Bridgeton pioneer., 1885-12-24
OUR WASHINGTON LETTER.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 81, 1885.

itself with any thicker veneer OF dig
nifty and decorum than did its prede-
cessors. 1t is to be the same old circus
with every prospect of brilliant sea-
son. The second week of the session
found the House in a regular Demo-
cratic family quarrel, in which person
alities were the chief arguments inter-
changed.
The struggle for a change in the
organization of the House and its
methods of doing business has been
going on during the entire week.
There was great deal of feeling among
Members on this subject, and as the
debate was personal in character, it was
unusually interesting. Underneath
the dry talk about the rules there is a
sharp antagonism to Mr. Randall, the
Chairman of the Committee on Appro-
priations. 1t is aimed as a retaliatory
blow from the author of the deceased
Horizontal tariff bill 1t is to punish
Mr. Randall for beating Mr.. Morrison
with his obstructive appropriation bills
in the last Congress.
The adoption of the new code of
rules deprives Mr.. Randall of much
of his power by distributing the APP
preparation bills among the other
committees. 1t increases the number
of committees having the power to
make appropriation from three to
eight.
The Pennsylvania autocrat points
out the danger which he thinks will
result from this apportionment of
money power, and says the day of
wasteful extravaganza and all it's at
tendant corruptions is near athand.
Representative Holman, of Indiana,
who, because of his parsimony in pro-
viding for public needs, has been called
by his friends one of the watch dogs of
the Treasury, assisted Mr.. Randall in
conducting the opposition to a change
of rules. They had on their side some
such men as Mcmillan, of Tennessee;
Hammond, of Georgia; Herbert, of
Alabama; w. w. Phelps, of New Jer-
sey; Burnes, of Missouri; Forney, of
Alabama; Long, of Massachusetts, and
Hepburn, of Iowa.
The prominent member from New
York, MIR. Hiscocll, made a long and
able argument in favor of change of
rules. He said those who oppose a
distribution of appropriation bills do
so on the theory that the majority of
the House cannot be trusted to get
their hands in the public Treasury.
When he closed he was heartily ap-
plauded on both sides of the House,
and was forced to hold an impromptu
reception in order to receive thanks
and congratulations.
Mr.. Welborn, of Texas who is said
to look like Daniel Webster made a
thrilling short grafton about the mis-
chievous domination of the House by
a handful of men.
Representative Gibson, of West Vir-
ginia, said he did not believe that the
fifteen Members on the Appropriations
Committee held all the wisdom and
honesty in the House Nine-tenths OF
the Members were practically disfran-
chised under the present system. He
had yet to discover that either Mr.
Holman or Randall had objected to al
appropriation for their own States.
Congressman Reed, of Maine, the
chosen leader of the Republican mi
nority, asked why the House could dnot
be trusted with scattering out the bills
The Appropriations Committee, he
contended, had not done its duty, OF
the Nation would not now be without
a Navy, and our coasts without de
fenses. Increased appropriations, he
said, were not evils if they conferred
any benefit on the people.
Mr.. Randall has been under the ne
cessity of resenting many personal re
marks during this debate, and thus the
important but dull question of rules
provoked lively fight.
Late Saturday afternoon, after Ions
and animated debate, the Hous,
adopted, without any importan
changes, the report of the Committe,
on Rules. The first struggle was owe
J the distribution of the appropriation
bills, the opponents of which, unde
| the leadership of Hammond, of Geor
gia, tried to execute Parliamentar,
flank movement and throw its friend
| into confusion. BY the alert vigilanc
of Messrs Morrison, Hiscock and Reed
however, the attempt was foiled ant
5 after a lively skirmish, the House wa
brought squarely to the test by a mo
ton to strike from the committees re
port the clause which restricts tn
jurisdiction of the Appropriations Com
: mittee. The yeas and nays were callet
r and the result was an everwhelmin,
2 victory for the friends of distribution
l the motion being rejected by vote O
f 70 to 1926. OF the 70 votes against dis
a tyih ncf Nv