Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-03-12

| u.
Representative Borland offered his
substitute a few minutes before that
time. and Representative Mondell S
point of order is pending upon it and
| viii be discussed when the bill comes
! up again, probably Tuesday.
Charge That RorIand Rider
Would Change Existing Law
Is Made by Mr.. MondeII
That the Borland added-hour rider
on the legislative, executive and judi
cial appropriation bill changes existing
| law, and therefore has no place on an
appropriation bill. was the essential
argument in support of the point of
order by Representative Mondell of
| Wyoming in the House yesterday. Rep
resentative Mondell said:
The amendment under consideration
| is not in order because of the fact that
| 1t is new legislation and a change of
| existing law and does not come within
the scope or purview of the exceptions to
| the rule that no provision changing ex-
/ listing law shall be in order on an ap-
| preparation bill, contained in the sec
ond paragraph. rule 81. found on page
| 361 of the House Manual of the Sixty
| third Congress, third session.
Two Glasses of Exceptions.
The exceptions to the general rule
prohi biting change of existing law
on an appropriation bill contained in
the paragraph referred to are divided
into two classes on the basis of the
source. origin and manner of presenta-
ton, the exceptions contained in the
body of the paragraph being such as
operate without regard to the manner
of the presentation of the proposal.
while those contained in the proviso
apply only to amendments offered
through certain designated legislative
channels.
Il shall first refer briefly to the first
class of exceptions. In the first place
an amendment must oe germane to
the subject matter of the bill. / have
serious doubts of the amendment in
question being germane to the subject
matter of the bill. but do not care to
take the time of the committee in dis
GUESSING that point at this time.
The rule further provides that the
amendment to come within the excep-
tons to the general rule shall re-
trench expenditures by the reduction
of the number and salary of the officers
of the United States, by the reduction
of the compensation of any person paid
out of the Treasury of the United
states or by the reduction of amounts
of money covered by the bill Here
are three separate propositions. 1 shall
take them up in order.
Question of Retrenchment.
The first question is, Would this
amendment. if it was adopted. retrench
expenditures by the reduction of the
number and salaries of the officers
of the United States? 1t seems to me
very clear that nothing of the kind is
accomplished or even proposed by the
amendment. II may be urged that the
adoption of the amendment and it's in
corporation in permanent law would
eventually result in the reduction of
the number of officers, but such a con-
tention would have no better basis than
mere speculation or highly optimistic
expectation or hope, and it has been
repeatedly held that an amendment
cannot be brought within the scope of
the exceptions to the general rule of
prohibition by mere speculation or
opinions based hope rather than
reason or logic.
Clearly the adoption of the amend
ment would not result in the reduction
OF the salary of the officers of the
United States. Nothing of the kind is
provided for and / am sure the propo-
hehts OF the bill would not urge that
reduction of the actual salaries paid
was even remotely contemplated
Second Proposition Discussed.
The second proposition of this pro-
vision of the rule is that an amend
ment 10 be accepted as an exception to
the general rule of prohibition of new
legislation shall result in the reduction
a nf
out OF the Treasury of the United
States The word Compensation" is
undoubtedly used in this connection to
denote payments made for the per-
Torrance of a certain specific task or
dertaking-such. for instance, as the
payment under contract or agreement
for the carrying of the mails on a star
route. 1t might be claimed to apply to
compensation for day labor, though 1t
is doubtful il it was SO intended. In
any event. however. the amendment
would not result in the reduction of the
compensation of any person paid out
OF the Treasury Of the United States.
There still remains to be considered
the third exception contained in this
portion of the rule, to wit: The re-
duction of the amount of money COW
cred by the bill Clearly and beyond
question no such reduction Is attempted
or accom- plished.
This brief analysis would seem to
make 1t very clear that the amend
ment proposed does not come within
any Of the exceptions contained in the
body of the paragraph under consider
alton, which relieve amendments from
the operation of the general rule of
prohibition against change OF existing
law.
Proviso Considered.
I'VE now come to the proviso. which
is as follows: That 1t shall be in or
der further to amend such bill upon the
report of the committee or any joint
commission authorized by law or the
House members of any such commits
sion having jurisdiction Of the subject
matter of such amendment, which
amendment being germane to the sub
ject matter of the bill shall retrench
expenditures
This proviso is important in that it