The Washington herald., 1913-02-05

For interest and sinking fund on the
funded debt, 800. loS. =
A point OF order against this para
graph in the District appropriation Dill
made by Chairman johnson. OF the
House District Committee Yesterday
precipitated a debate and called forth
an opinion which indicated clearly what
the temper of the House is as far. as the
District OF Columbia and the half and
half system is concerned
Mr.. Johnson based. mis- point of order
on the contention that no eNlstnS Ia"
iustifies the payment by the Federal gov
crnrnent of one-half of the interest ana
sinking fund for the funded debt OF
the District Mr.. Johnson's point OF
order was sustained by Chairman Roo
denbcrry. presiding over the committee
OF the whole House in consideration Oh
the bill and Mr. Roddenbery's ruling
on an appeal from the chair. was suS
tanned by rising vote OF " TO 3D. aIter
REPRESENTATIVE Burlcson. chairman OF the
subcommittee on District appropriauols;
and who was in charge OF the BILL had
exhausted every parliamentary eNpedi-
eut in an effort to postpone action ana
adjourn the House. BY a vote OF IL 10
81 the House refused to adjourn.
The House continued in consideration
of the District bill until after O'CLOCK
adjourning with ten pages yet 10 De
read.
In speaking to his point Of order Mr.:
Johnson contended that regardless OF
the construction which had been placed
rnon the act of 1873 by succeeding con-
crosses the intent OF that act was pam
Iy that the United States should assume
no responsibility for the payment OF the
District debt beyond acting as Suarantor'
Mr.. johnson declared that the act IN
tended that all interest and the SINKING
ahn he maid. IN fne ldSI
ANALYSIS. solely from revenues OF the
District. Mr.. johnson quoted volumln-
ously from debates at that time as uid
Representative Saunders. member OF
the subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee which prepared the District
bill
defense by Saunders.
openinG his argument. Mr.. Saunders
said:
Il challenge in toto the proposition of
the gentleman that there is no assump-
ton on the part OF the government to
pay one-half of the principal without
any contract Of reimbursement" said Mr..
Saunders. ''On the contrary, specifically
assert that this government deliberately
assumed the burden of one-half OF this
indebtedness, principal, and interest"
Mr. johnson, in the course of his re-
marks had reiterated the charge made
in 1875 at the conclusion of the investi-
CATION which preceded the enactment of
the organic act that much of this in
debtedness, incurred by the Board OF
Public Works under 4 blanket authori-
zation from Congress, had been fraudu-
lently contracted, in that the Board of
Public Works had not resorted to COM
petitive bidding in awarding the cor
tho iprDrOycrnPntS
At the time these charges were made
II was found that the Board of Public
Works had awarded contracts at prices
which indicated a potential saving of
many thousands of dollars under the
cost set forth in competitive bids.
I'VE are not concerned now with the
character OF that Indebtedness" said Mr..
Saunders. TT may have been fraudulent
Indebtedness.
The chair has already adverted to a
principle to which I wish to call atten-
ton in this connection" he continued.
land that is, when legislation is enacted.
and is of an ambiguous character. the
action of the body dealing with that legis-
iation which stamps 1t with a specific
meaning is an Interpretation of it which
the chair should properly have in mind
when he comes TO interpret it as an in
dependent proposition.
Intended Law should Carry.
Now at the time this matter came up
there had been three acts In connection
with IT, the act of 1874. the act Of 1878,
and the act of 1873. and this admission
for the assumption in terms of ope-half
of the sinking fund OF the principal oc-
CURED in the sundry civil bill of 1873.
and it was debated. If there had been
no contemporaneous debate on this, II,
on appropriatIng from that time to the
present, there had never been any refer
ence to the language of that act, the
terms OF il nigh: be considered in some
respect inapt and sufficient TO bear out
the contention of the gentleman from
Kentucky. But that has been stamped
with that meaning, and how can he
now at this late date. when We have
been apropriating in conformity with that
ever since, get away from the
facts that the men or the body that
enacted the law intended the law should
eauy?"
Mr.. Saunders referred to prior ruling
OF Chairman Roddenbery on a point of
order made against the item for the
Police Department, the point being based
largely on the ambiguity of the terms of
the act creating the Police Department.
In that case Mr.. Roddenbery ruled that
a subsequent act in an appropriation bill,
passed by the same House, should be