The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1910-02-10
DEFENDED POSITION
Senator Dillingham; by Straightfor-
ward Explanation Turned Tide In
Sannfe


Senate.
In the issue of the Congressional
Record for February 2, there ap-
pears a most comprehensive state
ment by Senator w. p Dillingham;
of Vermont, chairman of the Immi
grafton Commission of Congress, rel
ative to the expenditures and work
completed by the commission, dur
ing the past two years This expla-
nation was brought out after an at
tack had been made in the House or
the amendment to the urgent def
cheney appropriation bill, providing
for an appropriation to carry on the
work of the commission. The House
killed the amendment and the meas
ure was passed to the Senate, but
that body expressed its confidence in
the members of the commission by
passing the amendmnt without opposi
ton. after the explanation above re-
ferred to, and hereinafter quoted,
was made. The extract from the
Congressional Record, covering the
matter, follows:
immigration Commission: For the
expenses of the commission provided
for in section 80 of the act of Febru-
AIRY 20, 1907, entitled "An act to re-
gulate the immigration of aliens into
the United States" $125,000, to be
available until December 5, 1910: Pro-
vided, That no part of this appropria-
shall be used for field work, nor shall
any member of said commission be
entitled to or receive any salary as
such member after March 1, 1910. And
the said commission shall complete
it's entire work and make it's final re-
port and the commission shall cease
on the first Monday of December,
1910.
Mr. Stone Mr.. President. I see
that the provision which is inserted
as an amendment to the pending bill
appears in the bill as presented to
the House of Representatives, where
1T went out on a point of order. | do
mot see why the same point of order
made in the other House would not
be well taken in the Senate, based on
the ground that it is an appropriation
made for which there is on authority
in existing law. l am disposed at all
events at this time to raise that point
of order against the provision just
read.
Mr.. Lodge. Mr.. President, the
House against this provision as it
was reported by the House Commit
tee on Appropriations was under the
House rule that it was changing ex-
listing law, which was unquestionably
obnoxious to the House rule. Our
rule is as to general legislation.
do not think this is general legisla-
ton. 1t is mere continuance to sup
ply a deficiency of work which was
authorized by previous legislation.
Mr.. Stone. Mr.. President, l make
this single observation, that it is ra-
Their splitting of hairs to say that
there is difference between enact
ing Legislation in a given case, and
making an appropriation in a given
case, where there is no provision of
law authorizing it or to meet any
demand of existing law, and to say
that this is not general legislation. If
there is no law on the subject, if
there is no legal demand, no legal
authority for the appropriation, then
1t is new legis iation and, in substance
and effect, is general legislation.
The Presidi { Officer (Mr. Gallinger
IN the chair. Does the Senator from
Missouri make the point of order
against the amendment?
Mr.. Stone. | did make it, Mr.. Pres
ident.
The Presiding Officer. The present
occupant of the chair is of the opin-
ion that there is proper ground for
"A difference of opinion as to the cor
rect construction of the rule on this
particular amendment, and exercis-
ing his right under Rule Xxx the
Chair will submit the matter to the
Senate. Senators who are of opinion
that the amendment is in order will
say aye" those opposed will say
no The ayes" have it, and the
amendment is declared to be in order.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr.. Bacon Mr. President not for
the purpose of taking any issue what
ever with the general propriety of this
amendment. l should really like to
have some statement as to how this
money is to be spent, simply in a gen