The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-12-18
THE INDIANAPOLIS JOURNAL, FRIDAY DECEMBER 49, 1855.

committee on appropriations had adopted when
under the control of the Democratic party mad
been one OF economy, and he failed to find any
where declaration OF his party in convention
where that policy was not announced as the one
that would be followed if the people intrusted it
with power. He had come here during the war.
He was not going to refer to what the course Of
conduct had been during that immediate period;
but, when that war was over, he had wanted the
country to go straight back to a strict construc-
ton OF the Constitution. reserving and permit
ting only that federal exercise of power which
was distinctly given to the federal government,
and reserving, in every particular, everything
that belonged to the States. One
OF the propositions which he had
stated then, and which he had ever
government to do nothing in the way of legisla-
ton that could be as we'll done by the State
authorities, and if he were addressing body of
his fellow citizens he would deliberately say
that he wanted neither the federal nor the State
authorities to do anything that could be as well
or better done by the people in the immediate
localities. So he came to this assertion: that
the war had abolished slavery; the war had for
ever dismissed the thought of recession, and
there it had stopped. These results attained,
he wanted to rehabilitate the States in all their
proper authority The gentleman from Texas
mr.. Wellborn had read from the founder
of Democracy and found what he had
not always been able to follow-the
teaching of Thomas Jefferson-to say that there
should be no money appropriated for any pur-
pose unless there was direct authority in the
Constitution of the United States to that end;
and that, so far as his membership on the ap-
preparations committee had been concerned, had
been his guide. If members would but continue
that course, there would be necessity for
controversy over river and harbor bills Who
would not vote for river and narbor bill. if
brought within the limits of the Constitution
as declared by the Supreme Court of the United
StatesY 1t was not the river and harbor bill
itself that body objected to; it was objected
to when it went outside of the Constitution of
the United States, and Congress had
no right to collect taxes in order
to make such distribution of them He
remembered very we'll the declaration of the late
candidate for the presidency on the other side,
when he proposed to divide the surplus fund in
the treasury among the States. What had been
the peoples reply to this? The peoples reply had
been that this government possessed no power to
take from the people of the United States taxes
to distribute among the States, and that the
great objection thereto was that it made the
States the vassals of the federal government.
The gentleman from Texas Mr.. [Welbornl, with
great ability, had given the real issue involved
In the controversy-because he Mr.. Randall
could not for a minute bring his mind
to think that there was any individual
bias brought to bear the appropriations
committee. He agreed that in large degree
it was involved in the proposition now before
or either side were prepared to give motion to
such a declaration as that He begged, there
fore, that members would stop and consider
what they were entering upon. He Gid not say
that one set of men was any better than
other, nor that it possessed more integrity of
purpose than another. He had rarely seen the
time when he even had surmise that any man
on the floor was actuated other than by the pur
est motives; and in resisting these PROPOSITIONS
ne Gid so from a high sense of duty, because he
q a16 of
appropriation of public money He affirmed
with positiveneSs that to distribute these bills
was to take away that unity and harmony of
action which was essential to either party in
power, that it might come up to the require
ments of the pledges that had placed it in power.
Mr.. Morrison, of Illinois, said that the as
sumption of the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
that anybody found fault with the appropria
TORS committee. or any member OF it, because it
had helped to reduce expenditures, was, in large
part, gratuitous. and the assumption or infer
ence intended to be drawn from these rules, that
anybody who had participated in making this re-
port had for his purpose an increase OF expendi-
lures, or that the adoption OF this report would
increase expenditures, was equally gratultouS.
Mr.. Burrows, of Michigan, closed the debate
with an argument in support of the proposed
change Was there no arm, he asked, strong
enough to keep back the hungry horde except
that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania Was
no other pilot capable to guide the ship of this
administration He Mr.. Burrows was glad to
see that the day of deiverance from the oppres-
sion of the rules was at hand. Ii the members
voted for the old rules they would suffer under a
self imposed tyranny, and if hereafter the chain
CALLED they must not complain. He trusted the
House would break these fetters assert its man
hood and individual freedom, and adopt code
of rules which comported with the spirit of our
institutions, the di- nifty and intelligence of the
members of the House. and which would enable
the House to meet in some slight degree, the ex-
pectations of an enlightened constituency
The proposed revision was then read by
clauses for amendment.
Mr. Springer, of Illinois, offered an amend
ment for the division of the committee on rail
roads and canals into two committees and this
proposition favored by Mr.. Henderson. of
Illinois; Murphy, of Iowa, and others of the ad-
vocates Of the Hennepin canal project, who con-
tended that the interests of railways and canals
were so antagonistic. one to the other, that they
should not be combined under the jurisdiction of
one committee. The House, however refused to
order the division, by vote of "a to 1873.
proposition to create constitutional
amendment committee" having been defeated
through the vigorous opposition of Mr. Tucker,
of Virginia. an amendment was offered by Mr.
Payne of New York, to give the committee on
revision of the laws jurisdiction over proposed
amendments tn the Constitution. The amend
ment was lost
The membership of the committee on accounts
was increased to nine
Mr. Springer of Illinois, made several at
tempts to abolish committees which he deemed
useless declaring that some of them did 10 bust
ness except select clerks, but his attempts were
unsuccessful After considering a few more
committee questions, the House adjourned.
Heavy Crop of Christmas Stories.
Boston. Dec 17.-An evening paper an
nounces that Richard Golden. the comedian, has