Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-12-18

opposition 70 the majority report, said
II the members Of the House who had
heretofore held seats on the Appropria-
tions Committee were TO consult their
ease he did not doubt but they would
yield up the duties which II was pro-
posed to take from them without .
murmur; but there was graver, more
far-reaching effect in the proposition as
presented here than the mere convenience
Of member or his ability to perform
labor. He knew, and members who
had served upon the Appropriations
Committee knew, that in the effort to
resist undue appropriations they had
been engaged in . thankless task, but
he had never known that there would
be those in public station who would
rise up and condemn the man, or set OF
men, who were engaged in the laudable
purpose of saving the expenditure ofpub-
lie money. The committee hadm met con.
domination, and it had been meted
out here in large degree but he trusted
that the representatives Of the people
would rise above any thought OF bias.
He was quite aware that pet measures
of many members had been interfered
with by the rigid necessity Of passing
appropriation bills before adjournment
could take place. lie had been criti-
cised for asking the House at the last
session to pass the sundry civil appro-
priation bill under suspension OF the
rules but the issue at that time was
whether the bill should be passed or
whether an extra session of Congress
should be called. lie had desired to
prevent the extra session because he
felt that no greater wrongor injury could
be done the country.
Mr.. Burrows, of Michigan, closed the
debate with an argument in support OF
the proposed change. He favored the
distribution of appropriation bills be-
cause he believed they would then be
better considered. and because an en-
larged membership Of the House would
be familiar with their details.
The proposed revision was then read
by clauses for amendment.
Mr.. Springer offered an amendment
for a division of the Committee on
Railways and Canals into two commit.
tees, and this proposition was favored
by Messrs. Henderson, Of Illinois,
Murphy, Of Iowa, and others of the
advocates of the Hennepin canal pro-
iect, who commended that the interests
of railways and canals were so antago-
nistic one to the other that they should
not be combined under the jurisdiction
of one committee. The House, how
ever. refused to order the division by
vote Of 81 to 1873.
A proposition to create constltu.
tional amendment committee, presented
by Mr.. Bayne, Of Pennsylvania, having
been defeated through the vigorous OPP
position of Mr.. Tucker of Virginia, an
amendment was offered by Mr.: Payne,
of New York, to give the Committee
on Revision Of Laws jurisdiction over
proposed amendments to the Constitu-
ton. In humorous speech he sarcas-
tically depicted the hard work which
had devolved upon that committee du-
ring the last Congress, asserting that it
had at least devoted six minutes hard
work to one bill, and only one. before it
had succeeded in enacting it into law !;
but his speech was Of no avail, and the
House refused to give the committee
additional jurisdiction.
The membership Of the Committee
on Accounts was increased to nine.
Mr.. Springer made several attempts
to abolish committees which he deemed
useless, declaring some of them did no
business except select clerks; but his
efforts we're unsuccessful. Pending an
effort on his part to abolish the COM
mittees on expenditures in the various
departments and create one Committee
on Expenditures in the Executive De-
partment, the House, at 500 O'Clock,
adjourned.