The times., 1899-02-16

| ionS SuHering, Dut sometimes they ran
| down man who attempted to manage
| them.
Mr. Steele of Indiana here interjeeted a
remark inferring that the Chairman would
sustain the point OF order and would have
| to be overriddep in order to get in the
amendment, whereupon Mr.. Grosvenor in
nocently enquired who had told Mr. Steele
as to the Chairman's intentions.
II 1t were an outrage to carry out the
will of the people continued Mr.. Grosve-
nor, he was willing TO be a partner in it.
He had been in Congress long enough
to learn that the rules were all right as
| long as they suited the majority, but were
| brushed aside as soon as they got in its
way
He then proceeded to review the circum-
stances leading up to the offering OF the
amendment. This he said was due TO Mr..
Cannon's declaration that neither the ship
subsidy nor the Nicaragua Canal bill
should be considered at this session.
| Mr.. Cannon denied that he had made
| such a statement. He said that he had
only said that he thought the House would
not consent to consider them.
Mr.. Grosvenor then called attention 10
Mr. Cannon's objection to the Hepburn
resolution, offered shortly before asking
that next Tuesday and the days following
be set for consideration of the bill
Mr.. Cannon replied that this gave more
time than could be allowed at this point of
the session.
Mr.. Grosvenor then asked whether Mr..
Cannon would agree to grant one day to
consider and vote on the canal bill. To
this Mr. Cannon replied that he would
agree to grant the day, but would not con-
sent to allow a vote with so brief consid-
Grafton. Whereat Mr.. Grosvenor remarked
that his friend objected to one request be-
cause it granted too much time and to the
other because it did not grant time
enough.
Mr.. Grosvenor then turned his atten-
tion to the legal aspects of the point of
order, and contended that the amendment
did not fall under the rule as the work
| was public one already in progress
He concluded by stating that the Amer
ican people could no longer trife with this
canal subject. Ii Congress should fail to
act now, and should thus give notice to the
world that it hesitated to act, it woIld
thereby yield to other countries the right
| to go in and build the canal If this Con-
gress should not act, he, for one, would
stand ready to vote for a joint resolution
declaring that the United States had
abandoned the canal, and appealed to
other nations to take il in hand.
Chairman Hopkins then gave his ruling
He said: The point raised does not touch
the merits OF the canal. It is purely par
liamentary. The bill under discussion is
one of the general appropriation bills. and
the question is whether this amendment
can be placed upon it,"
He then recited the points raised by Mr.
Cannon quoted the rule to which he had
appealed, and reviewed the arguments and
history of the matter.
He held that former legislation. to which
Mr. Hepburn had referred, was merely a
, direction TO acquire knowledge on certain
facts, without binding the Government TO
any policy whatever. The Chair, he said,
was fortified in this position by the amend
ment itself, which was really a recogni-
tion of the fact that new legislation was
required.
Mr.. Hopkins then reviewed the prece-
dents offered by decisions of former Chair
men and Speakers, all of which, he said
sustained his position. He therefore over
ruled Mr.. Hepburn's first contention. TAX
ing up the treaty cited by Representative
w. A. Smith, he held that it had no bear
ing on the point.
Coming to the third point, he said that
no appropriation could be included in a
general appropriation bill unless in execu-
tion of an obligation recognized by exist
ing law. Such, for instance. was the sum
of S20.000.0 600 to be paid to Spain. This
amendment did not stand on that footing
Mr.. Cannon. said Mr.. Hopkins. had con-
tended that the amendment was not ger
name to the bill, and he thought the point
we'll taken.
The Chair therefore sustained the de-
cision and Mr.. Hepburn promptly appealed
from the decision of the Chair.
MIR. Dalzell moved TO lay the appeal on
| the table, but the Chairman was forced to
inform him that his motion was cut of or
der. there being no table" in Committee
of the Whole. all of which made Mr. Dal-
zell appear as knowing very little parlia-
mentary law. The matter then recurred
on the question, Shall the ruling of the
Chair be the decision of the committee
Nearly the whole House desired to vote
without further debate. but Mr.. Fleming
OF Georgia, who had a quantity OF elo-
quence bottled up, insisted on putting it at
the disposal OF the House, despite calls of
Vote" from all sides. Mr.. Fleming spoke
on the side of the Chair. but it is safe 10
say that he made several votes against it
by his ill-iudged oratory. Mr.. Fleming is
regarded as poor orator on great ques-
tions.
The question was then put, and on a ris-
ing vote the Chair was sustained by vote
OF 152 to us. Tellers were ordered and
the vote as taken stood 127 TO 1903 The
Chair was sustained and the amendment