Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1885-01-12
FORTY-ElGHTH CONGRESS-.
Second Session.
HOUSE.

| WASHINGTON, Jan. 10.
Immediately after the reading of the jour
nal, Mr.. Randall of Pennsylvania moved t,
dispense with the morning hour for the pur
pose of pressing the naval appropriation bill
to passage.
| This was strongly opposed by Mr.. Stock
slayer of Indiana, who maintained that tn,
House should proceed to the consideration o
special orders in reference to public build
ings.
Quite brisk and apparently personal col
loquy then sprang up between Messrs. Ran
dali and Stockslager. but the confusion in tn,
hall was so great as to render their remarks
unintelligible.
MIR. Stockslager demanded the yeas an(
nays on MIR. Raidalrs motion, which wa
lost
Mr.. Stockslager then moved that the House
go into committee of the whole for the
consideration of public business measures
but the motion was lost-72 to Gland the
speaker proceeded to call on committees for
reports.
The House at l.30 went into committee
of the whole on the naval appropriation bill
for the remainder of the current year. The
bill makes provision for the naval service fol-
six months, ending June 30. 1885, on the
basis of the bill which passed the House dur
ing the first session of this Congress, giving
for each item of expenditure just one half OF
the amount contained in that bill. There is
nothing in the bill for steel cruisers the ap.
preparation to complete them having already
been made. The bill appropriates in all
Sc, l20, ,l55.
On point of order, the provision that the
naval line officers may detailed as instructors
in any school or college, was struck from the
Ill a. a..
committee having arisen, the bill was passed
without a dissenting vote.
The House then went into committee or
the consular and diplomatic appropriation
bill.
Mr.. Burns of Missouri stated that the ap
preparation carried by the bill was 81 100 ,SS;
or S432 ,29l less than the estimates. The
bill met the appreciation of the members O
both sides of the House, and substantially
met the views of the state department
Mr.. Robinson of New York said he wa,
opposed to the appropriation of money tt
pamper lot of incurabe snobs. There wal
no use for American ministers abroad excep
to degrade their government.
Mr.. Chace of Rhode Island contrasted tn,
appropriations made by England for her for
eign service with those made by the United
States for similar purpose. This bill appro
| priated 81, 1870 ,8S5, while in 1883 Great Brit
ain expended S2,76S,65S for salaries alone
Bey ond this it appropriated very large sums
| for the maintenance of officers residences
etc. The result was that all over the worlt
were representatives of British interests, who
were competent men versed in affairs peril
tent to their positions. As long as the rule
of poverty pay to American ministers ant
consuls continued, there would be poor serv
ice.
Mr.. Washburn of Minnesota maintained
that the American consular service was sub
stantally as effective as the British service.
The general debate having been closed, tn,
the bill was read by sections for amendments
Mr. Holman of Indiana raised point OF
order against the item providing for consu
general at Madrid.
The point was sustained and the item
struck out
The committee then rose and the House
adjourned.