The Washington herald., 1913-02-05
Saunders Shows CLEARLY
intent OF District DEBT ACT

taken as the authoritative construction
of the intent of the first act.
Ar. Saunders pointed out that IN the
debate upon the act by which the United
States assumed the responsibility for tho
funded Indebtedness of the District. those
opposing the measure agreed II was tc
burden the United States for all time tc
come. so far as Congress could burden
it" lie quoted Representative Blackburn
OF Kentucky. the principal opponent al
that time. as saying:
Il answer that this provision OF the
report Of the committee on conference
binds this government in its own capac-
ity to the payment of one-half OF the
debt
Let me call your attention to another
tact in that connection, that Mr.. Black
burn. some years thereafter. was a men,
Der OF this body. and never afterward in
these debates. during his service in the
House, did he attempt to challenge the
proposition that. under the act. the gov
ernment was liable for one-half OF that
fund. I am told that il is a fact-of this
1 am not personally apprised-that he
was in charge of the District OF Column
bia appropriation bill that carried the
first provision Of this sort"
Quotes from Debate.
Referring again TO the Interpretation of
the act, which first assumed for the
United States this Indebtedness, Mr.
Saunders continued:
1T is a sound principle of interpretl-
ton that a body of related legislation
must be construed with respect to its
general intent" Mr.. Saunders had
quoted from the debate at the time Of
the assumption of the indebtedness nu-
mernus passages showing clearly that
the intent of the Legislators at tn, time
was that the United States should bear
one-half Of the principal and interest OF
the debt.
1T is familiar proposition of law that
II there is an ambiguous contract. and
the parties to that contract, living under
II. have given 1t a meaning. that meaning
shall bind the participants in the con-
tract and be taken as the real meaning
of it," ne said, after pointing out that
since the debt first was assumed by the
United states In equal part with the Dis
trict, hcth parties to the contract had
lived under the meaning placed upon IL by
the legislators who originally passcJ
upon II.
IF the Congress of the United States
passed an act. and that act was debated.
and the meaning was challenged, and the
meaning now sought to be given was
then given and admitted TO be the real
and positive knowledge of what they
were doing AM what would be the effect
of what they did. they proceeded to enact
that language into law. with that debate
occurring, I say chat that may fairly be
taken as the true Interpretation when We
come to consider this ambiguous matter
When they theTcfter undertook 10 leSis-
late with reference to 1t. they stamped
it with meaning. and that action Cf
theirs Is persuasive authority that the
action for which We contend to-day is
the proper Interpretation to be placed
upon that act"
Mr.. johnson, in attacking the inter
probation. placed upon it by the commit
tee and by the bill, referred to an amend
ment offered In substitution for the same
item In an appropriation bill in 1896 Mr..
Saunders pointed out that under the
rules of the House the amendment would
not have been in order except that II
recognized the Interpretation of the act