Evening star., 1897-02-04
The Appropriation Bill Further Dis
cussed in the House.
Mr.. DOCKERY'S AMENDMENT
Two Hours Given for Debate
Upon 1t.
L H E a RG ENTS MADE

The House resumed consideration OF the
District appropriation bill this afternoon. in
committee of the whole, with Mr.. Payne of
New York in the chair
Mr.. Dockery offered his amendment an
tEorized by the committee on rules ana IN.
House. repeating the act of February H.
lS?', providing for the settlement OF Ger
tain claims against the Distric; arising un-
der the board of public works.
Mr. Meredith of Virginia opposed the
amendment. He said he realized he was
leading forlorn hope, inasmuch as the
House, under a misapprehension OF facts
Would probably repeal the law passed in
1885. He said the District committee to-
day had the matter under consideration.
ard he would undertake to say that If the
House had heard some of the statements
maze before the committee the House
would hesitate before hurrying into the
repeal OF the law, as IL was nov doing
Mr.. Meredith held that the government is
"ithhoding from the claimants sums
rightfully due them.
Mr- Meredith referred bitterly to the ac-
lon taken before the committee on rules
Yesterday. when the question involved in
these claims was sprung suddenly and m.
representative of the claimants was NOT
given time to prepare himself for argu-
ment.
An Unusual Proposftion.
Mr.. Grout said the proposition to repesl
that law by an amendment TO an appropria
iion bill was an unusual one. of course.
and the widest debate should be allowed
He therefore asked that there might be
cne hours debate.
Mr.. Pitney wanted more debate than that
Mr- Grout said he was willing to have as
much as might be needed. Ii was finally
;.greed to make IL two hours
Mr.. Sayers Favors It.
MT sayers of Texas was then recognized
In support of the proposition to repeal the
law OF 1S93 He caused to be read from
the clerks desk the record of the proceed
lrgs In the House when the bill was rasscd
in the Fifty-third Congress
Mr.. Sayers said that when the bill was
passed he had the assurance of Mr.. Cobb.
who had charge of it, that the bill involved
cnly 10000 or 10000. Under the enforce
ment Of the law, however, this amount had
been exceeded.
More than that. the claim was made
when the bill was passed that ii had been
Endorsed by the Commissioners II turned
out, however. that the report of the Com
missioners was garbled, and the vital and
essential recommendations. including all of
the safeguards. were stricken out
Mr.. Sayers insisted that Mr.. Dockery's
amendment should be adopted and that
the House should put the seal of its con-
demnation not only upon the act of 1885,,
but in the way in which it passed.
Would Not Discriminate.
Mr.. Richardson said the danger OF the
proposed proceedings lay in the fact that
the repeal would not discriminate between
the unjust claims and the just ones. There
was danger, it was true that the govern
inent might be robbed under the existing
act, but there were some good and Just
claims in the lot. The course to be pur-
sued would be for the District committee
to report bill repeating the present act
and enacting the bin which the Commits
sioners formerly recommended and which
would discriminate between the meritori-
Gus and the unjust claims. MIR. Richard
son said there was no controversy that
the claims had amounted to s1.4oO.o1. but
that the court would eliminate about 40
per cent of that sum.
Mr.. Richardson said the District COM
mittee is now considering the matter. and
within an hour longer would have reported
a bill that would be satisfactory TO the
Commissioners.
Mr. Hulick's Views.
Mr.. Huliek said that as the law now
stands a man whose claim WAS adjudi-
Gated and paid under the act of 1880 and
his case settled, can come into court again
with the same claim and have it adjudi-
Gated again, with an Increase.
Instantly. for If 1t remained upon the
statute books the government would be
legally swindled out of great sums.
Mr.. Abbott Explains.
Mr.. Abbott of Texas, who reported the
act of 1895 to the House, took the floor to
explain his course at that time He told
OF the deliberations upon the bill submitted
by the Commissioners and the subsequent
reporting cf substitute measure. He said
he had not been governed by The District
Commissioners. He was always willing to
listen to their suggestions, but was not
compelled to follow them.
Mr.. Pitney of New Jersey then took the
floor. He was decidedly in favor of the
amendment. He began by stating that he
had high regard for Judge Abbotts in
nocence. After all. Judge Abbott's exper-
ience in life. he was not able TO discover
gross fraud right under his eyes. He
said that when the board of public works
was about to be investigated and the con-
tracts were found unsigned. the clerks in
the District offices were sent scuttling
about to get signers for the fraudulent
Mr.. Pitney said that there was not a bit
of justice, equity or decency in any of the
claims.
MIR. Meredith said that was not the opin-
ion Of the Commissioners, and Mr.. Rich
ardson said that the Commissioners said
this morning that some of the claims were
just.
Mr.. Pitrey said the bill to be repealed
tied the hands of the Court of Claims and
compelled IL to do an iniquity He said all
OF the claimants had their rights In equity,
and this bill only allowed all the thieves
10 get in on an equal footing"
NEW POST nKcEIrE