Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-01-30
THE Law IN THE CASE
Mr.. Littlefield on the Pro-
posed Mileage Appropriation.
QUESTION AT ISSUE
HAS THE SESSION SINCE NovFM-
Der 9 BEEN CONTINUOUS
He Refrains to Discuss the Propriety
Of the Pending PROPOSE
QUESTION AT ISSUE

When the House of Representatives, in
considering the urgent deficiency appropria-
ton bill yesterday, reached the mileage
paragraph Mr.. Hemenway called atten-
ton to the fact that provision for the
mileage of senators had been omitted from
the bill by an oversight and it was in
serted.
Mr.. Maddox (Ga.) was recognized and
raised point of order against the item.
He asked for a ruling as to whether, since
the mileage provided for the regular ses-
sion having been applied to the special ses-
sion, the House could now appropriate
mileage for it's members.
Mr.. Grosvenor proposed amendment
providing that any member so desiring
might cover any money due him under
this appropriation into the treasury.
Laughter followed it's reading. Mr.. Mad
dox said he had heard cheap amendments
offered before and he could exercise his
right to accept or return money without
amendment.
Opposed to the Law.
Mr. Littlefield of Maine then addressed
the House on the point of order. He said:
Il wish to state at the outset, Mr. Chair
man, that l have not word to say about
the propriety the improperly of the
pending proposition. Whether if it reaches
that stage, members vote to pass the bill
as 1T stands or vote to strike out the propo-
slton is proposition for every single in
dividual member, and l do not think he is
to be criticised or reflected upon, either
directly or indirectly, by any member of
the House. 1t is purely a personal PROPOSE
ton. L shall not spend moment on the
merits or morality, or equity of the propo-
sion. In my judgment-of course l may
be Wrong-the appropriation is not author
lied by existing law.
THE appropriation provides for mileage
Tor the second session of the Fifty-eightit
congress, and, in my opinion, the only qCes,
ton raised by the point of order or that
can properly be raised or debated in com
mittee is whether or not this is a second
session of the F'ifty-eighth Congress- or
whether we are now in the first session of
the Fifty-eighth Congress.
The history of the situation is simply
this: During the last term of Congress an
appropriation was made for mileage Cor the
congress that would meet on the first Mon
day of December 1903. When Congress
met on the 9TH day of November under a
call Sof the President for what. may be
termed and sometimes is termed a special
session.. or an extraordinary session'-and
L may say right here that the Constitution
does not recognize any distinction between
sessions; it does not refer to a regular ses-
sion or special session or an eXtraordi-
nary session.
Regular and Special Sessions.
What is termed popularity a regular
session, TO be sure, begins on the first Mon
day of December of each year. because, I'M
less otherwise provided that is when Con-
gress assemblies. Congress is assembled
when an extraordinary occasion exists I'M
der the proclamation of the President and
Congress did then assemble the Fifty
eighth Congress. 1t is not mentioned in the
Constitution an extraordinary or 'spe-
ci narI sb.,
may, on extraordinary occasions convene
botn Houses or either of them
Now, when this Congress met on the 9th
day of November, or shortly after by joint
resolution, very properly 1t diverted the ap-
preparation for mileage made for the Con-
Bress that was to meet on the first Monday
of December, 1903 to the payment of the
mileage of the Congress that met on the
9th day of November. 1903 But it left no
appropriation for mileage for this Con-
gress, assuming now that there is dis
tinction between the two sessions
THE precedent referred to in the Fifty
third Congress is not in the slightest de-
gree in point. 1t hasn't anything to do with
the case pending here, because there were
in that case two separate and Independent
sessions The law now provides that an an
preparation for mileage be made for
each regular session. and the only question
is whether the session we are now engaged
in Is the regular session. 1t does; not make
any difference how many days Of the SEES
reSnum was. If there was an interregnum,
we are entitled to mileage for the regular
session, in my Judgment, nor if that is the
fact do | see any legal reason why a man
should be criticised for voting fol-. it, There
is no question but that Congress has the
power to appropriate or divert the mileage
for a session beginning on the 9th day of
November from that appropriated for a
session beginning on the LIST of December.
Then the question recurs. Their, being no
appropriation for mileage in addition there
to, will 1t now appropriate for mileage for
the session that is alleged to have begun on
the first Monday of December?
One or Two Sessions.
THAT raises the specific question as to
whether or not we are now in continuous
session or whether there are clearly two
sessions. If two sessions. this appropriation
is correct; it is authorized by existing law
and it ought to be made, and every man
can properly receive it. Now, if there is a
continuous session then there is only one
session. then there is no law that authorizes
the appropriation of two mileageS for any