The Washington herald., 1916-03-01
POINT OF ORDER MAY
DOOM BORLAND RIDER
CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE.

~ all government departments to the eff
feet that overtime work is general in
the departments, and that this overtime
work cannot be distributed over an ad-
ditional hour each workday throughout
the year without utterly dislocating the
work OF the government machinery, was
an important and unanswerable part OF
the minority report filed by Representa-
tive Galvan. and published exclusive
ly in The Herald Yesterday morning. 1t
has direct bearing on this point, in other
words, whether detained an additional
hour or not, the same force will have
to be available to take care Of Unforeseen
or periodical excess OF work requiring
overtime. The chief clerk of the Depart
ment OF Commerce is quoted In Mr.. Gal
livan's report as declaring:
81 know for a certainty that this de-
partment could not dispose Of the serv-
ices of single clerk even if the eight
hour law were made effective"
The Borland rider does not expressly in
struct the heads of departments to make
specific reductions. In view of the con-
ditions as described by those men who
will have to make any reductions it
does not seem reasonable to suppose that
decreases in stan will be made volun-
tarily.
Judge Crisp's Decision.
These are the facts Mr.. Crisp will have
to consider when the point of order is
made. There is no ADLER and no more
experienced parlamentarian in the House
than Judge Crisp, himself a former Of
fetal parliamentarian of the House. What
Judge Crisps attitude will be may be
pretty well deduced from a ruling by
Judge Saunders. Of Virginia, which is on
all fours with the ruling Judge Crisp
must make.
At the time Judge Saunders made the
ruling-a point of order having been made
against a proposal to reduce the number
of regiments Of cavalry from fifteen tc
ten-Judge Crisp was parliamentary
clerk of the House, the position now
held by Bennett c. Clark. He assisted
Judge Saunders so materially in the
preparation Of the ruling, that the finished
product was Ia much Crisp's as Saunders
In the course of that ruling, judge
Saunders said
And If the necessary effect of an
amendment is to reduce in the operation
of the departments or bureaus for which
appropriations are made the amount
otherwise required by any one or more
heads or items of expense. then a re-
trenchmcnt has been effected by reduc-
ton of the amounts of money covered by
the bill"
"Necrssary' Reduction.
In this it will be seen the expression
necessary fleet not probable" or
possible" effect. is used. And later
in the same ruling, Judge Saunders
held:
THE chair will further say that it is
not enough for the chair to think that
an amendment may reduce expenses. or
that it is likely to reduce expenditures.
The reduction must appear
as a necessary result; that is. it must be
apparent to the chair that the amend
ment will operate OF its own force to
effect a reduction This result
must be a necessary result. not a con-
jectural result or a pToblematical re-
suit"
1t will hardly be Contended seriously
that the effect of the Borland rider upoE
the number Of clerks in the government
service is not. to put it mildly, extremely
problematical