Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-12-18

,lon That the war had nrospc.s
Vut one or two results The war bsa
sooilsheu slavery, the war had foreysr
dismissed the thought az secession ard
mere u had stopped. These rgsults ~.
ealneo nc wanted tc rchahilitatc tho st,tss
IN lhelr proper authority. The genti...
man IRON Texas CMr. Wellbornl hsS r',a
from The founder Of the nemocracy anS
round what ne had not always been All
70 iulloW) The teaching OF Thomas Ia,
lersoh 10 say that there should III ~
money appropriated for any ,purpose mn.
VS. tnere was direct authority in no non
s1'suuoh OF the United States To that end
ana That, so far as his membership ~, ~,
appropriation committee had been 80,
Serned, bad been his guide. N ihe man
ouis WVu'u out continue that course There
"uulu DC 10 necessity for ooutroyersv
over the river and harhOr bins WI
"vuiu not vote for river ana
maroon bill II brought within
the permits of the const,,nt;,n
rs declared by the supreme courtP N yyne
not the river and barber bill itself that
anybody objected to. Itswas obiecte5 ~
When 1t went outside of the coustnntio,
anu congress had no right to collect taves
IN order to make such distributinn ~
Them. The gentleman from Tevas IA,
" el0orn) with great ability had GIVEN
me real issue involved In the controversy
because he (Mr. RandalD could moi brlny
MS mind to think that there was am,
INDIVIDUAL bias or hostility 70 member.
snip OF the committee ON nm.
preparations, The gentleman from Tey9s
nau lOld the house that Ii must ind ont
now much money IL was necessary 10 ev.
pehdi IN other words, how much il Womb
oe aDle TO secure the concurrence of the
Two houses IN and then 10 make the rev.
enue accordingly. This was altogether a
strange notion to his mind and he Thought
u most dangerous one. He agreed that
IN large degree IL was involved in the
proposition now before the house, but he
uld not expect that this house on either
SIDE was prepared TO give notice TO such n
declaration as that. lie begged. there.
lore, that the members would stop and
consider what they were entering upon.
MIR. Morrison of Illinois said that the
assumption OF the gentleman from Penn
sylvania that anybody found fault with
the appropriation committee, or
any member of 1t, because it
had helped TO reduce the expenditures.
was In large part gratuitous,
and the assumption OF the
inference intended to be drawn
from these rules that anybody who had
participated In making this report had
Tor his purpose an increase of the eN-
penditures, or that the adoption of this
report would increase expenditures, was
equally gratuitous.
Mr.. Burrows of Michigan closed the
debate with an argument in support OF
the proposed change.
The proposed revision was then read by
clauses for amendment. Mr. Springer OF
Illinois offered an amendment for the
division of the committee on railways
ana canals into two committees, and this
was favored by Messrs. Hem
derson OF Illinois, Murphy of Iowa and
other advocates OF the llennepin canal
project. The house, however, refused to
order the division by a vote of 80 to 1873.
y proposition to create a constitutional
amendment committee presented by Mr..
Bayne OF Pennsylvania having been de-
featcd through the vigorous opposition of
Mr., Tucker of Virginia, an amendment
was offered by MIR, Payne OF New York TO
give the committee on revision of laws
Jurisdiction over the proposed amend.
ments TO the constitution. The amend
ment was lost. The member
ship Of the committee on accounts
was increased 70 nine. Mr.
Springer OF Illinois made several at
tcmDts to abolish the committees which
he deemed useless, declaring that some
of them did no business except select
clerks, but his efforts were unsuccessful.
Pending an effort on his part TO abolish
the committees on pyupnd{turpe In thu