The Washington times., 1913-02-05

thority, which AUTHORIZES the direct ap
payment of interest on this debt with
out the Qualifying words that II shal
be returned to the Federal Treasury Il
OFFSET the appropriation made by Con
| gress to the District of Columbia"
Saunders in Reply.
Congressman Saunders of Virginia q
member of the Appropriations. Commit
tee, assailed the arguments Of Mr.
johnson. saying in part:
e II challenge in toto the proposition
of the gentleman that there Is no as.
sumption on the part, Of tbe Govern
ment to pay one-half ,of~th principal
without any contract Of reimbursement
On the contrary, Il specifically asser'
that this Government. deliberately as
sumed the burden of one-half OF this
Indebtedness, principal and interest.
The chair has already adverteds to
a principle to which wish to call at
tention in this connection,"- he con-
tinued, -r"and that IL, when legislation
is enacted, and is of an ambiguous 1, char
with that legislation which, stamps II
with specific meaning Is an sinterpreta-
ton Of II which the chair should prop
erly have in mind when heYcomes to
interpret 1t as an independent PROPOSE
tion. - - =
II Intention of Law.
"Nowyat the time this matter came up
there had been three acts in connection
with It, the act of 1874, the act.of 1873.
and the act of 1879. and this admission
for the assumption in terms Of 'ore-half
of the sinking fund of the principal oc-
CURED in the sundry- civil bill OF 1913.
and it was debated. II there had been
no contemporaneous debate on this, H.
on appropriating from that time to the
present, there had never been any REFER
ence to the language Of that act. the
terms of 1t might be considered In some
respect inapt and sufficient to bear out
the contention of the gentleman from
Kentucky.
meaning, and how can he now at this
late date, when we have been appropri-
ating In conformity with that meaning
ever since. get away from the facts
that the men or the body that enacted
the law intended the law should car
ry?"
Chair Upholds johnson.
After reviewing the conflicting arsu-
ments and the rulings OF the chair when
the question was presented previously,
Chairman Rodenbery upheld the John
son point of order. by saying:
"The chair is of the opinion that the
act Of June II, 1873, and June 20. 1879.
authorize the United States to advance
sufficient sums to pay the interest and
sinking fund In the District OF Column
bia, but the entire amount is chargeable
Ito the District of Columbia In the
opinion of the chair all sums appropriat-
ed by the present bill are disbursed In
With
bin and not In accordance with some
other statute law. The only bearing
other acts can have on the question un-
der consideration Is whether or not
there is law authorizing an appropr1a-
ton to be made in this bill.
Constituting the half and half pro-
vision as II appears on the first page
and In the first section of this bill In
connection with the Item to which the
point of order is made, the chair is
half of the amount would be charged
to the United States and one-haif to
the District of Columbia,
That is. that under this act, IL 1t Is
passed. one-half is chargeable to the
District funds and one-half to the Fed
eral Treasury. and that neither the Sec
retary Of the Treasury nor any other
administrative nor disbursing officer
could apply it in any other way.
"The chair is of the opinion that un-
der the acts of ISIS and 1873. the entire
amount Is hcargeable to the District.
and, therefore, Is of the opinion that
there Is no law authorizing the pro-
vision as incorporated in this bill:
Therefore, the chair must sustain the
point of order. -,
THE chair has no sensitive pride Of
opinion. and would be glad to entertain
an appeal so that the committee, COM
posed largely, as 1t is. of able lawyers.
navy pass finally. II 1t may be SO con-
strued. upon the question"