The National tribune., 1900-03-15
PENSION BILLS.
Day Sessions Decided Upon in
the House.


cussions Of this session took place in the
House on March g. This question of day
sessions to consider private pension bills
was brought up. and special rule setting
each month for this purpose adopted.
Representative Dalzell, from the Committee
| on Rules, presented the rule, which read as
| follows:
THE Committee on Rules, towhom were
referred resolutions of the House num-
| same under consideration, and respectfully
| report in lieu thereof the following: .
.Resolued, That during the remainder OF
this Congress the second and fourth Fri
days in each month, after the disposal Of
such business on the Speakers table as
for the consideration of private pension
bills, bills for the removal Of political dis
| abilities, and bills removing charges of de
sertion: The provision herein made shall
be in lieu of the evening session provided
for by Section of Rule XXVI., and Sec
XVI. are hereby modified to conform
herewith. And on each bill considered
under this rule there shall be allowed 10
minutes of debate in favor Of the bill and 10
minutes in opposition thereto"
Mr.: Dalzell. Mr.. Speaker. In brief, the
in each month for the Friday evening
sessions for pension. business, and to abol-
| ish the Friday evening sessions.
Mr.. Richardson. l would like to have
some explanation of the latter part Of the
rule, which gives 10 minutes for debate on
each side.
| Mr.. Dalzell. The latter part of the rule
provides that there shall be 20 minutes
debate upon each pension bill. Ten on a
side-that is, we have adopted rule that
has prevailed at times in previous Con-
gresseS and has been found to work salts
| factorily
| Mr.. Richardson. This is an entirely
new provision in the first consideration of
pension bills We have never had any
limit under any rule for the consideration
of bill in the first case; but the rule to
| which the gentleman refers was only ap-
piled where the bill had received consider
alton in Committee of the Whole at Fri
day eveningsession and had been favorably
reported to the House, and then in the
| House there was this limit OF debate Of
which the gentleman speaks, but as a fact
| there has been no limit of debate in Com
mittee Of the Whole as to each particular
bill.
| Mr.. Lacey. 1 notice that the rule pro
Poses to consider bi ls removing political
disabilities. / call the attention OF the
gentleman to the fact that the last Congress
removed the only political disabilities
existing. That ought to be stricken out,
| and have the last remnant OF that question
eliminated from the rules.
Mr.. Dalzell. l. will say to my friend from
Iowa that we merely copied the rule as it
| now exists because we intended this to be a
| substitute in lieu Of it; and it does no harm.
| The rule is precisely as it was when sub
| mitted to the gentleman from Tennessee
have handed in the exact copy which /
handed to my friend from Tennessee.
do not believe he read it.
Mr. Richardson. Icopfess, Mr.. Speaker,
that am taken by surprise when find the
rule reads as it does. | was present at the
committee meeting when this rule was
| ordered reported, and I distinctly under
stood, without hearing the resolution read.
that the proposition was to repeal so much
of the rule as provides for the consideration
Of pension bills on Friday evening and to
substitute for every Friday evening in the
month two Fridays of each month in the
daytime Now, you can see very well that
the proposition presented to us is a wholly
different proposition. / say it is unprece-
dented III our history.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania FMr.
DalzellI is mistaken when he says it is a
copy of any rule that ever obtained in the
House of Representatives. There has
never been a time when debate on pension
bills was limited to 10 minutes on side. or
20 minutes in all. There have been agree
ments and rules to limit this debate in special
cases to 20 minutes. ] submit, therefore,
that we can not agree to the passage of this
Ilile III ILLS iDIfI.
No matter whether the Democratic party
was in power or the Republican party in
power in the House, there never has been
any difficulty in bringing sufficient num-
ber OF members to the night session to pass
pension legislation. And now these
their rule and admit that, with a clear Re
publican majority on this floor-and one
that is gradually increasing. it seems
laughter and applause on the Republican
sidel, but will be decreased after the next
election, | hope Applause on the Demo
cratic sidel--you find it necessary, with
your increasing majority, to set aside the
night sessions and bring rule here TO take
day sessions in order to pass pension bills
for the benefit Of the old soldiers.
1t seems to me that with your majority
you ought to have had no difficulty in
bringing quorum here on Friday nights,
if you desire to pass pension bills. This is
the first time it has ever been necessary TO
ask for this legislation only in the daytime,
and if your zeal in behalf of the old soldier
was as great as you would have the old
soldier believe it is, it would not be necessary
now to abolish night sessions, but you
would bring quorum OF the House here
which you have, and pass these bills.
Great questions are sometimes raised in
pension bills, and it seems to me it is I'M
necessary for gentlemen to insist on this
limit.
90 flOL InlIk IHey VIII Ilnu IulDilSterlng
against pension legislation here in the day
time. am quite sure / can safely say for
gentlemen on this side of the House that
there will be no disposition merely to con-
sumo time in opposition to pension legisla-
ton. The old soldier has been treated Just
as we'll when the Democratic party was in
majority in this House, and as many
private pension bills were passed, as when
the Republicans were in the majority.
There has never been any question about
that. They have never complained that
they could not getall the Legislation needed
from Democratic House. 1t will be time
enough to place limit on discussion when
any difficulty in that direction shall arise
Mr.. Mahon. Mr.. Speaker, 1 have been
n member of this House for nearly eight
years. My record is that / have never
voted against general or private pension
bill. And / want to say to members of
this House that there have come from the
committee Of which / am Chairman bills
which are on the Calendar to-day, involving
claims of soldiers of the civil war and of the
Spanish-American war, which in import
ance are far above the claims of any deserter
whose bill might be covered by this pro-
posed rule. rso
The third month cs this Congress has
gone; vet not day has been allowed for
the consideration of bills reported from the
Committees on Claims and War Claims: no |
opportunity has been afforded to consider |
the just claims of private citizens against |
this Government. This proposed rule will |
yirtuolly uina ont Is, tbia a.