The Washington herald., 1913-02-07
HALTS IN REPUTATION
OF DISTRICT Debt AGREEMENT

a1ter navlng once peen hnoSheu Jul On
q point of order.
The bill as IT leaves the House carries
a total of $40, ~, ,034. a reduction Of s50o.-
so under the measureNas reported from
the appropriations committee. Virtually
all salary increases were eliminated on
points Of order by Representatives John
son OF Kentucky, Fowler of Illinois, and
Cox OF Indiana. Thanks to the persist
ence Of these gentlemen, all projects
looking to the improvement OF civic and
administrative conditions. and which had
to be carried in the appropriation bill in
the shape of new Legislation because of
the refusal of the House District Com
mittee of the SIXty-second Congress to
attend to it's duties, were stricken from
the bill also.
Among these items were two high
school buildings. the Central and the
new coIored high schools. involving
$500, 900 and s15O,000. respectively; tho
site for the municipal asphalt plant.
s19.5OO: the $4,000 item for an inquiry
into the advisability of a municipal
garbage disposal plant: a storehouse
for the electrical department. $500,
and the payment to the United States
for site for the District pound,
A,1oo.
An unsuccessful attempt was made
after bill had been reported to the
House from the committee of the whole
House. to knock out the Borland
amendment. which assesses owners
one-third of the expense of abutting
property for new pavement or resur-
facing of streets and roadways. the
remaining two-thirds Of the expense to
be borne in equal parts by the District
of Columbia and the United States
Separate votes were demanded on this
and the Burleson amendment. Burle-
son, In order to insure against an ad-
verse vote on his amendment, sided
with Borland. and the latter returned
the compliment by dragging his friends
to the support of the Texans amendment.
The House agreed to the Borland amend
ment by a vote OF "a to IS, and to the
Burleson amendment without a division.
Representative johnson Withdrawing his
request for a division after viva voce
vote A point of order against a motion
of Representative Martin OF South Da-
kota to recommit the bill with instruc-
tions to the committee to strike out the
Burleson amendment was sustained by
Speaker Clark.
Defense by Saunders.
In opposing the johnson amendment.
for which the Burleson substitute was
finally adopted, Mr.. Saunders of Virginia
again stressed the obvious intent OF the
legislators who had enacted the law
which. according to Mr.. johnson, placed
the United States government only in the
position of guarantors of the entire debt
and interest of the District Of Columbia
Saunders reminded Chairman Rodden-
berry that in ruling to sustain a point
of order made against the bathing beach
item he had based his decision largely
upon the obvious intent of the trainers
and enactors OF the organic act, as
shown by contempOraneous debate.
This section OF the law upon which
the gentleman from Kentucky relies to
establish contract of reimbursement
was so construed by men who framed
the legislation that there can be but
one Interpretation of it," Mr.. Saunders
said. after reading the debate upon the
debt at the time the conference report
on the Appropriation bill OF 1872 was be-
fore the House. 'I defy any gentleman
OF this House TO take the language
which has been reproduced to the chair.
and which is fundamental TO the debate.
and say there is the least suggestion OF
meaning as that this was an assumption
of the whole debt with contract of
reimbursement.
OF the whole debt on the part OF the
United States with a contract Of reim-
bursement for the whole OF IT. I would
like to have any one on this floor who
holds an opposite view tell me what
force or point there was in the interpre-
tation of Senator Blackburn. then a men,
Der Of this House. Senator Blackburn
was contendinG that this bound the
United States for one-half. II on the
contrary its true meaning was that the
United States was bound for all of II
with a contract of reimbursement. why
did Senator Blackburn want to oppose
the passage OF that law at that time?
Why, the law protected him. the law
provided for the very thing thai he was
fighting against, the law did not lay any
burden upon the United States"