The times., 1899-02-17
ON A POINT OF ORDER.
The S2o,OOO.OOO for Spain Stricken
From the Sundry civil Bill.


! On point OF order raised by Representa-
| tive Wheeler of Kentucky the House yes
terday struck from the sundry civil bill
the s20,0OO,00O appropriation to pay Spain.
An appeal was taken by Representative
Williams of Mississippi. but the Chair was
sustained by standing vote of li9 to %.
curious state of affairs developed in
| the debate on the point of order and the
appeal. Representative Wheeler, who
raised the point, is a Democrat. He was
sustained by the Chairman, who is Re
publican. Representative Williams of Mis-
sissippi who demanded the appeal, is also
a Democrat The Chair was sustained by
! Representatives Cannon. Payne, Dockery,
Wheeler, AMI others and was opposed by
| Representatives Grow, Hepburn, Connolly,
| Williams, Walker, and others.
A section OF the Democrats evidently
| wanted to retain the item in the bill and
to add to it the McRae amendment declar-
! ing that the FlipinOs should ultimately be
| given an independent form of government
and consequently opposed the striking out
of the whole subject. Some of the Repub-
licans, on the other hand, were quite will
| ing to save President Mckinley from the
necessity of approving a declaration for
! Philippine independence by signing the
! sundry civil biil.g
The larger part of the Democrats, how
ever, undoubtedly shrunk from the charge
unfounded indeed, but sure to be made in
the next campaign, that the party was un-
willing to carry out the obligations of the
| Treaty.
The debate took somewhat narrow
| range, the same arguments being repeated
| by nearly every speaker. The contentious
OF those favoring the point of order were,
| briefly, that the Treaty did not become
law until ratifications had been exchanged
! and that it might not be ratified at all by
| Spain. II was all right, they held, to ap-
propriate the money, but not to appro
pirate it in this particular way and at this
! particular time. The contentious of the
other side We're that the appropriation was
| for the continuance and conclusion" of
| the war, and, therefore, for work in
progress that the spirit of the rule should
be considered rather than the letter of it.
| and that the treaty making power could
not be defeated by rule of the House.
After the question had apparently been
| settled il was raised again by an amend
ment in slightly different words seeking
| to attain the same end. The Chair again
held it cut of order, but another irrepressi-
| bic member offered the paragraph once
more with further change of language 1t
| was again ruled out. and the bill was final
! ly proceeded with.
| The paragraph was reached in the middle
| of the afternoon. MIR. Wheeler of Kentucky
made a point Of order against it under the
same rule that served the day before to
shut out the Nicaragua Canal, that it was
not authorized by existing law
| He contended that the Treaty was not
| vitalized and not the supreme law of the
land until it had been ratified by Spain
and until the ratifcations had been ex-
| changed between the two governments The
| Treaty, he said, expressly provided that it
should not become operative until these
ratifications had been exchanged.
The Cortes had not yet ratified the
| Treaty. the ratifications had not yet been
| exchanged, nor had it been even ratified
by the United States Senate when the bill
was reported TO the House
The third article provided that the
money should be paid within three months
! after the exchange of ratifications But
| these had certainly not been exchanged
Suppose the Carlists should get into power
and Spain should refuse to ratify the
| Treaty. how then would the appropriation
be authorized by existing law?
Representative Ball of Texas said that
| after the full discussion OF Wednesday on
a precisely similar point. he saw little rea-
son 10 argue the case. The matter was one
OF simple contract which had been signei
| by one party to it and not by the other
or course. it was not binding until signed
| by both. He was willing to pass the $40.
oVe'OVO II the Treaty were ratified but not
unless.
Mr. carron bo-o os,,os ,.h,
willing IN do tbie ho I. - ~ ne wei!
annron,iate Tho ,,,or,n', - nOe "iiiihs 10
the ynrds 30 ~ hiiI "t.eIi, e hoNo' uIhe 10
| able only upon the exchange of the rati-
fication" of the Treaty He was not dis
cussing the point of order. He thought per-
| ~ - ""o ven t'AeH' but why dld Mr.
M t,a 80 o,e uas' "Heh ne said
NJ M , Ntt'ths 10 iathy II on the next
o,,aa, s4 A@'' spIiei thdt' dsIue from MS
'.si 'oi tie rules ne was unwill-
S ~ to.e ioi any measure tending TO the
s.:e, '.oii Vi lhe fiiIpihos before he was
o.seu ~ uo 50.
vi 'e'I ~. Vi 20, oo,oraeo sald that the ques-
I'm I'm s at Issue Hdu oeeh ALREADY decided by
| 'he courts III eAuradltlon cases, where a
| SiiiHe hdu peeh committed between the
uate OF agreement and that Of ratification
| me courts mad decided that the treaties
did not become law until ratified by both
nations who We're parties to it,
MI Lacey Of Iowa argued, he said ac-
| cordlng to the spirit and not according to
the letter of the rule. No doubt it was
true that the consent of Spain must be
! obtained to make the Treaty operative
But the United States had done all that il
| could TO ratify II. If so. it was existing
! law in the spirit of the rule The term
existing law" he said, was not the tech
ncal matter insisted upon bv the gentle
man from Kentucky. The Treaty was de-
signed TO terminate war and in a larger
sense was existing law, having already
terminated the war
| Mr.. Crumpacker of Indiana argued that
the appropriation for the Treaty was for
a work in progress" practically an ap-