Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-11

Sonsiuerauoni nence the motion 10 re- /
consider. The motion was agreed ~
After an executive session, The senats
adjourned. -@'e
THE HousE.
WASHINGTON, June lO.--Mr ro,no :,
Utah withdrew his objection Ia the ~
porting OF Mr.. Edmund's anti.no,vgs,o,,
bill from the committee on iudiclarv ana
the measure was placed on the house cal. |
eldar. N''
Mr.. Houk Of Tennessee. rising +, :.
question OF privilege, said that ON 4hs
18th OF March, while discussing the nos,
Office appropriation bill, he had oeossion
to criticise the appointment Of most |
masters in his state, and made a state.
ment III conclusion that he did not know
how this all came ahon, |
unless IL were by inanerce |
OF the man who had paid himself a
salary as governor out Of the children's |
school fund OF the state two yesrs after
ms Term OF Office expired. He had been ip. |
serrupted by bis colleague (hIr. McATillin.) |
some unpleasant remarks passed between |
thems he only recalled this 20 show that
the implication of his remarks were
founded on substantial, uncontroyert.
pie truth. He proceeded t. quote from
the Journal Of the Tennessee legislature.
investigating the school fund question, ia
order TO substantlate his statement.
Mr.. Richardson Of Tennessee said that
the issue made by his colleague
on the 2gth Of March still stood.
the question being whether what
the gentleman had stated was
correct aud true. Mr.. Richardson had
said that it was not true. He contended
that at the time IL was charged that Mr..
harrls had drawn a salary from the
school fund he had been goveraor Of
Tennessee under clause of the state
constitution which provides that the
| governor shall hold over until his sue.
cessor Is elected and qualified. After an
OLD chapter Of Tennessee history had
been recounted by Messrs Richardson
and Houk the matter was dropped.
| Mr.. Warner of Ohio, from the commit
tee on postolllces and post roads, re-
ported q bin authorizing certain changes
In the organization of the postoiIlce de-
partment. Referred to the committee OF
the whole.
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 agoinst
the words sin full compensation" where
they occur in the general appropriation
clause of the bill,
Mr.. Holman Of Indiana argued against
the point. He called attention to the fact
that for the past ten years these words
had been Incorporated in every legislative
appropriation bill The question was
whether the house could impose a limita-
ton on expenditures, II 1t could not,
then it had lost control OF the public
money.
Mr.. Morrison said the gentleman's
argument was based on the old rule Of
the house, A different rule had been
made, and rule to which the gentleman
from Indiana was under obligation TO
pay some respect. The house had de-
clared in that rule that when in any
branch of the public service the com
Ipensation Of officers is fixed by law, the
law could not be changed in the appro-
pration bill. The rule said to the gen
tleman that it was his duty to appropriate
money which the law had determined
should be appropriated for the pur.
pose, and If the gentle
man or any other gentleman
believed that too much or too little was
being appropriated, he bad nothing t.
do but to introduce and pass Il bill le
ducing or increasing the salaries.
Mr.. Holman inquired how many bill
reducing salaries had been passed during
the past ten years.
MIR. Morrison replied that none haC
been passed during the last ten years, Of
the last six months, because the gentle
man was unwilling to reduce salaries I'M
less he could do 1t in his own way.
Mr.. Holman inquired why the gentle
man had not attended to the matter.
Mr.. Morrison said that his duty har
been In another direction. The point o
order was so plain that all must under
stand it, and he did not make the poln
because he did not want any salaries re
duced or increased, but in order to insls
that the rules OF the nous
, and its orderly proceedings shoul,
be observed. He would go along witt
the gentleman when he proposed Z
r do away with offices. He di'
7 not always go with him When n
proposed one. The last bill that hao U
4 20 through the house under the Whlp an
spur of the other side, the oleomaIgarln
4 bill, PROVIDED LOT new OAOSo "hu W
/ gentleman from Indiana had Jumped o.
r the COW catcher and gone along with i
i. Mr.. Holman inquired whether the rul
a had been intended to prevent the reduc
:, ton of salaries.
Mr.. Morrison said that the purposes {
!. the rule was to insist upon a Commute
\ appropriating money which the law cal
e should be appropriated for specinc pu'
pose.
: Mr.. Holman suggested that the ,gentl'
1 man had voted different law when "a
Y Democrats came into power in the Forty
4 fourth congress.
Mr.. Morrison admitted that ne ha
done so. TIE original rule had bee
i adopted in order TO permit Democrat.
!. majority to compel Republican sena'
Il "a comply with its wishes. Great con
nlaint of the same abuse had come frol
!. this rule, and this hous had Thought I'M
q when a Democratic administration ma
e control of the expenditure OF money u
/. senate would not stand in the way OF +
Ie ductions. no
~ MIR. Holman suggested that there we
q many Republicans in office.
MI. Morrison said that he had he ne,
n that there were few Republicans stlll
"a office, but if they were IN he prropos,,
a that thew should have salaries nAeu
~ 80, ard u the salaries were too hlgh