The times., 1899-02-16
THE CANAL BILL REJECTED.
MIR. CnnnOn's Point of Order Sus-
tanned by the Chair.

hF POfnt OF oruer SUN
tanned by the Chair.
The Nicaraguan canal was defeated as
an amendment to the sundry civil bill
in Committee of the Whole House yester-
day by vote of 127 TO 109, taken by telers.
A previous standing vote had resulted 152
to us. No doubt the amendment will be
offered in the House today and voted upon
by yeas and nays, but there seems to be
no reason why the ratio of yesterdays vote
! should be altered.
! The actual vote was on the question
/ of sustaining the decision of the Chair,
ruling out of order an amendment pro-
! viding for the Nicaragua Canal, and no
| doubt many members who would have vot-
ed for the canal voted to sustain the de-
cision of the Chair on question of the
| application of the rules of the House. The
! effect, however, is the same, resulting. it
| is believed, in the death of the canal bill
| this session, unless the Senate should put
| it on the bill and insist on its retention.
| In this event an extra session is probable,
as Mr.. Cannon, who will be the chief
conferee for the House, will certainly stand
out against it,
| On the other hand, Senator Morgan is
quoted as having stated yesterday that if
! the canal bill should fail he would at once
! set to work to filibuster against the supply
bills in the Senate with the view of COM
pelling an extra session.
The vote in the House was surprising
/ not less to the opponents of the canal than
1 to its friends, nearly everyone having oSn-
! ceded that 1t would be adopted. Late in
/ the afternoon, however, some close watch
! ers began to infer from the determination
III sfh
! sitions for a compromise and from the
persistency with which Speaker Reed
moved about the House buttonholing mem-
bers that they also had a pretty strong
force behind them
Early in the day Mr.. Cannon. having
charge of the bill, moved that the House
go into Committee of the Whole on the
sundry civil bill. AS he was making his
motion, Mr.. Hepburn of Iowa, asked him
TO pause for moment, in order to permit
him tMr. Hepburn) to ask unanimous con-
sent for the consideration of a resolution
that he wished to present.
The Speaker refused to recognize Mr.
Hepburn, and proceeded to put Mr.. Can
mons motion, but the House voted almost
unanimously against him, refusing to go
into Committee of the Whole. A division
wa sasked, pending which Mr.. Reed de-
cided to let Mr.. Hepburn read his resolu-
tioIi' II piONSu 10 De one setting next
Tuesday for the consideration of the Mic
/ aragua Canal bill. the consideration to
continue day by day until action was
reached.
Mr.. Cannon formally objected, refusing
his consent. Mr.. Hepburn's point having
been gained, opposition to going into Com
mittee of the Whole was withdrawn. and
on the division, the House was almost
unanimous in favor of doing so.
The question in the committee was on
Mr. Cannon's point of order against the
admission of the Nicaragua Canal amend
ment as rider on the sundry civil bill.
Mr.. Bailey said that Mr. Cannon was
unfortunate in his reference of the day
before to the Pacific railways. The trou-
bic in their case came, not from hasty
legislation in Congress, hut from the part
nership between the Government and the
| railways.
He was anxious to vote on the question
OF the canal. II was not to be built for
| commercial purposes only, but as a great
military and naval work. 1t would be alb
surd TO put such work under private
control.
He was as averse as any man in the
House to violating the rules He had
always maintained that they should be
! lived up to. He was in favor of observing
not only their letter, but their spirit But
the rule that Mr.. Cannon had so dramat-
| icaliy quoted the day before had been vio-
| lated again and again. 1t was violated in
every appropriation bill reported, he said.
Mr.. Cannon interposed, saying that no
rule had ever been violated except by
! unanimous consent. No appropriation
had ever been passed contrary to the rules
except by unanimous consent
Mr.. Bailey said that unanimous consent
I did not violate the rules, but suspended
| them. But Mr. Cannon had not asked
unanimous consent TO report items,
which was also forbidden by the rule in
question.
MIR. Cannon admitted that this was true,
but asked whether two wrongs made a
right.
MIR. Bailey said that they did not. and
that he did not complain of Mr.. Cannon's
actions. All he desired TO show at this
point was that the rules were not so sa-
cred when the majority wished to violate
them.
But, Mr.. Chairman" continued Mr.
Bailey, Il did not rise TO discuss the rules
but TO call attention to the fact that the
bill under consideration carefully avoids
the very points that proved so unfortunate
in regard to the Pacific railways"
Mr.. Dockery called attention 10 the point
whether the amendment did or did not
change existing law. If it did, il was out
of order. Every intelligent Republican,
he said, knew that il did change it,
Mr.. Berry of Kentucky wanted to know
how it changed existing law when no law
existed on the subject.
Mr. Dockery replied that where there
was no existing law legislation establishing
the law had been repeatedly held to be an
alteration OF existing law.
Mr.. Dockery said that he had little re-
spect for the Reed rules. They had de-
graded the House by increasing the al
ready enormous power OF the Speaker. But
this particular rule. now invoked, had come
down from 1887, from a Democratic Presi-
dent, James X. Polk. when he was Speaker
of the House.
was added to the bill he intended to pro-
pose an amendment providing that the cost
of the canal should be paid by additional
legal tender notes issued by the United
States Government
Mr.. Swanson asked whether Mr. Dock
cry had not voted at the last session TO
place a recognition of Cuban independence
on an appropriation bill. Did he do this,
he asked, in violation of the rules, or did
he not?
Mr.. Doclery admitted, with humiIia-
tion, that he had acted in fiat violation of
the rules. But the rules could be changed
legally. Were they TO be changed by reyo-
luton?
Yes. yes. yes!'' shouted many mem
bers in chorus.
Mr.. Dockery then referred to the Iues-
tion of the Treasury. He said the def
icit on June 30 would be Sl59, 900, 900.
Mr.. Hepburn here called Mr.. Docliery
to order. The gentleman is violating the
rules himself. The rules say that in this
minute debate discussion must be ger
name to the amendments The Treasury
has nothing TO do with This bill. The gen-