those on
his side who would soon be in power, prepared
for thisl The appropriations committee was a
powerful committee, but so were the com
mlttees on ways and means. and on rules; but
did anybody propose to divide the duties of
those committeesg Men forgot that when there
was legislative body it was necessary to have
precedence, and that precedence must be in
tain committees. Was the difficulty in the per-
sonnet OF the committee on appropriaeional If
it was. it was the duty of the Speaker to change
it. The gentleman from New York Mr.. His
cock yesterday told the House that he used the
power which existed in him as chairman of the
committee on appropriations. No fairer
more honest man was on the floor of the House
Ii he would use that power other chairmen
would use it, and there was danger in distrib-
utlng this power among eight or nine commit
tees. 1t seemed to him that the House went far
enough when it secured the rights Of the major
ity. and simply left the appropria-
ton bills with the appropriations COM
mittee, not because it's members were moro
competent, but because responsibility should be
fixed somewhere. In flying from evils it knew
OF the House would probably fly to evils it knew
not of; but let it not fly to evils which stared it
In the face. 1t was very good thing to fill the
reform bucket, but not to fill it so full that 1t
would slop over.
Mr.. McMillin, of Tennessee, did not believe
that the question presented was one of conf
dence or want of confidence in the integrity of
members of the House. The question was
whether the House should have committee
supervising the expenditures of the government,
and he would oppose the distribution of the ap-
preparation bills for the same reason that he
would oppose proposition to divide the duty of
the committee on ways and means, to give the
subject of the tariff to committee
and of internal revenue to another. If the re-
port of the committee on rules were adopted,
instead of saving of time, was claimed for
it, it would result in one-third time more being
consumed in the consideration of appropriation
bills. But proposition more dangerous than
this was the which proposed to repeal the
third section of the twenty first rule This was
a section which Had been adopted in the inter
ests of economy and had resulted in a great saw
ing of money to the people, He regarded the
proposed change as one which would permit
amendments increasing expenditures, and which
would rule out those tending to reduce them.
Mr.. McAdoo, of New Jersey, defended the ap-
preparations committee asserting that to that
committee, which had stood before the doors of
the Treasury and resisted raids upon it, was to
be attributed the fact that the Democratic party
was now in power Was it to be the first act of
that party, when it had attained power, to dis
grace the old guard at the Treasury The Dem
ocratic House was asked, under the leadership
of the gentleman from Maine Mr. Reed, to
break down the appropriations committee. He
feared the Greeks even when bearing gifts, and
he was supremely suspicious when he saw gen.
tlemen who had sat mute when they were in
power, converted to an assault upon the appro.
priations committee when the Democrats were
in power
Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, said that patience
and long experience had taught him that no rule
the majority could adopt could be worse than
those it was proposed to amend. Legislation
ought to be the result of deliberaton. The
legislation of the House was not the result of
deliberation. The business was transacted by
very few men. The mass of the members of the
House ought to learn what had been done, and
why it had been done, after it had been done.
This i'll had been borne until it had become in
supportable, and the House owed it to the coun-
be that the wisdom and honesty of
the House was concentrated in a
single committee thereof, but he did
not believe it. If it were true that but fifteen
men were needed to determine what appropria-
tons ought to be made, what Offices should be
abolished under the plea of economy, what laws
ought to be enacted or repealed, why not change
the laws and save the pay of the other 80 gen
tlemenl He earnestly denounced the habit of
adopting riders, declaring them to be source
Of Univ 10 he kiDr of
the Holman amendment, and concluded with
the declaration that wisdom and just senti-
ment of economy in legislation invited the
adoption of the report of the committee.
Mr.. Hatch. of Missouri the chairman of the
committee agriculture in the last Congress,
challenged some statements made in the MAJ or
lty report. and cited figures to show that since
the agricultural appropriation bill had been
in charge of the committee on agriculture it
had increased less than any of the other general
appropriation bills. He wished to notify the
gentleman from Pennsylvania mr. Randall)
that the country had President now who could
not be bindfolded and made to sign away mill
ions of dollars of the peoples money without
examination.
Mr.. Caswell disapproved of that part of the
proposed revision making distribution of the
appropriation bills, but he believed that the ap-
preparations committee should be deprived of
the power to engraft legislation upon appropria-
ton bills. He ridiculed the idea that Mr.. His
cock had held back two appropriation bills to
enable tax bills to be passed. in the Forty
seventh Congress. and said that the true
reason that they were so delayed was
that the ways and means committee had
the right of way and that the appropriations
committee had not had the power to take it
away Even if the chairman of the committee
on appropriations has the power to keep back
appropriation bills, the danger would only be
enhanced if that power were given to other ap-
preparation committees. While he favored the
repeal OF the Holman amendment he was op-
posed to the rule as it was reported by the com
mittee. If he wanted to help put the Demo
cratic party out of power he would support it.
but he did not believe it the policy of the
Republicans to dethrone the Democratic party
by assisting in its blunders. He did not believe
that the committee on rules had so intended; but
if that committee had deliberately intended to
enact paragraph to enable the advancing of the
salaries of government officers, it could not have
taken better step to have done it than it had