The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1899-02-15
HEPBURN PRESENTS
HIS CANAL BILL
Offered as al Amendment to
the Sundry Civil.
Mr.. Cannon Makes a Point of Order
Against 1t.
After Much Debate by Both Sides the
Matter Was Carried Over
Until Today.


The Nicaragua Canal bill prepared by
| the House Committee on Commerce was
| offered in Committee of the Whole House
yesterday as an amendment to the sundry
civil appropriation bill by Mr.. Hepburn.
who made a strong argument for it. He
was seconded by William Alden Smith of
Michigan and General Grosvenor of Ohio
Mr.. Cannon of Illinois opposed the
amendment by point of order, in support
of which he made an impressive speech.
Mr.. Bailey of Texas seemed inclined to side
with Mr.. Hepburn. but as the hour was
| late, deferred his remarks until today.
| 1t was after 3 o'clock when the river
! and harbor items in the sundry civil bill
| were reached and Mr.. Hepburn was able
| to offer his Nicaragua Canal amendment.
| The provisions of the amendment have re-
peatedly been printed in The Times. They
! are identical with those OF the bill favor
| ably reported by the House Committee on
Commerce. and provide that the President
| shall acquire the necessary territory and
this Government shall build the canal. The
bill and amendment each appropriates
100000 to cover the cost.
Mr. Cannon made a point of order against
the amendment He said il was not ger
name; that it proposed new legislation;
that it appropriated money not authorized
| by existing law. and that it appropriated
money for a public work not already in
progress.
Mr.. Hepburn replied that it would be
hard to find topic that would not be
germane to the sundry civil bill. That
bill included subjects as diverse as could
be imagined-military parks, river and har-
! Dor items, postoffices, and so on. There
were but two questions to be considered.
The first was whether the canal was now
under construction. If so, the amendment
| belonged at the exact point in the bill that
had been reached. The second question
was whether the work was not in progress.
He should endeayor TO show that it was.
\ Precedent Established.
The sundry civil act passed in 1895 made
an appropriation TO ascertain the feasibility
of the canal, and constituted a board TO
make this investigation. Not only did it do
this, but it legislated taking away the
work from the Secretary of War, who had
charge of such work. and giving it to the
Secretary of State. Not only this, but il
fixed salaries. All this was new legisla-
ton if Mr.. Cannon's position was correct,
but Mr.. Hepburn said that he should try
10 show later on that it was not new leg
islation.
Now" continued MIR. Hepburn. the
question is this: Is this work III progress?
Has a single step been taken in further
ance of it? If So it had been begun He
referred to the surveys that had been made.
But he said, lit was claimed that the
law provided that q survey should not be
held to bind the Government to further
work. He then read the law on this
point, showing that this condition was
only true if no appropriation had been
made. In other cases there was no such
limitation.
Gould anyone claim" he said, that
final and complete survey was not step
in prosecution of the work? In building
a railway. there were many steps before
the final survey, all of which had been
completed in Nicaragua
Coming to the question of new legisla-
ton, Mr.. Hepburn referred to the au-
thority conferred by Congress upon the
President in 1886 to appoint the Walker
Commission. Here were new officers ap-
pointed Had the President authority TO
appoint these before? Was this provision
of the bill therefore, new legislation? He
thought not
The bill, he said, carried but two direct
pieces of legislation. One authorized the
President TO buy strip of territory across
Nicaragua. The other appropriated $ll5,-
600, O0O. All the rest Of the bill was made
up of limitations. Could the President buy
this territory without authority? Thomas
Jefferson had done more when he bought
Louisiana.
Mr.. SUizcr Gets In.
Mr. Sulzer interrupted with a query as
to whether Mr.. Hepburn did not know that
the constitution of Nicaragua forbade the
alienation OF the national territory. MIR.
Hepburn said that he knew nothing of the
sort He had been told so by many people,
but he had never been able to find it in
the TRANSACTIONS of the constitution to
which he had access. In any case, the
constitution of Nicaragua could be
changed.
In answer TO question from Mr.. Bailey,
Mr.. Hepburn said that the act constituting
the Walker Commission authorized ii TO do
everything precedent to the actual sticking
of a spade into the earth. Continuing. he
said that the rule against the canal in
voked by Mr. Cannon was obsolete. The
present sundry civil bill contained thirteen
distinct violations of it in the first nineteen
pages. 1t was invoked only when the mem
beers of the Appropriations Committee
wished to strike down what they pleased to
consider a raid on the Treasury.
He had little respect for the rule. II was
only one of the rules of the House which
had been adopted after he CHepburn) had
given pledge that chance to alter them
would be given soon. He had been unable
TO redeem that pledge, but he did not re-
gard rules so adopted as binding upon him
self
The Hisc Convention.
Mr.. Hepburn took his seal amid general
applause, and Mr.. William Alden Smith OF
Michigan took the floor. He read from the
Hise convention between the United States
and Nicaragua, which granted the United
States right OF way across that State
while the United States guaranteed its pro-
lection 10 this route He held that under
this treaty the United States could build
the canal.
Mr.. Cannon, assuming that the Chairman
would rule in his favor and that an appeal
would be taken, asked members 10 decide
according to their judgment and not ac-
cordng to their predictions in favor of
the canal. He himself favored canal I'M
der proper safeguards. but he thought so
great question should not be begun with
out proper consideration. In the opinion
of many he had evidently forgotten the
weeks of consideration the measure had re-
ceiVed in the Senate and the days given 10
it by the House Committee on Commerce
Mr.. Bailey, who had been comforting
q