, 1892-01-15
sKINFLrNTs AND DEmAGOGUEs

Holman, the Indiana skinAint in charge
of the appropriation committee Of the
house of representatives IS opposed to the
following good republican doctrine offered
in the house yesterday BY Dingley, Of
Maine, as a substitute for Holman's anti
subsidy resolution:
"It is the sense Of the house thatit is the
duty OF congress to limit the appropria-
tOns to the requirements of an efficient.
honest, economical and statesmanlike ad-
ministration of national affairs. That tho
duties of congress are not restricted to
simply providing means for CARRYING Oh
the departments, but include such other
subjects as as are directly or indirectly for
the benefit OF the country as a whole and
not likely to be secured by private enter
prise, such as the establishment Of agri-
cultural colleges, agricultural experiment
stations, geological stations, Improvement
OF rivers and harbors, maintenance of SOL
diers' homes and the pension system for
the benefit of those who imperiled their
lives in behalf of the union.n
Buta few days ago when resolution
was offered in the house to send a ship
load Of provisions to the starving Russians
Holman sat dup in his chair during
the debate when not trying to speak with
his toothless gums tightly pressed together
and his bony fingers nervously combing
his struggling beard. the very picture of
the traditional miser raking the ashes for
the half-burned coal a curious figure for
a parliamentary leader, but the democratic
majority submissiyely accepted him. A
correspondent Of the New York Recorder,
in speaking of the debate, said sWhen
the question required upon the original
resolution Holman querulously moved to
amend by striking out the clause contain
ing the appropriation. Boutelle pointed
out that the amendment would defeat the
purpose of the resolution. Breckenridge
Joined with an eloquent appeal to the feel
ing Of humanity in the house. Boatner, Of
Louisiana, who comes forward in every
congress with a pathetic request for a $780,
900 contributions to the sufferers from the
Mississippi floods and always gets it, OBJ
iected to this appropriation on the ground
that the constitution made no provision
for charitable contributions.
Enloe hoped up with his usual little point
of order. and altogether there was a curious
hodge podge of argument against the reso-
luton, ranging from the economical to tile
constitutional objection, but based at the
bottom in many cases upon the fact that
Russia had lent Invaluable assistance to
the Union cause during the War Of the Re
bellion.
When Dewitt Warner made plausible
argument for the opposition he suggested
that even after the supplies reached Russia
there was no way to get them quickly to
the seat of distress, and said the wise
course would be to sell the provisions and
transmit the money BY cable to st. Peters
burg. The argument furnished an OK
cuse for the votes of a number of the mug.
wump contingent although il gracefully
ignored the fact that Russia had expressed
no desire for money, but had urged hel
sore need Of food. If the cry for help had
come from Ireland, as it did in 1S47 and
$780, aid would have been granted in
simultaneously and practically unanimous
ly, as on both of these occasions. But, in
the opinion Of the democratic majority,
there is apparently no Russian vote in this
country worth cultivating at the expense
OF cheap reputation for economy.