The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-11

salary from the school fund, he had been Gov
ernor of Tennessee under the clause of the State
Constitution which provides that Governor
shall hold over until his is elected and
has qualified. Tho insinuatons of his colleague
/, were unjust and the innuendoes unwarranted,
| Senator Harris was man of personal honor and
| OF nisn cnar~" e.s., aA~ .,.vuy wound nave the
/ temerity. face to face with him, to assall that
4 honor and character.
| After an old chapter OF Tennessee history had
| been recounted by Messrs. Richardson and
| Houk, the matter was dropped.
| Mr. Lowry. of Indiana, from the committee
| on the sigma, service. geological survey, e'c.,
submitted reports already prssen;eo 70 tue 'en
| ate upon the natter referred TO H.
Mr. Warner. of Ohio, from the committee on
postofces and post-roads, rep r'eu oi. "e' ~
rizng certain changes in the orga' zatich OF lne
Postofice Department Referred - WIG 0oa'
mittee of the whole.
Mr.. Van Eaton. of Mississippi, from the co.,
mittee on public lands, reported bill setting
apart certain swamp lands in ST. Clair lake.
Michigan, rs national fishing and shooting res
ervation. Referred to the committee of the
whole
Mr.. Harris, of Georgia. from the committee
on ways and means, reported bill amend
ing such sections of the statutes ss make a dis
tncton in the mode of packing and selling cut
tobacco. Referred to the committee of the
whole.
The House then went into committee of the
whole-Mr. Blount, of Georgia. in the chair-on
the legislative appropriation bill
The pending question was on the point OF order
made by Mr.. Morrison of Illinois, against the
words lin full compensation" where they occur
in the general appropriation clause of the bill.
Mr.. Holman, of Indiana, argued against tho
point, ana called attention to the fact that for
the past ten years these words had been incor-
porated in every legislative appropriation bill
The question presented was whether the House
could under its rules, impose Limitation on tho
expenditure of public money. II it could not, !.
had almost abandoned the power to control the
expenditures of public money.
Mr.. Morrison said the gentlemans argument
was based on the old rule of the House.
different rule had been made, and rule to
which the gentleman from Indiana was under
obligation to pay some respect The House had
declared in that rule that when in any branch of
the public service the compensation OF the ofii-
| GERS is fixed by law, the law could not be changed
in appropriation bill. The rule said to the
gentleman that it was his duty to appropriate
the money which the law Ind determined should
be appropriated for the purpose, and If the gen
| tleman, any other gentleman. believed that
too much or too little was being appropriated, he
had nothing to DO but to introduce aud pass
| bill reducing or increasing salaries.
Mr.. Holman inquired how MANY bills reducing
salaries had been passed during the past ten
years.
| Mr.. Morrison replied that none had been
| passed
Mr.. Holman inquired why the gentleman had
| not attended to the matter.
| Mr.. Morrison said that his duty had been in
| another direction. The point of order was so
| plain that all must understand it. He did not
| make the point because he did not want any sal
| airy reduced increased, but in order to insist
that the rules of the House and its orderly pro-
| ceedingS should be observed He would go along
with the gentleman when he proposed to do
| away with an Office; he did not always go with
him when he proposed to make one. The last
bill that had gone through the House under the
| whip and spur of the other sida-the oleomar-
garne bill-proyided for no officers and the
gentleman from Indiana had jumped on the cow
| catcher and gone along with 1t
| Mr.. Holman inquired whether the rule had
been intended to prevent the reduction of sal
| aries.
Mr.. Morrison said that the purpose of the rule
| was to insist upon the committees appropriating
| the money which the law said should be appro-
priated for specific purpose.
Mr.. Holman suggested that the gentleman had
voted for different law when the Democrats
came into power in the Forty fourth Congress.
| Mr.. Morrison admitted that he had done SO.
| The original rule had been adopted in order to
| permit the Democratic majority to compel Re
| publican Senate to comply with its wishes.
| Great complaint and some abuse had come from
| the rule; and this House had thought that when
Democratic administration had control of the
expenditure Of money. the Senate would not
| stand in the way of reductions,
| Mn Holman suggestsa1. that there were many
tsepublicr.--.s IN Office
:. mr. Morrison said that he had heard that there
| were few Republicans still in Office, put II they
were in he proposed that they should have the
salaries fixed by law; and If the salaries WoTo 400
| high, he would go with the gentleman to cut
| them down. He had heard, year by year. about
the reduction Of salaries, until he supposed that
the gentleman had the salaries fixed at the right
| rate.
After further debate, the chairman rendered
i lie decision on the point Of order He reviewed
the provisions g the rule adopted by the Forty
| fourth Congress, and of the rule adopted by the
Forty sixth Congress, and known as the Holman
amendment. He compared them with the exist
| ing rules to show that the present House had
| stripped the rule of any verbiage which could
| possibly be construed as permitting legislation
on appropriation bills He also called attention
| to the fact that when the House was discussing
| the rules 1t had voted down-yeas 60 nays 2O7-
| proposition to allow reductions salaries to
| be provided for in appropriation bills. The
| Chair had, therefore, difficulty 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 rot In order to provide for a
reduction OF salary when it had been fixed by
| law. 1t had been claimed by some gentlemen
that the words against which the point of order
was made were limitation on the appropriation.
If the reduction of a salary furnished illus
trati0n of what tho word ''iimitation"
meant. it was quite easy to see what the present
House had intended to do-to exclude what was
termed limitation from the appropriation bills
1t was argued that this did not repeal the law
The language of the rule was change existing
laws" The officer would be entitled to the sal
airy by force of statute but this provision
changed the law, and was therefore out of order
He sustained the point of order.