St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-02-10
NO. A..

been given legal tender character by acci-
dent or inadvertence, and that therefore we
ought not to take them up. There was no
accident or inadvertence about it, Beck said.
They were made coins of the United States
Just as gold was 80 coined.
Senator Morgan saw no use in multiplying
the statutes merely that the senate of the
United States itself might dishonor them by
constantly and persistently ignoring their ex-
istence.
Senator Beck said we would soon have a
new administration, and if 1t should prove
as bad as the present, then he thought some
thing would have to be done.
Senator Morgan presented the credentials
of the reelection OF Senator Pugh.
The pension appropriation bill was then
taken up,a long discussion ensued regarding
the Interpretation of the senate rule forbid.
ding the proposing Of general legislation on
appropriation bills. A discussion arose on a
point of order raised by Senator Ingalls, on
the amendments proposed by the senate ap-
preparation committee to this bill.
The point Of order was that under
the rules of the senate the proposed
amendment was not in order. The
amendment proposed was to modify the pro-
vision of the house bill that established in
favor OF pension applicant the presump-
ton of soundness at the time of enlistment.
The modification would establish presump-
ton in favor of those only who had served
at least three months.
The presiding officer CPlatt) held that In
gals point of order was well taken, and
therefore that the senate committees pro-
posed amendment was admissible.
Senator ingalls,, for the purpose of obtain
Ing the opinion of the senate as to the spirit
of the rule, appealed from the decision Of
the chair. The action proposed by the SEN
ate, he said, was not proposing legislation
already proposed by the house. Senator In
gals admitted the present presiding officer
had correctly ruled according to the prece-
dents OF the senate, but he believed the pre-
ceding rulings had been wrong. He wanted
the senate now to declare precedent that
would enable the senators TO offer amend
ments to such general legislation as the
house might put on the appropriation bill.
Senator Edmunds, taking the chair, said
the ruling of Senator Platt while in the chair
correctly followed the precedents OF the SEN
ate, and the effect of successful appeal
would be that it would be in order any time
to propose any amendment germane to the
subject Of the bills under consideration.
Senator Sherman thought it would be well
to pass now a resolution expressing for the
present session, at least, the seuse Of the
senate to be that the true construction of the
rule was that the amendments may be made
to the general legislative measures found by
the senate on appropriation bills.
Senator Edmunds, taking the floor, spoke
strongly against ''opening the door, to any
proposition which would permit such amend
ments. There was no embarrassment, he
said, involved in the position of the senate.
The way was perfectly clear. All the senate
had to do was to strike out all provisions Of
an objectional character referred to. There
would be no collision or contest between the
two houses in the fact Of the senate taking
that course. The senate was not, by such
action, declaring that because the house
would not do what the senate wanted, the
senate would therefore not carry on the
government. 1t would not only be absurd,
but wicked, to make such declaration. The
house was as patriotic body, and it was just
as patriotic as the senate. You might say
the senate had ''notions' about this matter,
but the house knew neither body could coerce
the other and the subject would be taken into
proper and serious consideration.
After further debate the decision Of the
chair was sustained. Yeas 35, nays 23.
The senate then went into executive ses-
sion and soon adjourned.