The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-08
o strike out of Rule 21, Clause 3, the following

provision:
/" Nor shall any provision in any such bill or
amendment thereto changing existing law be in
order, except such as, being germane to the sub
ject-matter of the bill, shall retrench expendi
lures by the reduction of the number and salary
of the Offices of the United States, by the reduc-
ton of the compensation OF any person paid out
of the Treasury of the United States, or by the
reduction of the amounts of money covered by
the bil provided, that it shall be in order to
further amend such bill upon the report of the
committee having jurisdiction OF the subject
matter of such amendment, which amendment
being germane to the subiectmatter of the bill
shall retrench expenditures
Il was opposed to this principle of legislation
for number of reasons. Being an Indianian, it
is but natural that should think the modes of
legislation in that State were the best. Every
law in our State can embrace but one subject.
which must be expressed in tie title. To me it
appeared to be entirely out of order to tack on to
appropriation bills amendments changing and re-
pealing laws foreign to the subject Under the
old rule the committee on appropriations could
refuse to appropriate money for the payment of
Just claims. and there was no way OF getting
them before the House, because no amendments
were In order except they decreased expenditures.
Last session the appropriations committee re-
fused to pay the claim of Mr.. Haywood, for i'm
proving Market street in frontof the postofice, in
Indianapolis, and there was no remedy-the
action of the committee. however arbitrary, was
finality, because if it had been sought in the
been objected as not being a reduction Of the
amounts of money covered by the DILL
The report of the committee" continued Mr..
Bynum, twas sustained by an overwhelming
vote. Mr.. Holman demanded the yeas and nays,
and upon count by the Speaker we failed to get
them he then demanded count by tellers. /
voted against his amendment and when it was
fully demonstrated by count by the Speaker
that be was defeated four to one, did not think
it was necessary to spend an hour calling the
roll All wish to say is that / represent the
Seventh district and while do so / propose to
vote as / please upon all questions, keeping
nothing in view but the interests and welfare of
my constituents. So far as Mr. Holmans cam
paigning before the people, in this question, is
concerned, if he could not make better show
ing than he did in the House it would
not be necessary for anybody to oppose him. I
also favored distributing of the appropriation
bills because l thought division of the power
labor and responsibility of the COM
mittee appropriations between the several
committees proposed would facilitate legislation
and give to private individuals better show
for their rights. The objections advanced by
Mr.. Holman, that distribution of the labor
would increase expenditures, / did not think
tenable. While favor economy, am in favor
of the government paying her honest debts and
opposed to reducing appropriations at the ex
pense of the laboripg classes On account of the
very economical views of the committee last
session, Mr.. Manning, Secretary OF the Treas
ury, last spring, was compelled to reduce the
wages of the laborers employed in public build
ings throughout the country 80 per cent. There
are a number of claims due soldiers for back
pay, bounty, ETC.. that cannot be paid because
the committee on appropriations of last session
refused to appropriate sufficient money. It may
be that appropriations will be increased; have
no doubts but they will but not unnecessarily so.'