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

I FDf
bucket, but not to I'm II "a I'M nm ~, .Sdorn y
would slop over. AVA u'at II
MT McMillin Of Tennessee ana 40, =.
~ a. 'aSt the question presented was ono
a., No ,.i.'ce or want OF confidence In Inc
nv IrThseslly Oh the members Of the house
sh"n, question was whether the house
o owoeiu nuVe committee supervising the
"a pvluitures OF the government. and no
"ou'I oppose the distribution OF the 40.
Lloprlation bills for the sume reason thai
nv, ~ nouiu oppose the proposition to divide
wy uuty OF the committee on WAYS and
'ue"ns, 70 give the subject Of the tariff to
Que committee and OF Internal revenue N
anoeler' IL the report OF the committee
oa rules We're adopted, Instead of a saving
vi tln'e, as was claimed for It, Il would
result IN one-third time more
Delng consumed in consideration of he
appropriation bills, He regarded the prn.
poSesl change as one which would permit
amendments Increasing expenditures and
RUE OUT those tending 90 reduce them.
MIR. MeAdoo of New Jersey defended The
appropriation committee, asserting that
10 that committee, which had stood he.
lore the doors of the treasury aud re
sisted raids on It, was to he
attributed the fact that the Democratic
party was now in power. Was fl TO
De Inc first act of the party when II had at.
talned power to disgrace the old guard
at the treasury The Democratic bonse
was asked under the leadership of the
gentleman from Maine CAIr. Reed IN
oreak down the appropriation committee
tie feared the Greeks even when bearing
gifts, and he was supremolv suspicions
When he saw gentlemen who had sal
mute when they were in power con.
verted to an assault upon the appropria.
uon committee when the Democrats were
In power.
Mr., Kelley of Pennsylvania said that
patience and long experience had taught
them that no rules the majority conld
adopt could be worse than those IL was
proposed to amend. Legislation ought
to be the result of elaboration
The legislation of the house was
not the result of deliberation. Tho
business was transacted by very lev men.
The mass of the members of the house
could learn what had been done and why II
had been done after it had been done This
Ill had been borne until il had become
insupportable and the house owed IL 10
the country to emancipate itself. n
might be that the wisdom and honesty of
the house was concentrated in a single
committee thereof, but he did not believe
IT. IL II were true that but fifteen men
were needed To determine what appropri-
atoms ought to be made, what offices
ought to be abolished under the plea of
economy, what laws ought TO be enacted
or repealed, why not change the laws and
save the pay OF the other $40 gentlemen?
lie earnestly denounced the habit of
adopting riders as the source of more leg
islatlye meanness than any other
cause, He criticised the work.
ing of the Holman amendment,
and concluded with the declaration
that wisdom and just sense OF economy,
and, above all, purity and honor in legs-
lation invited the adoption Of the report
of the committee. Applause
Mr.. Caswell OF Wisconsin disapprovcd
of that part of the proposed revision
making Il distribution OF the appropria-
ton bills, but believed the appropriation
committee should be deprived Of the
power to engratt legislation upon the an.
biils.' ~7s7~v
MIR. Phelps Of New Jersey opposed the
and said that as IL was now the
responsibility rested on the shoulders Of
fifteen men who were able and willing TO
bear it, These men were liable TO make
errors, but he contended that these errors
were far less harmless 10 the country than
those that would grow out of the change
while the tendency of the
was TO increase the eXpcndi-
lures, TO scatter the responsibility and
start the country on the high road to
Mr. Kendall in closing the debate
in opposition TO the majority re-
port said he knew, and the members
who had served upon the appropriation
committee knew, that in the effort to re-
sist undue appropriations he had been en-
gagged in Il thankless task, but he never
knew there would be those in public sta
ton who would rise and condemn man
or set of men who were engaged in the
laudable purpose of saving the eNpendi-
ture of the public money. He was quite
aware that the pet measure of
many members had been interiered with
by the rigid necessity of passing appro-
priatlon bills before an adjournment
could take place. He had been criticised
for asking the house at the last session TO
pass the sundry civil appropriation bill
under suspension OF luc Iulcss nut lne
issue ut that time was whether
the bill should be passed or whether
there should be au extra session |
Of congress. The gentleman from New
York CIIiscock) had stated, as he (Ran |
lalD thought to his discredlt that on one
occasion, in order TO execute n certain |
policy, he had found it incumbent on him
% delay the appropriation bills. He |
,RaudalD submitted that as to the tariff,
liver and harbor aud interstate commerce
pills, the committee on appropriations
never had interposed except when it was
essential that congress should pass the
bills. During the last SEES
lion the river and harbor appropriation
ill had taken one-third as much time In
he house as did the other twelve bills of
he appropriation committee. True, the
bills had the right of way,
tut they had not the right OF way
o the disadvantage of revenue meas
Ires. The policy which the committee
N appropriations had adopted when
Iuder control of the Democratic party
ad been one of economy, and ne failed