Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-06-11

The consideration OF the Northerp-Pacinc
forfeiture bill. and the bin was laid before
the Senate.
Pending the consideration of this blu
Mr.. Riddlebeiger called attention TO bis
resolution providing for open executive
sessions.
II was Eve months, he said, since we
began the consideration OF the question
whether this body was the, House OF Lords
or The United States Senate. No decision
had been arrived at yet.
Mr.. Mor1h said there was mutua, un-
dcrStandipg that the subject would he
brought up and voted on after the railroad
bills were disposed Of.
MIR. Riddleberger insisted on vote on
the question Of taking up bis resolution.
The senate refused 10 take II up--yeas,
8; nays. g. The senators voting IN the
affirmative were Messrs. Blair, Butter,
Coke, Frye, George, Logan, RiddieoergcrJ
and Van Wyck.
Mr.. Plumb wished 10 cali up the bin re-
pealIug the presumption. umber-cnlture. and
desert land act. but the Senate preferred TO
20 on with The forfeiture bill.
Mr.. Cockrcll submitted an amendment,
the effect Of which would be 10 forfeit all
lands which bad moi been earned within
the time required by the granting acts. The
bill and amendments were then ordered 10
be reprinted and went over till tomorrow.
Mr.. Hawley entered motion 10 recon-
slider the bill passed earlier In the day pro-
hibiting members OF Congress from acting
as ATTORNEYS or employees Of railroad compa-
mics thai bad received land grants or pecu.
MARY aId from the United States.
Mr.. Hawley said that, with a number OF
other senators. be had voted for the passage
OF the bill. bot since voting for il he had
given the bin some consideration; hence
his motion 10 reconsider. The motion was
agreed 10.
Executive session.
Adjourned.
House OF Representatives.
The House went into Committee Of the
Whole on The legislative appropriation bill.
The pending question was on the point OF
order made by MIR. Morrison. OF Illinois.
against the words " In full compensation
where they occur in the general appro-
pr1atlng clause Of the bill.
Mr.. Holman argued against the point,
and called attention TO the fact that for the
past ten years these words had been incOr-
poraied in every legislative appropriation
bin. The question presented was whether
the House could under its rules impose
limitation on the expenditure OF pubic
money. III It could not il had almost ab1n-
doned the power 10 control the expendi-
ture 81 pnblic money.
Dir. Morrison said that the gentleman's
arpument was based on an old rule OF the
House. A different rule had been made,
and a rule 10 which the gentleman from
Indiana was under obligation to pay some
respect. The House had declared in that
4oi ~ o. ao l.it
service The compensation OF officers Is
fixed by law, the law could not be changed
on an appropriation bill. The rule said 10
the gentleman that 1t was his duty to ap-
propriate money which the law had de-
termined should be appropriated for the
purpose, and II any gentleman believed
that too much or too little was being APP
propriated be had nothing 10 do but 10 in
trodnce and pass bill reducing or in
creasing the salaries.
Mr.. MorTisOn's view was sustained by
MesSrs. Hammond, Randall. and Cannon,
while MessrS. Reagan, Ryan, TOwnshend.
and Lowrey argued against the point OF
order.
In rendering his decision the Chairman
review ed the provisions OF the rule adopt
ed at the FOrty-fOurth Congress, and known
Az the Holman amendment. He compared
thom with the existing rules 10 show that the
present House had stripped the rule OF ans
verbiage which could possibly be construed
as permitting legislation on apprOPria-
ton bills. He also called attention TO the
fact that when the House was discussing
rules it had voted down-ycas 90. nays
2O5-the proposition 10 allow reductions OF
salaries to be provided for on appropria-
tlon bills. The Chair had. therefore, no dif-
hculty in coming to the conclusion, IN the
light of preceding rules and in the light OF
the action OF the present House. that it was
not I'm order 10 provide for reduc'
tiCn 81 salary when 1t had been
fixed by law. 10 bad been claimed
by some gentlemen that the words
against which the point Of order was made
were limitation on an appropriation. II
the reduction OF a salary furnished an illus
tratiOn Of what the word Limitation
meant. il was quite easy 10 see what the
present House had intended to dO-to ex-
clude what was termed =. Limitation " from
appropriation bills. II was argued that
this did not repeal the law. The Ian
guage OF the rule was 10 "change the
existing law without the words Sin full
compensation" in the bill. II the general
! law fixed the salary the officers would be
| entitled 10 the full amount OF that salary !;
| the officers would De entitled to the salary
| by force Of the statute; but this provision
| changed the law, and was therefore out OF
| order. lie sustained the point Of order.
4 when the clause appfopriating for the
! pay OF senators had been read, Mr.. T.. Il.
| Taylor. Of Ohio, offered an amendment
| providing that none OF the money should
| be raid until the Senate had confirmed the
| appointment Of Matthews for register OF
! deeds Of the District Of Columbia. He
wished, be said, to bring out the latent
| rover OF the House to supervise all
| branches OF the Government, rs il pro-
posed to supervise the conduct of the Civil
| service Commission.
The amendment having been ruled out
on a point OF order, Mr.. Taylor thanked
! the Chair for his decision.
After completing the consideration Of
| nIne out OF 1C6 pages Of The bill the COM
| nitlee rose and the House adjourned.