[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 4]
[Chapter 97 - Legislation in General Appropriation Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATION IN GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILLS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provisions of the rule. Section 3810.\1\
2. Early practice. Section 3811.
3. Enactment of new law forbidden by the rule. Sections 3812-
3818.
4. Change of a rule of the House not in order. Sections 3819-
3822.
5. Amendments to paragraphs proposing legislation. Sections
3823-3838.\2\
6. Legislation authorized by formal action of House. Sections
3839-3845.
7. Directions to executive officers not in order. Sections
3846-3864.
8. Limit of cost of a work not to be made or changed. Sections
386-867.\3\
9. Contracts may not be authorized. Sections 3868-3870.
10. Affirmative provisions regulating the public service not in
order. Sections 3871-3884.
11. Practice under the old form of ``rider rule.'' Sections
3885-3892.
12. General decisions. Sections 3893-3896.
13. Legislation in order on river and harbor bill. Sections
3897-3903.\4\
14. Respective duties of the two Houses as to. Sections 3904-
3908.
15. Amending Senate amendments proposing legislation. Sections
3909-3916.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3810. A provision changing existing law is not in order in any
general appropriation bill.--Section 2 of Rule XXI \5\ provides:
* * * Nor shall any provision changing existing law be in order in
any general appropriation bill or in any amendment thereto.
3811. The House established many years ago the practice of striking
out of an appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole such portions as
contained legislation--On February 15, 1842,\6\ the House voted that
the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to which had been
referred the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill (H. R. 74), be
instructed to strike out every clause or item of appropriation which
was not authorized by existing laws.
On February 18,\7\ in Committee of the Whole, a question was raised
as to the execution of the order, and the Chairman \8\ said that the
bill would be read by
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reserving points of order as to legislation. Sections 6921-6926
of Vol. V.
\2\ See also section 3862 of this volume.
\3\ See also section 3761 of this volume.
\4\ See also section 5230 of Vol. V.
\5\ For full form and history of this rule see section 3578 of this
volume.
\6\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 404; Globe,
p. 239.
\7\ Globe, p. 251.
\8\ George N. Briggs, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
Sec. 3812
clauses, and when any of the items referred to by the instructions
should be reached, they would be stricken out.
On April 28,\1\ the bill having been reported from committee, and the
question before the House being on concurring with the Committee of the
Whole in striking out one of the items of the bill included within the
instructions,\2\ Mr. Nathan Clifford, of Maine, made the point of order
that as the item was stricken out without examination or debate, it was
not competent for the House to reinstate it until the instruction had
been repealed or the section had been considered in Committee of the
Whole. Mr. Clifford gave six reasons in support of his point of order:
That the House and not the committee had directed the clause to be
stricken out; because it would operate as a fraud on the right of free
discussion in the committee; because the clause was no part of the bill
reported from the committee, having been stricken out by order of the
committee; because it was in violation of the rule of the House
requiring appropriations to be considered in Committee of the Whole;
because it would compel the House to vote on large appropriations under
the operation of the previous question, which had never been examined
or discussed in Committee of the Whole; because the question, if put,
would be whether the House would concur in its own order, which would
be unparliamentary.
The Speaker \3\ overruled the point of order made by Mr. Clifford.
Mr. Clifford having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table, yeas
86, nays 75.
3812. The enactment of positive law where none exists is construed as
a ``provision changing existing law'' such as is forbidden in an
appropriation bill.--On February 4, 1896,\4\ the District of Columbia
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, and Mr. Henry M. Baker, of New
Hampshire, offered this amendment:
For the support and medical treatment of medical and surgical
patients who are destitute in the city of Washington, under a contract
to be made with the Providence Hospital by the Surgeon-General of the
Army, $15,000.
For Garfield Memorial Hospital--for maintenance to enable it to
provide medical and surgical treatment to persons unable to pay
therefor, $15,000.
Mr. Franklin Bartlett, of New York, made the point of order that this
would be a change of existing law.
After debate the Chairman \5\ ruled:
In the opinion of the Chair, it is no answer to a point of order that
the amendment changes existing law to say there is at present no
statute law upon the subject. In the absence of statute law there is
still a rule established by custom. That is the law, and any
proposition which enacts positive law is a change of existing law in
that respect. The enactments of law where none now exists is a change
of existing law. It is acknowledged by the mover of this amendment that
it does enact positive law where none now exists, and in that it
changes existing law; and the point of order is sustained.
3813. On January 31, 1893,\6\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the sundry civil
appropriation bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, p. 725; Globe, p. 433.
\2\ Under the present practice portions of a bill in violation of
existing law are ruled out by the Chairman, are not reported when the
committee rises, and the House takes no action in regard to them.
\3\ John White, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1306.
\5\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
\6\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 1020.
Sec. 3814
Mr. Newton M. Curtis, of New York, offered an amendment to provide
that in the awarding of contracts for materials purchased by the
Government, ``when the home material or product is equal in quality, is
offered at an equal or lower price, the preference shall be given to
the home article,''
Mr. Charles Tracey, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment changed existing law and did not retrench expenditures.\1\
It was argued that the amendment was simply a limitation upon
expenditures; but the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair thinks that if this is not a change of old law, it at least
makes a new law, which is certainly a change of law. Therefore the
Chair sustains the point of order.
3814. A paragraph in an appropriation bill reenacting verbatim an
existing law is not subject to a point of order.--On February 5,
1904,\3\ the agricultural appropriation bill was under consideration in
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, when Mr. Morris
Shepherd, of Texas, proposed the following amendment:
Provided, That the purchase and distribution of seeds and plants by
the Department of Agriculture shall be confined to such seeds as are
rare, untried, and uncommon to the country, or such as can be or have
been made more useful and more profitable by special breeding, or such
seeds and plants as may be improved by transplantation from one part of
the country to another.
Mr. Sydney J. Bowie, of Alabama, made a point of order that the
proposed amendment involved legislation.
After debate, the Chairman \4\ said:
The Chair is ready to rule upon this amendment. If the Chair has made
no mistake, it is a verbatim copy of the law as it now exists. That
being the case, it has been held that while it is unnecessary and
perhaps almost not good form, yet is not strictly subject to a point of
order. It is simply reenacting a portion of the United States statutes.
3815. On March 8, 1906,\5\ the Indian appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read:
That no purchase of supplies for which appropriations are herein
made, exceeding in the aggregate $500 in value at any one time, shall
be made without first giving at least three weeks' public notice by
advertisement, except in case of exigency, when, in the discretion of
the Secretary of the Interior, who shall make official record of the
facts constituting the exigency, and shall report the same to Congress
at its next session, he may direct that purchases may be made in open
market in amount not exceeding $3,000 at any one purchase: Provided,
That supplies may be purchased, contracts let, and labor employed for
the construction of artesian wells, ditches, and other works for
irrigation, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, without
advertising as hereinbefore provided: Provided further, That as far as
practicable Indian labor shall be employed and purchase in the open
market made from Indians, under the direction of the Secretary of the
Interior.
Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
provisos embodied legislation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The form of the rule (see sec. 3578 of this work) at the time
this precedent was made permitted legislation which would retrench
expenditures.
\2\ Rufus E. Lester, of Georgia, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1687.
\4\ Llewellyn Powers, of Maine, Chairman.
\5\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3541.
Sec. 3816
Mr. James S. Sherman, of New York, stated that the provisos in this
language exactly had been carried in several previous appropriation
bills.
Mr. Crumpacker said:
The point I make is that each appropriation bill, in so far as it
contains such provisions as this constitutes the law for the fiscal
year for which that appropriation obtains and no more. * * * I
understand the rule to be that the fact that a provision is contained
in a succession of appropriation bills does not constitute law in the
sense of the rules of the House.
The Chairman \1\ said:
The Chair would state to the gentleman from Indiana that that is the
opinion of the Chair in ordinary cases, but legislation can be enacted
in an appropriation bill, and the Chair think that if this provision
was carried in the last appropriation bill it would not be necessary in
this bill at all; that it is existing law; and the Chair overrules the
point of order.
3816. A paragraph in an appropriation bill reenacting a permanent
provision of law may not be amended.--On January 15, 1902,\2\ the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union was considering
the bill (H. R. 8581) ``making appropriations for pensions, and for
other purposes,'' when a paragraph was read providing for the fees of
examining surgeons, with certain stipulations in the form of
legislation prescribing the duties and rates of compensation of such
surgeons.
To this paragraph Mr. William A. Calderhead, of Kansas, offered an
amendment still further defining the duties of the said surgeons.
Mr. Samuel S. Barney, of Wisconsin, made a point of order against the
amendment.
After debate, the Chairman \3\ held:
The Chair has examined the last general appropriation bill and is
informed that several previous appropriation bills are in the same
form. It is sufficient, however, for us to go back to the last
appropriation bill, which is in the exact language of the present bill,
and which appropriates a given sum of money to be paid out as now
authorized by law, and then unnecessarily recites what the law in fact
now is. It copies the existing law verbatim; it neither enlarges nor
amends it. Therefore it is immaterial whether this provision is in the
bill or out of it. It is existing law, and is not affected by this
bill, because the language is copied word for word from the existing
law.
The proposed amendment would change existing law, and would do so to
the same extent whether that law were quoted in the bill or omitted.
The bill does not change existing law; the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas proposes to make such a change, and is therefore
subject to a point of order. The Chair sustains the point of order.
3817. An existing law being repeated verbatim in an appropriation
bill, the slightest change, as substituting ``may'' for ``shall,'' is
out of order.--On March 21, 1890,\4\ the House was in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, considering the pension
appropriation bill, when an amendment was proposed to strike out the
word ``may'' and insert ``shall'', so that the paragraph might read:
``The accrued pension due on said certificate to the date of the death
of said pensioner shall be paid to the legal representatives of said
pensioner.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frank D. Currier, of New Hampshire, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 704, 705.
\3\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Chairman.
\4\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 2493.
Sec. 3818
The point of order being made, and the debate having developed the
fact that the language of the paragraph was precisely the language of
the existing statute, the Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
3818. Instance wherein the Committee of the Whole struck out a
paragraph for the reenactment of a provision already permanent law.--On
April 30, 1906,\2\ the agricultural appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when this paragraph was read:
penalty for counterfeiting forecasts.
Any person who shall knowingly issue or publish any counterfeit
weather forecasts or warnings of weather conditions, falsely
representing such forecasts or warnings to have been issued by the
Weather Bureau or other branch of the Government service, or shall
molest or interfere with any weather or storm flag or weather map or
bulletin displayed or issued by the United States Weather Bureau, shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, for each
offense, be fined in a sum not exceeding $500 or be imprisoned not to
exceed ninety days, or be both fined and imprisoned, in the discretion
of the court.
Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, said:
I move to strike out the paragraph just read. I see no objection to
the paragraph except that it is already permanent law. It was enacted
into law, I think, on an agricultural appropriation bill several years
ago, and it has been continued and carried in the annual appropriation
bill from time to time, and it does not add anything to the force or
the efficiency of the penal provision to keep repeating it in every
agricultural appropriation bill. * * * There is nothing better settled
under the rules of the House and the decisions of the Chair than that a
provision in a general appropriation bill that is general in its
character and continuing or permanent in its nature is as much law and
as much permanent law as if enacted independently. I made the motion,
not that I am especially interested in the matter, but to call the
attention of the gentlemen who are on this important committee to the
fact that it does not add anything to the law and requires the
Government to pay a few dollars every year for the printing of this
unnecessary and superfluous paragraph. We had about as well include all
the penal statutes in a general appropriation bill, so as to remind
Congress and the country once a year at least that there are penalties
for violating the law. That is the only good I can see it can possibly
serve.
After debate, the motion was agreed to.
3819. A proposition which would in effect change a rule of the House
was held to be a change of existing law and not in order on an
appropriation bill.
Effect of a provision of law as related to the constitutional right
of the House to choose its own officers.
On June 11, 1886,\3\ the legislative appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read the following paragraphs relating to
employees in the office of Doorkeeper:
For one employee (John T. Chancey), $1,500.
And also the following:
Assistant Doorkeeper (George A. Bacon), to be employed in the
document room, $2,000.
Mr. Eustace Gibson, of West Virginia, made the point of order that
employees might not thus be designated on an appropriation bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 6140, 6141.
\3\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 5572-5575.
Sec. 3820
After debate, the Chairman \1\ said:
The Constitution gives to each House the right to select its own
officers. The rules of this House prescribe the mode of choosing its
officers here designated, to wit: The Doorkeeper shall designate his
subordinates. It is done by virtue of the Constitution and has the full
force of law, which will be disputed nowhere. Therefore the Chair
thinks it is not in order to attempt on an appropriation bill to change
a rule of this House. There is a way of changing the rule, and only
one, which is in order. Rule XVIII prescribes * * *
It has been shown that Mr. Bacon, for instance, might be designated
in this way by virtue of the following resolution adopted by the House
in 1881:
``Resolved, That George A. Bacon be authorized to act as a Second
Assistant Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives, and to receive
the same pay as the present Assistant Doorkeeper of the House, until
further orders.''
The Chair can not understand that in any other way than as related to
that House. It can not be believed the purpose of the resolution was to
be perpetuated in other Houses in violation of the Constitution
providing each House shall appoint its own officers.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order on all portions of
the pending paragraph against which it was made in designation of names
of those who are to hold the positions for which appropriations are
made.
3820. The creation of an investigating committee to examine a
Department of the Government was held not to be in order on an
appropriation bill.
The Committee of the Whole declined to heed an appeal that it
overrule its Chairman in order to place legislation urged as desirable
on an appropriation bill.
On March 24, 1904,\2\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read:
For salaries of clerks and laborers at division headquarters,
miscellaneous expenses at division headquarters, traveling expenses of
inspectors without per diem, and of inspectors in charge, expenses
incurred by field inspectors not covered by per them allowance, and
traveling expenses of the Fourth Assistant Postmaster-General and chief
post-office inspector, $85,000: Provided, That of the amount herein
appropriated not to exceed $2,000 may be expended, in the discretion of
the Postmaster-General, for the purpose of securing information
concerning violations of the postal laws, and for services and
information looking toward the apprehension of criminals.
To this Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, offered the following
amendments:
On page 22, line 20, strike out ``$85,000'' and insert ``$112,000.''
On page 22, in line 21, after the word ``exceed,'' strike out the
following: ``$2,000 may be expended, in the discretion of the
Postmaster-General,'' and insert ``$17,000 shall be expended, or so
much thereof as may be necessary, by the Postmaster-General.''
After the word ``criminals,'' in line 25 on page 22, add the
following: ``Provided further, That the Postmaster-General shall expend
said sum of money, or so much thereof as is necessary, in the payment
of clerks, stenographers, accountants, and detectives, and for other
necessary expenses for the purpose of securing information concerning
the violation of the postal laws and for services and information
looking toward the apprehension of criminals guilty of crimes committed
in or in connection with the Post-Office Department. The examination of
all witnesses, records, and accounts for this purpose shall be
conducted before a select committee of eight, five of whom shall be
Members of the House, to be appointed by the Speaker, and three of whom
shall be Senators appointed by the Senate, and this committee shall
have full power to send for persons and papers and enforce the
production of the same, to examine witnesses under oath, to sit during
the sessions of the House and Senate, and to exercise all
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James H. Blount, of Georgia, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3633-3638.
Sec. 3821
functions necessary to complete investigation of all frauds and
irregularities alleged to exist in said Department, and the Postmaster-
General shall render to said committee all necessary assistance. And
said committee shall report the result of its investigation to Congress
as soon as practicable, with such recommendations as to it may seem
advisable;'' so that the section as amended shall read as follows: * *
*
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment was not germane and that it involved new legislation.
After debate the Chairman \1\ held:
The proposed amendment, which, of course, must be taken in its
entirety, discloses the fact that it is not in the language of a
limitation. It contains mandatory directions to the Postmaster-General.
It therefore is new legislation or changes existing law. Further than
that the Chair does not consider that the creation of a joint committee
of both Houses of Congress, with power to administer oaths, to conduct
a judicial or semijudicial examination, is a subject which can be
considered germane to a bill ``which, in the words of the title, is a
bill making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office
Department'' for the coming fiscal year. Because this is new
legislation, and because it does not appear to the Chair in any proper
light as a limitation, but is a direct legislative enactment, and is
not germane either to the paragraph or the bill, the Chair sustains the
point of order.
Mr. Williams having appealed, said in the course of debate on the
appeal:
Mr. Chairman, the duty of a man sitting in that chair is one thing;
the duty of this House of Representatives, which can change its rules
in detail or in general, is another thing. Now I decline to be put in
the position of being a final court of arbitration upon the indefinite
subject of parliamentary law. I do say that this House of
Representatives can secure an investigation by outside authority, not
intercommingled with the corruptions existing in the Post-Office
Department, only in one of two ways: One way is by the gentleman
withdrawing his point of order, and the other is by the House
overruling a decision of the Chair.
The question being taken on the appeal, the decision was sustained on
a vote by tellers, ayes 133, noes 99.
3821. On February 27, 1885,\2\ the sundry civil appropriation bill
was under consideration, and an amendment was pending providing for an
appropriation of $300,000 for the World's Industrial and Cotton
Centennial Exposition at New Orleans, to be used--first in payment of
the outstanding indebtedness, and secondly, in payment of premiums--and
to be disbursed under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury.
To this Mr. Reuben Ellwood, of Illinois, offered this amendment:
A committee of three Members of the House shall be appointed by the
Speaker to inquire into the expenditures by and money received by the
managers of the World's Industrial Cotton and Centennial Exposition.
The said committee are hereby empowered to administer oaths, to compel
the attendance of witnesses, and to send for persons and papers; and it
shall report the result of its investigation to the Forty-ninth
Congress on or before December 10, 1885.
Mr. Richard P. Bland made a point of order against the amendment.
The Speaker \3\ sustained the point of order.
3822. The reenactment from year to year of a law intended to apply
during the year of its enactment only does not relieve the provision
from the point of order.--On January 19, 1905,\4\ the army
appropriation bill was under
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H. S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2249; Journal,
p. 694.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 1093, 1094.
Sec. 3823
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read the paragraph providing for the
``Transportation of the Army and its supplies,'' which included a
clause as follows:
the expenses of sailing public transports on the various rivers, the
Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (no steamship in
the transport service of the United States shall be sold or disposed of
without the consent of Congress having been first had or obtained) for
procuring water.
Mr. William E. Humphrey, of Washington, made the point of order that
the words in the parentheses involved legislation.
Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, stated that the provision had been
carried in the army appropriation bill for the last three years. He
would not claim that it was statute law in the sense that it would
continue in force if dropped from the present bill, as the word
``hereafter'' was not in the phraseology. But he urged that it was
existing law because it had been included in the current army
appropriation law. Concluding, Mr. Hull urged:
If a point of order will lie against this, it will lie against half
of this bill, for the only law authorizing the expenditure of money is
for the purpose of continuing it from year to year.
The Chairman \1\ said:
It is not quite clear to the Chair that the distinction is well
founded. On the contention of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Hull] the
appropriation--the actual amount of money appropriated in the last
appropriation bill--will become stereotyped and be the existing law.
The aim of the appropriation bill is to furnish the necessary money for
carrying on the department, subject to the condition of limitation of
existing law. Any injection into an appropriation bill of limitation
upon an appropriation not existing in the present statute law would
seem to the Chair obnoxious to the rule. And although this provision
may have been carried for a number of years, it never has been carried
in the form of a statutory enactment, but as a provision always subject
to a point of order governing the appropriation for a single year. The
Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
Mr. Hull having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained,
ayes, 57, noes, 31.
3823. A paragraph which proposes legislation in a general
appropriation bill being permitted to remain, it may be perfected by a
germane amendment.--On December 21, 1896,\2\ the House in Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, was considering the
legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill and the
paragraph relating to the organization of the Library of Congress had
been reached, when Mr. Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, offered
this amendment:
All the above appointments, except the Librarian and two assistants
are to be made from lists of eligibles to be submitted by the Civil
Service Commission, under their rules, who are hereby empowered to hold
examinations for all the above positions.
Mr. William A. Stone, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment changed existing law.
After debate, the Chairman \3\ ruled:
This bill when reported to the House contained, in the paragraph
relating to the Library of Congress, that which is manifestly on its
face new legislation. This would have been subject to a point of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H. S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 390.
\3\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
Sec. 3824
order under the provisions of Rule XXI, section 2. No such point of
order was made, and the bill therefore was sent by the House to the
Committee of the Whole for consideration just as it was reported and in
its entirety. Under these circumstances, as has been heretofore several
times ruled, no point of order could be made in the committee against
the paragraph on the ground that it contained new legislation. The
committee, in other words, could not refuse to consider what the House
had sent to it for consideration. But the right of consideration
involves also the right of amendment; that is to say, the committee has
the right to perfect as it may see fit the matter submitted to it. For
these reasons the point of order is overruled.\1\
3824. On March 17, 1898,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the Post-Office
appropriation bill, and had reached the paragraph appropriating for the
rural free-delivery service, with certain limitations specified in a
proviso which formed a portion of the paragraph.
Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, having raised a point of order
against the proviso after debate had begun, the point was overruled on
the ground that it was made too late.
A little later Mr. Claude A. Swanson, of Virginia, offered an
amendment to the paragraph, as follows:
After the word ``allowance'' insert ``and necessary equipments or
mechanical appliances;'' so as to read:
``And provided further, That no portion of the above sum provided for
the support of the rural free-delivery service shall be used for any
other purpose than for payment of salaries and clerk-hire allowance and
necessary equipments or mechanical appliances.''
Mr. Grosvenor then made the point that if this amendment should be
adopted it would restore the right to make a point of order against the
entire paragraph.
After debate, the Chairman \3\ held:
The Chair is ready to rule on the question. The authorities, the
Chair thinks, are uniform in regard to the fact that if a provision is
inserted in a bill that does change existing law--that is, not a
limitation, but an absolute change of existing law--and if that is
permitted to stand without the point of order being raised at the time
when it might be raised, thereafter an amendment is in order. Speaker
Carlisle, in deciding the question a few years ago, said:
``If the Appropriations Committee should report an appropriation
containing within it a provision not directly authorized by law, and if
this should be considered--that is, no point of order made against it--
amendments proposed to such provision should not be ruled out of order
upon the point of order because the subject upon which they are
predicated, having been virtually before the House, is a legitimate
subject for amendment.''
The decision is very exhaustive, and many reasons are given for such
ruling. That already cited is so manifestly fair the Chair will not
take time to read further.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Dalzell], in passing upon the
same question, held the same as Mr. Carlisle, and very elaborately
argued it. The Chair overrules the point of order and holds that the
amendment is in order.
3825. On January 24, 1901,\4\ the naval appropriation bill (H. R.
13705) was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, and the Clerk had read a paragraph beginning as
follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A similar ruling was made by Speaker pro tempore William M.
Springer, of Illinois, on May 22, 1888. (First session Fiftieth
Congress, Journal, p. 1656.)
\2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2941.
\3\ John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1414-1428.
Sec. 3826
That for the purpose of further increasing the naval establishment of
the United States, the President is hereby authorized to have
constructed by contract two unsheathed seagoing battle ships, carrying
the heaviest armor and most powerful ordnance for vessels of their
class, upon a trial displacement of about 14,000 tons each, and to have
the highest practicable speed, etc.
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, moved to amend by inserting
after the word ``contract'' the words ``or in the navy-yards of the
United States under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of
the Navy.''
Mr. Alston G. Dayton, of West Virginia, raised a point of order on
the amendment.
After debate as to the terms of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes,
the Chairman\1\ held:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York seeks to amend
this section in such a way that the President be authorized to
construct these ships enumerated in the section either by contract or
in the navy-yards of the United States. The provision reported by the
committee only authorizes the construction of the ships by contract.
There has been no general law suggested to the Chair which would be
altered by the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York. The
Chair, therefore, is compelled to think that it is in order, in the
absence of any such statute, and therefore overrules the point of
order.
3826. On February 7,1902,\2\ the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union was considering the legislative appropriation bill,
when, to a paragraph relating to certain temporary clerks in the
Departments, Mr. Lucius N. Littauer, of New York, offered the following
amendment:
Amend section 3 by adding:
``Provided, That the President may at any time transfer clerks and
other employees herein referred to the classified service.''
No point of order was made against this amendment, and after debate
Mr. John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin, offered the following amendment to
the amendment, in the nature of a substitute:
Provided, That the President may at any time during the fiscal year
1903 transfer all such additional clerks and other employees herein
referred to the classified service.
Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the
amendment to the amendment involved a change of law.
After debate the Chairman \3\ said:
The Chair will take occasion to say that if the original amendment
was before the Chair with a point of order pending it would require all
the eloquence of the distinguished gentleman from New York to disabuse
the mind of the Chair of some prejudice that he might have against that
amendment.
The Chair is quite clear that if the point had been raised that the
Chair would have sustained it against the original amendment. The Chair
can not be responsible for the negligence of Members of the House who
sleep on their rights. * * * The substitute being in the opinion of the
Chair substantially the same as the amendment itself, the Chair
overrules the point of order, and the question is on the substitute.
3827. On February 23, 1904,\4\ while the naval appropriation bill was
under
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 1468-1473.
\3\ Eugene F. Loud, of California, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2278, 2279.
Sec. 3828
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, the Clerk read this paragraph:
The Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to
consolidate the several power plants in any or all of the several navy-
yards and stations at each navy-yard and station under the Bureau of
Yards and Docks for the generation and distribution of light, heat, and
power for all the purposes of the Navy. To the above end all such
plants may be transferred from other bureaus to the Bureau of Yards and
Docks, and all appropriations heretofore made for power houses and
power plants for bureaus other than Yards and Docks are hereby
reappropriated and made available under the Bureau of Yards and Docks
for the consolidations herein provided for; and to further carry out
the purposes of this provision there is hereby appropriated the sum of
$300,000.
To this paragraph Mr. Farish C. Tate, of Georgia, offered the
following amendment:
Amend by striking out all of the paragraph after the word ``dollar,''
in line 18 on page 35, to the word ``and,'' in line 5, page 36, and
insert the following in lieu thereof:
``The Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized, in his discretion,
to consolidate any or all of the several plants, shops, and works of
the several bureaus in the several navy-yards and stations at each
navy-yard and station. To the above end all such plants, shops, and
works may be transferred from one bureau to another, or all the several
bureaus at the several navy-yards may be consolidated into one central
bureau at each navy-yard and station, and all appropriations heretofore
made for any bureau is hereby reappropriated and made available for the
consolidation of the bureaus herein provided for.''
Mr. Alston G. Dayton, of West Virginia, made the point of order that
the amendment was in violation of existing law.
The Chairman \1\ held:
It has been held that a paragraph which changes existing law being
allowed by general consent to remain may be perfected by any germane
amendment. If a point of order had been made to the original paragraph,
the point would have been sustained, but by common consent it was
retained in the bill. Therefore the Chair holds that this amendment,
being germane, is not obnoxious to the rule. The point of order is
overruled.
3828. On February 25, 1904,\1\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read:
And the contract for the construction of said vessels shall be
awarded by the Secretary of the Navy to the lowest best responsible
bidder, having in view the best results and most expeditious delivery;
and in the construction of all of said vessels the provisions of the
act of August 3, 1886, entitled ``An act to increase the naval
establishment,'' as to materials for said vessels, their engines,
boilers, and machinery, the contracts under which they are built, the
notice of any proposals for the same, the plans, drawings,
specifications therefore, and the method of executing said contracts
shall be observed and followed, and, subject to the provisions of this
act, all said vessels shall be built in compliance with the terms of
said act, and in all their parts shall be of domestic manufacture; and
the steel material shall be of domestic manufacture, and of the quality
and characteristics best adapted to the various purposes for which it
may be used, in accordance with specifications approved by the
Secretary of the Navy; and not more than three of the vessels provided
for in this act shall be built by one contracting party: Provided, That
the Secretary of the Navy may build any or-all of the vessels herein
authorized in such navy-yards as he may designate, and shall build any
of the vessels herein authorized in such navy-yards as he may
designate, should it reasonably appear that the persons, firms, or
corporations, or the agents thereof, bidding for the construction of
any of said vessels have entered into any combination,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William F. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2388, 2389.
Sec. 3829
agreement, or understanding the effect, object, or purpose of which is
to deprive the Government of fair, open, and unrestricted competition
in letting contracts for the construction of any of said vessels.
Mr. William E. Humphrey, of Washington, proposed the following
amendment:
On page 71, line 24, after the word ``party,'' insert the following:
``One armored cruiser and one scout cruiser, herein provided for,
shall be built on or near the coast of the Pacific Ocean, or the waters
connecting therewith; but if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the
Secretary of the Navy, from the bidding for such contracts, that said
vessels can not be constructed on or near the coast of the Pacific
Ocean at a cost not exceeding 4 per cent above the lowest accepted bid
for the corresponding vessel provided for in this act, he shall
authorize the construction of said vessel elsewhere in the United
States, subject to the limitations as to cost herein before provided.''
Mr. John F. Rixey, of Virginia, made the point of order that this
amendment proposed a change of existing law:
After debate the Chairman \1\ said:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Humphrey]
would be subject to the point of order made by the gentleman from
Virginia were it not for the fact that the paragraph as read (and
which, no point having been made against it, must be considered as
having been agreed to by unanimous consent) is itself subject to the
point of order, or would have been had the point been made, that it
changes existing law in several particulars. It provides specifically
that the contract shall be awarded by the Secretary of the Navy to the
lowest and best responsible bidder, but that not more than three of the
vessels provided for in this act shall be built by one contracting
party, which is legislation and a change of existing law.
Now, it has been held, as may be seen by reference to page 348 of the
Manual, that a paragraph which changes existing law being allowed by
general consent to remain, it may be perfected by any germane
amendment. The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
3829. On March 23, 1904,\2\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read this paragraph:
For acting clerks, in place of clerks injured while on duty, and to
enable the Postmaster-General to pay the sum of $1,000, which shall be
exempt from the payment of debts of the deceased, to the legal
representatives of any railway postal clerk or substitute railway
postal clerk who shall be killed while on duty or who, being injured
while on duty, shall die within one year thereafter as the result of
such injury, $110,000.
To this Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, proposed this amendment:
After the word ``deceased,'' ``in line 14, page 17, insert the
following: ``to the widow and children of the deceased, and in case
there is no surviving widow or children, then.''
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, made a point of order against the
amendment.
The Chairman \3\ held:
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Indiana that there is no
danger of that contingency arising, because the paragraph having been
passed by unanimous consent, even though it were originally subject to
the point of order, is now before the committee for perfection, and the
Chair finds a long line of unanimous decisions to that effect. It does
not become necessary for the Chairman to pass upon whether the
amendment would have been obnoxious to the point of order if it had
been made under other circumstances. The paragraph is before the
committee for perfection. The Chair therefore overrules the point of
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3591, 3593,
3594.
\3\ H. S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3830
A little later, on the same day, the Clerk read:
For inland transportation of mail by electric and cable cars,
$550,000: Provided, That the rate of compensation to be paid per mile
shall not exceed the rate now paid to companies performing said
service.
Mr. Irving P. Wanger, of Pennsylvania, proposed an amendment to
insert after the word ``exceed'' the words ``by more than 33\1/3\ per
cent.''
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, made a point of order against the
amendment, saying:
The law to-day in the bill passed for the fiscal year 1904 contains
the provision:
``That the rate of compensation to be paid per mile shall not exceed
the rate now paid to companies performing said service.''
That is the law now. If, therefore, in this bill, which seeks to make
appropriations for the fiscal year 1905, a limitation is offered which
will increase that rate, it is necessarily in violation of existing
law.
The Chairman said:
The Chair thinks that the proviso in lines 14 to 16, inclusive,
applies only to this bill, and if this same language was in the last
bill it applied only to that bill. If the word ``hereafter'' had been
used after the word ``that,'' so as to read: ``Provided, That hereafter
the rate of compensation,'' etc., the Chair would be inclined to think
that that language being included in the last appropriation bill would
make it statute law, but the Chair thinks that the present proviso
applies only to this bill, and that the point of order might have been
made against the proviso, but the paragraph having been passed
unanimously without the point of order having been made any amendment
which is germane in perfecting the paragraph the Chair thinks would be
in order, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
3830. On February 20, 1905,\1\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when this paragraph was read:
And the contract for the construction of said vessels shall be
awarded by the Secretary of the Navy to the lowest best responsible
bidder, having in view the best results and most expeditious delivery;
and in the construction of all of said vessels the provisions of the
act of August 3, 1886, entitled ``An act to increase the naval
establishment,'' as to materials for said vessels, their engines,
boilers, and machinery, the contracts under which they are built, the
notice of any proposals for the same, the plans, drawings,
specifications therefor, and the method of executing said contracts
shall be observed and followed, and, subject to the provisions of this
act, all said vessels shall be built in compliance with the terms of
said act, and in all their parts shall be of domestic manufacture; and
the steel material shall be of domestic manufacture, and of the quality
and characteristics best adapted to the various purposes for which it
may be used, in accordance with specifications approved by the
Secretary of the Navy; and not more than two of the vessels provided
for in this act shall be built by one contracting party: Provided, That
the Secretary of the Navy may build any or all of the vessels herein
authorized in such navy-yards as he may designate, and shall build any
of the vessels herein authorized in such navy-yards as he may
designate, should it reasonably appear that the persons, firms, or
corporations, or the agents thereof, bidding for the construction of
any of said vessels have entered into any combination, agreement, or
understanding the effect, object, or purpose of which is to deprive the
Government of fair, open, and unrestricted competition in letting
contracts for the construction of any of said vessels.
Mr. William E. Humphrey, of Washington, offered this amendment:
On page 68, line 5, after the word ``party,'' insert the following:
``One of the battle ships herein provided for shall be built on or
near the coast of the Pacific Ocean, or the waters connecting
therewith; but if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Secretary
of the Navy from the bidding for such contracts that said vessels can
not be constructed on or near the coast of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2943, 2945.
Sec. 3831
Pacific Ocean at a cost not exceeding 4 per cent above the lowest
accepted bid for the corresponding vessel provided for in this act he
shall authorize the construction of said vessel elsewhere in the United
States, subject to the limitations as to cost herein before provided.''
Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment involved new legislation.
The Chairman \1\ held:
The Chair will say that the whole paragraph is new legislation, and
up to this time there has been no point of order against it, and
therefore any amendment which is germane is in order. In the opinion of
the Chair this amendment is germane.
3831. On February 1, 1905,\2\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, offered this amendment:
Insert after line 8, page 1, the following:
``For compensation and expenses of United States delegates to the
Universal Postal Congress to convene at Rome, Italy, $10,000.''
To this an amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered, and
to that substitute Mr. Gilbert M. Hitchcock, of Nebraska, offered this
amendment:
Provided, That one of said delegates shall be especially assigned
while abroad to gather information and report to the Postmaster-General
on the operation of the postal savings banks in European countries.
Mr. Overstreet made the point of order that this amendment involved
legislation.
The Chairman \3\ ruled:
The Chair will state that no point of order having been raised to the
original proposition, any germane amendment would be in order, and that
the point of order that the amendment to the substitute is new
legislation comes too late.
3832. On March 29, 1906 \4\ the legislative appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union when, to a paragraph appropriating for a law clerk in one of the
departments, Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, proposed this
amendment:
In line 17, page 110, after ``law clerk,'' insert ``who shall be a
lawyer who has been admitted to practice at least five years prior to
his appointment.''
Mr. Lucius N. Littauer, of New York, made the point of order that the
amendment proposed legislation.
In the debate it was conceded that the proposed law clerk would be a
new officer, authorized only by the pending paragraph.
The Chairman \5\ held:
The Chair thinks that in that event, this being entirely a new
provision creating a new office, it is in order to define the
qualifications of the office thus created. The paragraph is in
violation of Rule XXI, but being permitted to remain in the bill
without a point of order urged against it, it is in order to perfect
the paragraph by a germane amendment. The point of order is overruled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\2\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1733.
\3\ George P. Lawrence, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\4\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 4462.
\5\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
Sec. 3833
3833. On May 8, 1906,\1\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. Ernest E. Wood, of Missouri, proposed this amendment to
a paragraph which had been read on the preceding day, just before the
rising of the Committee of the Whole:
Strike out, on page 3, beginning at line 21, the following:
``Provided, That hereafter, in cases where orders for travel are given
to officers of the Navy or the Marine Corps, the Secretary of the Navy,
in his discretion, may direct that either mileage or else their actual
and necessary expenses only shall be allowed,'' and insert in lieu
thereof the following: ``Provided, That hereafter, in cases where
orders for travel are given to officers of the Navy or Marine Corps, no
mileage shall be allowed, but that such officers shall be paid their
actual and necessary expenses.''
Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
paragraph had been passed, and that the amendment involved legislation.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The amendment is a substitute for the proviso contained in the
paragraph. The proviso itself appears to be new legislation. * * * That
being the case, the only question in relation to this amendment would
be, Is it germane? Because the rule is, where a bill contains new
legislation and no objection is made to it, it may be amended by
anything that is germane to the subject contained in the paragraph. The
Chair is of the opinion that this amendment is in order, because it is
germane to the proviso. * * * The section had not been passed. The
committee rose on the previous day immediately after the paragraph was
read, and a paragraph is not passed for purposes of amendment until the
reading of the next one is entered upon. So the Chair overrules the
point of order.
3834. On May 16, 1906,\3\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read:
The Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to
contract for or purchase subsurface or submarine torpedo boats, to an
amount not exceeding $1,000,000, after such competitive tests as he
shall see fit to prescribe, to determine the comparative efficiency of
the different boats for which bids may be submitted: Provided, That
such competitive tests shall take place within six months from the date
of the passage of this act.
Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, offered this amendment:
Strike out the proviso, in lines 16, 17, and 18, page 74, and insert:
``Provided further, That the Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized
to consider designs for improved submarine torpedo boats presented by
any individual or corporation who may have patented or designed or
built submarine torpedo boats; and if, after careful consideration, the
Secretary is of the opinion that any of said designs embody features
which indicate clearly the development of greater efficiency in actual
service than has been or probably can be obtained in submarine boats
hitherto built or in course of construction for the United States Navy,
then in such case the Secretary of the Navy is authorized, in his
discretion, to have constructed by contract or in navy-yards, under
such conditions as he may prescribe, one or more submarine boats upon
such designs hereinbefore mentioned as fulfill the foregoing
requirements as to superior efficiency; and the Secretary of the Navy
is furthermore authorized to purchase said designs at such reasonable
compensation as may, in his discretion, appear suitable, if said
purchase is considered to be necessary for the best interests of the
naval service; and in the event of said purchase of designs by the
Secretary of the Navy, the designer shall specifically guarantee the
Navy Department, by suitable bond or otherwise, to the satisfaction of
the Secretary of the Navy, against all liability for the use of any and
all patents which are embodied or used in said designs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 6519, 6520.
\2\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
\3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 6987.
Sec. 3835
Mr. Ernest W. Roberts, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that
the amendment involved legislation:
In that it permits and authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to
purchase plans of boats. There is no law to-day allowing the Secretary
of the Navy to purchase the plans of any boat. That point of order on
that part of the amendment is clearly good; and if one part of the
amendment is subject to the point of order the whole amendment is bad.
The Chairman \1\ said:
The paragraph authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to contract for
the purchase of subsurface or submarine torpedo boats to an amount not
exceeding $1,000,000, and provides for a competitive test to determine
the better type of boat. It is probable, although the Chair does not
undertake to decide that question, that the provision for competitive
tests is not in order, but no point of order having been made to it,
that provision is subject to amendment by any proposition that is
germane to the idea of competition; and the Chair construes this
amendment to mean the elaboration of that proposition, and therefore
holds it in order.
3835. On February 15, 1907,\2\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read:
And the contract for the construction of said vessels shall be
awarded by the Secretary of the Navy to the lowest best responsible
bidder, having in view the best results and most expeditious delivery;
and in the construction of all of said vessels the provisions of the
act of August 3, 1886, entitled ``An act to increase the naval
establishment,'' as to materials for said vessels, their engines,
boilers, and machinery, the contracts under which they are built, the
notice of any proposals for the same; the plans, drawings,
specifications therefor, and the method of executing said contracts
shall be observed and followed, and, subject to the provisions of this
act, all said vessels shall be built in compliance with the terms of
said act, and in all their parts shall be of domestic manufacture, and
the steel material shall be of domestic manufacture, and of the quality
and characteristics best adapted to the various purposes for which it
may be used, in accordance with specifications approved by the
Secretary of the Navy; and not more than one of the vessels provided
for in this act shall be built by one contracting party: Provided, That
the Secretary of the Navy may build any or all of the vessels herein
authorized in such navy-yards as he may designate, and shall build any
of the vessels herein authorized in such navy-yards as he may designate
should it reasonably appear that the persons, firms, or corporations,
or the agents thereof, bidding for the construction of any of said
vessels have entered into any combination, agreement, or understanding,
the effect, object, or purpose of which is to deprive the Government of
fair, open, and unrestricted competition in letting contracts for the
construction of any of said vessels.
To this Mr. Everis A. Hayes, of California, offered an amendment:
On page 81, line 21, after the word ``delivery,'' insert the
following:
``Provided, That any bid for the construction of any of said vessels
upon the Pacific coast shall have a differential of 4 per cent in its
favor, which shall be considered by the Secretary of the Navy in
awarding contracts for the construction of said vessel.''
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made a point of order against the
amendment.
The Chairman \3\ held:
The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman from
California is not in the nature of a limitation. It is legislation, and
the Chair would have no hesitation in sustaining the point of order but
for the fact that the paragraph to which the amendment is offered is
itself out of order. It would have been so held had a point been made
against it. The amendment appears to be germane
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 3063, 3064,
3065, 3066.
\3\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
Sec. 3836
to the paragraph. It has often been ruled that a paragraph that is
itself out of order, having been by unanimous consent permitted to
remain in the bill, may be perfected by any germane amendment. The
Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
Mr. William W. Kitchin, of North Carolina, soon thereafter offered to
the paragraph this amendment:
Insert in line 23, page 82, after the word ``vessel,'' the following:
``Provided further, That in securing the armor of the best quality
for the two battle ships mentioned in the paragraph herein, under the
head of `Increase of the Navy,' the Secretary of the Navy shall not
contract to pay greater prices per ton than the prices contracted to be
paid for the battle ships South Carolina and Michigan.''
Mr. Mann made a point of order.
After debate the Chairman held:
The preceding paragraphs, under the head of ``Increase of the Navy,''
authorize the construction of a battle ship and certain other vessels.
It is true that the cost is limited to a certain amount exclusive of
armor, but the paragraph authorizes the entire vessel. Now, the
paragraph under discussion and to which the amendment is offered says
``and the contract for the construction of said vessels''--without any
limitation as to the armor or armament and without excluding the same--
shall be let so and so. It then provides general legislation for the
construction of said vessels, how the contracts for their construction
shall be awarded, etc., and requires that they ``in all their parts
shall be of domestic manufacture.'' It seems to the Chair to cover all
parts of the vessel. This is made even more clear by the provision in
the paragraph that their construction shall be in accordance with the
act of 1886, which specifically includes armor and provides for testing
it. The paragraph itself, to which the amendment is offered, contains
many provisions changing existing law, and must have been ruled out had
a point of order been made against it; but having been permitted to
remain in the bill, no point having been made against it, its
perfection by any germane amendment is in order. The Chair is of
opinion that the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina
is germane, and therefore overrules the point of order.
3836. In an appropriation bill a paragraph embodying legislation may
be perfected by a germane amendment, but this does not permit an
amendment which adds additional legislation.--On March 29, 1904,\1\ the
sundry civil appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, when the Clerk read:
Enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion act: To prevent unlawful entry
of Chinese into the United States, by the appointment of suitable
officers to enforce the laws in relation thereto, and for expenses of
returning to China all Chinese persons found to be unlawfully in the
United States, including the cost of imprisonment and actual expense of
conveyance of Chinese persons to the frontier or seaboard for
deportation, $600,000, of which sum $1,000 per annum shall be paid to
the Commissioner-General of Immigration as additional compensation:
Provided, That so much of the amount hereby appropriated, or hereafter
appropriated for similar purposes, as may be necessary shall be
available for the establishment and maintenance of the Bertillon system
of identification at the various ports of entry; but this proviso shall
not apply to persons embraced in Article III of the treaty with China
of 1894.
To this Mr. E. J. Livernash, of California, proposed the following as
an amendment:
Amend by striking out the period in line 8, page 65, substituting a
colon, and adding the following:
``Provided further, That $10,000 of this appropriation shall be for
enforcement of said laws so far as they prohibit entry and harboring of
Chinese as seamen aboard vessels of American register.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3958-3961.
Sec. 3837
Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
proposed amendment would change existing law.
In the debate it was claimed that there were laws such as those for
which the amendment would provide enforcement; but this was denied, and
no such law was exhibited.
At the conclusion of the debate the Chairman \1\ held:
The Chair will state that the general rule, apparently established,
is as stated in the Digest:
``A paragraph which changes existing law being allowed by general
consent to remain, it may be perfected by any germane amendment.''
Now, it appears that a proviso was included here and passed without
objection which would have been subject, the Chair believes, to a point
of order. To that an amendment was proposed. There have been, as the
Chair is informed, conflicting decisions, and it is desirable that a
uniform rule be established. The rule has been applied that where a
provision is inserted which changes existing law it may be perfected by
an amendment (which is germane), even though not in accordance with
existing law.
The Chair, though somewhat doubtful, thinks this the best rule: That
if a paragraph has been included in the bill which has in it a taint of
illegality or of being contrary to existing law, that paragraph can be
corrected or perfected by an amendment; but if the further paragraph
which is proposed as an amendment carries a further degree of
illegality affecting the whole paragraph as amended, then it is not in-
order.
So, if the amendment of the gentleman from California simply
pertained to the proviso which was out of order--that pertaining to the
Bertillon system of identification, which was allowed to enter the
bill--it would be in order, but if it pertains to the whole paragraph
relating to the enforcement of the Chinese-exclusion act it is not in
order.
It would appear from the reading that this is not an amendment to the
proviso, which is in these words:
``Provided, That so much of the amount hereby appropriated, or
hereafter appropriated for similar purposes, as may be necessary shall
be available for the establishment and maintenance of the Bertillon
system of identification at the various ports of entry; but this
proviso shall not apply to persons embraced in Article III of the
treaty with China of 1894.''
To this it is proposed to add the amendment of the gentleman from
California:
``And provided further, That $10,000 of this appropriation shall be
for the enforcement of said laws so far as they prohibit the entry and
harboring of Chinese as seamen aboard vessels of American register.''
This proposed amendment clearly does not refer to the immediately
preceding paragraph. It refers to the whole provision, beginning on the
preceding page. Such being the case, the Chair sustains the point of
order.
3837. On May 19, 1902,\2\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
and the following paragraph had been read:
That for the purpose of further increasing the naval establishment of
the United States, the President is hereby authorized to have
constructed by contract, except as herein otherwise provided, two
first-class battle ships, carrying the heaviest armor and most powerful
ordnance for vessels of their class upon a trial displacement of about
16,000 tons and to have the highest practicable speed and great radius
of action and to cost when built by contract, exclusive of armor and
armament, not exceeding $4,212,000 each; two first class armored
cruisers of about 14,500 tons trial displacement, carrying the heaviest
armor and most powerful armament for vessels of their class and to have
the highest practicable speed and great radius of action and to cost,
when built by contract, exclusive of armor and armament, not exceeding
$4,659,000 each; two gunboats of about 1,000 tons trial displacement,
to cost,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 5643-5648.
Sec. 3837
when built by contract, exclusive of armament, not exceeding $382,000
each; and the contract for the construction of each of said vessels so
contracted for shall be awarded by the Secretary of the Navy to the
lowest best responsible bidder, having in view the best results and
most expeditious delivery.
To this Mr. Ernest W. Roberts, of Massachusetts, offered the
following amendment:
Provided, That the Secretary of the Navy shall build at least one of
the battle ships, one of the armored cruisers, and one of the gunboats
herein authorized in such Government navy-yard or navy-yards as he may
designate; and for the purpose of preparing and equipping such navy-
yard or navy-yards as may be so designated for the construction of such
ships the sum of $175,000 or so much thereof as may be necessary, is
hereby appropriated for each of the navy-yards in which the Secretary
of the Navy may direct any such ship or ships to be built.
Mr. Robert Adams, jr., of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment provided for new legislation; that it changed existing
law, and that it limited the discretion of the officer at the head of a
Department of the Government. Mr. Adams cited the provision of the
Revised Statutes relating to purchases of supplies by contract.
In opposition to the point of order, it was argued that the paragraph
in the bill would have been subject to a point of order, but that, as
the point of order had been waived, the paragraph was open to
amendment.
At conclusion of the debate, the Chairman \1\ said:
The Chair thinks that the section of the Revised Statutes to which
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Adams] refers does not control in
this case. In the opinion of the Chair that section does not cover such
a provision as is included in this section of the bill; but the
universal holdings of Speakers and Chairmen--that in the absence of any
statute the creation of a statute is a change of existing law--does
apply in this case. Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Roberts]
argues, and properly argues--to that extent--that this provision was
susceptible to a point of order had the point of order been raised.
That point of order not having been raised, his contention is that it
can be amended in any way, and he cites, among other rulings in support
of that contention, a ruling of Mr. Speaker Carlisle, a most eminent
parliamentarian; but the Chair notices in reading that decision that
Speaker Carlisle expressly says that a provision before the committee
which would have been out of order had the point been raised, the point
not having been raised is amendable; but he says that that amendment
may be made either by increasing or diminishing the amount of the
appropriation, clearly showing that in Speaker Carlisle's mind there
was this idea, that the section could be amended in any germane manner
within its original scope.
Nothing in Speaker Carlisle's opinion indicated any thought that the
scope of an amendment could be enlarged by an amendment if the
provision originally would have been susceptible to a point of order.
Now, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, as a
separate proposition, clearly would be susceptible to a point of order.
The Chair thinks the gentleman from Massachusetts himself would admit
this. Therefore it seems to the Chair that the question has resolved
itself into this: Can the committee do by indirection that which it can
not do directly? It seems to the Chair it is a very dangerous precedent
to establish to permit such a thing to be done.
The Chair admits that the disposition of this point of order is
embarrassing to him. As the Chair remembers, this is the first time he
has disposed of a point of order while occupying this chair about which
he did not feel absolutely clear, and certainly the Chair must admit
that there is some little doubt in his mind about this question; and
yet he thinks that the fact that the committee ought to be prevented
from doing by indirection that which it can not do directly ought to
prevail. This amendment, had it originally been in the text of the
bill, unquestionably would have been held out of order. Therefore the
Chair sustains the point of order against the amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 3838
Mr. Roberts having appealed, the question was put ``Shall the
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?''
And on a vote by tellers there were ayes 86, noes 109. So the
decision of the Chair was overruled.
3838. A paragraph in an appropriation bill changing existing law may
be perfected only by germane amendments.--On April 25, 1900,\1\ the
Post-Office appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, and the paragraph providing
the pay of the Railway Mail Service was under consideration, sums
being, appropriated for the clerks by classes, indicated as classes 4b,
5b, etc.
To this paragraph Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, offered an
amendment dividing the clerks of the service into ten classes,
regulating periods of appointment, promotions, etc., and in general
providing for a complete organization of the service.
Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, made the point of order against
the amendment.
Mr. Tawney argued that the paragraph in the bill constituted classes,
and therefore was legislation, and hence might be perfected in
accordance with the ruling of June 14, 1884.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair has no doubt that the proposition of the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Tawney] is correct, that where a committee on a general
appropriation bill undertakes to legislate in violation of the rule the
Committee of the Whole has the right either to make the point of order
or, passing the point of order, has the right to perfect that
legislation by amendment.
It must, however, be perfected by some amendment or proposition that
is germane to the paragraph to which the amendment is offered.
The Chair does not think that in the paragraph under consideration
there is any reclassification. There is a change of existing law with
respect to at least one salary, but so far as classification is
concerned there is no change of existing law. That is to say, the
salaries in the classes which are mentioned in the paragraph are all,
as to amount, within the limit allowed by existing law.
It is perfectly competent under existing law to authorize salaries at
one rate to a portion of a class and salaries at another rate to
another portion of that class, and that is all that is attempted to be
done here. There is no reclassification. The terms ``a'' and ``b'' as
used in the paragraph, are used simply for the purpose of convenience,
and they may be stricken out without affecting the legislation in any
respect. So that, so far as classification is concerned, there is, in
the judgment of the Chair, no new legislation in this paragraph. There
is new legislation, however, with respect to the increase of salaries
outside of the classes named, and this makes the paragraph amendable,
provided the amendment offered is germane.
Now, the subject-matter of this paragraph is simply an appropriation
for salaries to certain Government employees, recognized by law. The
amendment offered is an independent bill now pending before the
Committee on Post Offices and Post-Roads, entitled ``A bill to
reclassify postal clerks and prescribe their salaries,'' and it
undertakes to establish an entirely new system. The provisions of the
bill, after the first paragraph, perhaps, have no relation to
reclassification or increase of salaries, but have relation to the
duties of the Postmaster-General and to the duties of employees and to
a great many details that are not germane to the paragraph now under
consideration. To be admissible the amendment must be germane as a
whole. It is not so germane. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 4678-4690.
\2\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
Sec. 3839
3839. The House sometimes, by agreeing to a resolution reported by
the Committee on Rules, authorizes in a general appropriation bill
legislative provisions.--On February 7, 1893,\1\ the House was in
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union considering the
legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill.
One paragraph of the bill provided for the creation of a joint
commission to examine into the condition of the public service in the
Executive Departments of the Government at the national capital.
Mr. John A. Pickler, of South Dakota, having made a point of order
against this paragraph, the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair calls attention to the fact that early in the session the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Dockery] introduced a resolution providing
for a commission. That resolution was referred, regularly, by the House
to the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules considered the
resolution, which is identical with the provision inserted in this
appropriation bill. The language is identical. The Committee on Rules
reported that resolution of Mr. Dockery back to the House on the 26th
day of January, and with the report submitted this resolution:
``Resolved, That the resolution of Mr. Dockery be, and the same is
hereby, referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and said committee
is hereby authorized to insert in one of the general appropriation
bills a provision authorizing the creation of a commission for the
purpose indicated in said resolution.'' \3\
Here is a resolution * * * reported in an appropriation bill that is
in identically the language of the resolution considered by the House.
The Committee on Rules reported the resolution and submitted a report
instructing or authorizing the Committee on Appropriations to include
these words in an appropriation bill. The Chair hardly thinks that it
would be proper, or in order, for a committee of the House to undertake
to say that the House did wrong in instructing the Committee on
Appropriations to report this provision. * * * The Chair overrules the
point of order.
3840. On February 3, 1897,\4\ Mr. David B. Henderson, of Iowa, from
the Committee on Rules, reported this resolution, which was agreed to
by the House.:
Resolved, That it shall be in order to offer and consider as an
amendment to the bill (H. R. 10167) making appropriations to provide
for the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1898, and for other purposes.
``That the act approved February 13, 1895, entitled `An act to amend
an act entitled ``An act to provide for the settlement of all
outstanding claims against the District of Columbia, and conferring
jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear the same, and for other
purposes,'' approved June 16, 1880,' be, and the same is hereby,
repealed.
``And all proceedings pending shall be vacated, and no judgment
heretofore rendered in pursuance of said act shall be paid.''
Which amendment shall be subject to amendment under the rules of the
House.
3841. On January 26,1906,\5\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, from
the Committee on Rules, presented the following resolution, which was
agreed to by the House yeas 145, nays 102:
Resolved, That it shall be in order to offer as an amendment to the
urgent deficiency bill (H. R. 12320), either in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, even although
the paragraph to which it is germane may have been passed, the
following amendment:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Record, pp. 1302, 1306.
\2\ James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, Chairman.
\3\ Authorizations of this nature have also been offered and agreed
to under suspension of the rules.
\4\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 1501, 1505.
\5\ First session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 1603-1608.
Sec. 3842
``The provisions of the act entitled `An act relating to the
limitations of the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics
employed upon the public works of the United States and of the District
of Columbia,' approved August 1, 1892, shall not apply to alien
laborers employed in the construction of the isthmian canal within the
Canal Zone.''
Thereafter, on the same day,\1\ in Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, the amendment was offered and agreed to.
3842. On January 10, 1907,\2\ Mr. John Dalzell, from the Committee on
Rules, submitted the following resolution, which was agreed to by the
House:
Resolved, That in considering in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union the bill H. R. 23551, ``A bill making appropriations
for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908,''
it shall be in order to consider as an amendment thereto the following:
``When the office of Lieutenant-General shall become vacant it shall
not thereafter be filled, but said office shall cease and determine,
but nothing in this provision shall affect the retired list.''
3843. On April 30,1902,\3\ the Committee on Rules reported the
following resolution, which was agreed to by the House:
Resolved, That it shall be in order to amend the bill (H. R. 14019)
making appropriations to provide for the expenses of the government of
the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 1903, by the insertion, on
the recommendation of the Committee on Appropriations, of legislation
providing for the assessment and collection of taxes on personal
property in the District of Columbia.
3844. Pending the engrossment of a general appropriation bill an
amendment proposing legislation may be authorized by the adoption of a
report from the Committee on Rules.--On February 20, 1907,\4\ the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, rose and
reported the bill (H.R. 25483) making appropriations for the service of
the Post-Office Department, with sundry amendments thereto.
The amendments recommended by the Committee of the Whole were agreed
to by the House.
Thereupon Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, submitted the following
privileged report:
The Committee on Rules having had under consideration sundry
resolutions relating to the bill H. R. 25483, the post-office
appropriation bill, report the following substitute therefor:
``Resolved, That immediately on the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider as an amendment to the bill H. R. 25483,
the post-office appropriation bill, the following:
`` `That hereafter clerks in offices of the first and second class
shall be divided into seven grades, as follows: First grade, salary
$600-1 second grade, salary $700; third grade, salary $800; fourth
grade, salary $900; fifth grade, salary $1,000; sixth grade, salary
$1,100; seventh grade, salary $1,200,' '' etc.
The resolution reported from the Committee on Rules was agreed to.
The Speaker then announced that the question was on the amendment to
the post-office bill proposed in the resolution just agreed to.
The amendment was agreed to; and then the bill was ordered to be
engrossed, read a third time, arid passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, pp. 1609, 1610.
\2\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 897.
\3\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 663; Record, p.
4894.
\4\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 3492-3494.
Sec. 3845
3845. Instance wherein, on a motion to suspend the rules, the House
ordered the Clerk to incorporate in the engrossment of a general
appropriation bill already passed, a provision embodying legislation.
The House, on a motion to suspend the rules, may authorize another
motion to suspend the rules on a future day not a suspension day under
the ordinary rules. (Footnote.)
On February 20, 1907,\1\ the bill (H. R. 25483) making appropriation
for the service of the Post-Office Department had passed the House when
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, moved to suspend the rules \2\ and
agree to the following:
Ordered, That in the engrossment of the bill (H. R. 25483) making
appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, and for other purposes, the Clerk be
directed to insert after the paragraph of appropriation ``for inland
transportation by railroad route, $44,660,000;'' the following:
``The Postmaster-General is hereby authorized and directed to
readjust the compensation to be paid from and after the 1st day of
July, 1907, for the transportation of mail on railroad routes carrying
their whole length an average weight of mails per day of upward of
5,000 pounds by making,'' etc.
The rules were suspended and the order was made.
3846. A proposition directly taking away from a Department officer an
authority conferred by law is not in order on a general appropriation
bill, being in the nature of legislation.--On June 3, 1892,\3\ the
House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
considering the Post-Office appropriation bill.
The subject of the act to ``provide for an ocean mail service between
the United States and foreign ports, and to promote commerce,''
approved March 3, 1891, being considered, Mr. George W. Fithian, of
Illinois, offered this amendment:
Provided, That no further contract shall be entered into by the
Postmaster-General under said act.
Mr. Nelson Dingley, Jr., of Maine, made the point of order that it
was new legislation and did not come within either of the exceptions
provided by the rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3494.
\2\ This day was not a suspension day, but on the last preceding
suspension day, which had been February 18, on motion of Mr. Overstreet
the House had suspended the rules and agreed to an order, as follows:
``Resolved, That immediately upon the final passage of the bill (H.
R. 25483) making appropriations for the Post Office Department for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, and for other purposes, it shall be
in order in the House to offer the following, under the conditions
prescribed in Rule XXVIII, covering suspension of the rules:
``Ordered, That in the engrossment of the bill (H. R. 25483) making
appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, and for other purposes, the Clerk be
directed to insert after the paragraph of appropriation `for inland
transportation by railroad route, $44,660,000;' the following:
`` `The Postmaster-General is hereby authorized and directed to
readjust the compensation to be paid from and after the 1st day of
July, 1907, for the transportation of mail on railroad routes carrying
their whole length an average weight of mails per day of upward of
5,000 pounds by making, etc.' ''
Hence it happened that a motion to suspend the rules was authorized
on a day not regularly a suspension day. (Record, p. 3232.)
\3\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 5005.
Sec. 3847
The Chairman \1\ ruled--
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois changes existing
law because it repeals the power conferred upon the Postmaster-General
by the first section of the act of March 3, 1891. As an amendment to an
appropriation bill it must be germane to the subject-matter and must
retrench expenditure in one or more of the methods pointed out in the
rule.\2\ The Chair is of the opinion that it does not do this unless by
inference, and therefore is not in order.
3847. On April 24, 1900,\3\ the Post-Office appropriation bill being
under consideration. in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, Mr. Charles Curtis, of Kansas, offered this amendment to the
paragraph relation to ``experimental rural free delivery:''
That the carriers on rural free-delivery routes shall be paid at the
rate of not less than $600 per annum.
Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, having made a point of order, the
Chairman \4\ held:
As the Chair understands it, under existing law there is a discretion
in the Post-Office Department as to the amount of salaries to be
allowed to these carriers. Should this amendment be adopted, that
discretion will be taken away from the Post-Office Department, and to
that extent it is a change of existing law and new legislation. The
Chair sustains the point of order.
3848. A limitation on the discretion exercised under law by a bureau
of the Government is a change of law.--On January 12, 1899,\5\ the
House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
considering the consular and diplomatic appropriation bill. The
paragraph appropriating for the support of the Bureau of American
Republics was read, including this paragraph:
And provided further, That the Public Printer be, and he is hereby,
authorized to print an edition of the Monthly Bulletin, not to exceed
5,000 copies, for distribution by the Bureau, every month during the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1900.
Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, made the point of order that
this would involve a change of law.
During the debate Air. George D. Perkins, of Iowa, chairman of the
Committee on Printing, explained:
An appropriation is made for the public printing, and from time to
time Congress makes provision for printing particular documents under
that appropriation. * * * We make no appropriation in these cases; the
expense comes out of the appropriation already made to the Public
Printer for this purpose. * * * An appropriation is made for the Bureau
of American Republics, and within the limit of that appropriation the
Bureau can print such numbers of the bulletins as may be possible. * *
* Now, the effect of the proviso is to increase the amount of the
appropriation to be taken out of the public-printing fund to the extent
of the amount that will be required to enable the Public Printer to
print the 5,000 additional copies.
Mr. Perkins further stated that the number printed at present was
limited by the discretion of the Bureau.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William L. Wilson, of West Virginia, Chairman.
\2\ The rule at that time was in a form which permitted legislation
which would retrench expenditures. See section 3578 of this volume.
\3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4633.
\4\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\5\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 625-628.
Sec. 3849
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
In respect to the point of order raised by the gentleman from
Missouri regarding the issuance of the Monthly Bulletins, it is
impossible for the Chair to speak with any confidence in his own
opinion. Very little information his been given as to the existing law
on the subject. If the Chair has apprehended correctly what was said by
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Perkins], it is that the number of these
bulletins is, by existing law, regulated by the discretion of the
Bureau of American Republics.
Now, then, if Congress undertakes to regulate or limit or in any way
affect that discretion so vested in the Bureau of American Republics by
permanent law, it seems to the Chair that in that respect it is a
change in existing law. For that reason the Chair sustains the point of
order on the latter part of the section.
3849. On March 23, 1904,\2\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read this paragraph:
For necessary and special facilities on trunk lines from Washington
to Atlanta and New Orleans, $142,728.75: Provided, That no part of the
appropriation made by this paragraph shall be expended unless the
Postmaster-General shall deem such expenditure necessary in order to
promote the interest of the postal service.
Mr. E. Y. Webb, of North Carolina, proposed this amendment:
Add after the word ``service,'' line 23, page 18, the words ``and if
the Postmaster-General shall, expend said amount, or any part thereof,
he shall state his reasons for the necessity of such expenditure in his
next annual report.''
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, having made a point of order, the
Chairman \3\ said:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, it seems
to the Chair, changes existing.sting law, in that it alters the
discretion now vested in the Postmaster-General, and also the provision
of existing law in reference to his annual report. The Chair therefore
sustains the point of order.
3850. On March 24, 1904,\4\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read a paragraph appropriating for the pay of
rural free-delivery agents.
To this Mr. William W. Kitchin, of North Carolina, proposed as an
amendment the following:
On page 24, after the word ``dollars,'' in line 18, insert:
``No rural agent shall recommend against the establishment of a route
on account of the condition of the roads over which a proposed route
extends in any case in which a suitable carrier can be obtained for the
usual compensation.''
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, made a point of order.
After debate the Chairman \3\ held:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is clearly
new legislation in that it takes away discretion from the Postmaster-
General given under the general law. The Chair sustains the point of
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3594.
\3\ H. S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
\4\ Second session, Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3646.
Sec. 3851
3851. On March 18, 1904,\1\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, offered this amendment:
Provided, That whenever the business of a post-office can not be
performed by one person the business of said office shall be deemed to
be unusual business under the provisions of this act.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made a point of order that the
amendment involved legislation.
The Chairman \2\ held:
If this amendment is in order, it is in order under section 3863 of
the Revised Statutes, which the Chair will read:
``Sec. 3863. Whenever unusual business accrues at any post-office,
the Postmaster-General shall make a special order allowing reasonable
compensation for clerical service, and a proportionate increase of
salary to the postmaster during the time of such extraordinary
business.''
The paragraph very clearly vests in the Postmaster-General a complete
and absolute discretion to determine when the business is ``unusual,''
when the unusual character begins, and when it terminates. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Hepburn] in the
opinion of the Chair determines by law what that unusual business is,
and therefore it takes away from the Postmaster-General a discretion
vested in him by this statute. The Chair, therefore, is constrained to
sustain the point of order on the ground that it changes existing law
which gives the Postmaster-General absolute discretion. The question
now recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana.
3852. On March 18, 1904,\3\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read this paragraph:
For separating mails at third and fourth class post-offices,
$1,000,000.
Mr. E. H. Hinshaw, of Nebraska, proposed this amendment:
After the word ``dollars,'' in line 9, page 11, insert:
``Provided, That this item shall be construed to include separating
mails from and to rural mail routes.''
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment proposed legislation.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
It is quite clear to the Chair that this amendment places a
construction upon the existing law, and takes from the Postmaster-
General the general discretion which he now has under existing law, and
therefore is new legislation, and the Chair sustains the point of
order.
3853. Although a law may give an executive officer authority to do a
certain thing, a provision directing him so to do is legislative in
nature and not in order on a general appropriation bill.--On February
12, 1907 \4\ the naval appropriation bill was under consideration in
Committee of the Whole House
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3435, 3436.
\2\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3440.
\4\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 2785, 2786.
Sec. 3854
on the state of the Union, when Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois,
proposed this amendment:
On page 13, line 22, after the word ``dollars,'' insert the
following:
``Provided, That immediately after the passage of this act all
ammunition and other supplies already on hand under appropriation
`Increase of the Navy, armor and armament,' shall thereby be
transferred to the appropriation `Ordnance and ordnance stores,' the
same as if purchased under that appropriation, and that this change of
title shall be effected without a charge against the appropriation
`Ordnance and ordnance stores.' ''
``Provided further, That after the passage of this act all ammunition
and other supplies now contracted for under the appropriation `Increase
of the Navy, armor and armament,' shall be transferred to the
appropriation `Ordnance and ordnance stores' immediately after such
ammunition and other supplies have been delivered and paid for; that
this change of title shall be effected without a charge against the
appropriation `Ordnance and ordnance stores.' ''
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order against
the amendment that it proposed legislation.
On the succeeding day, February 13,\1\ Mr. Foss quoted authorities to
show that the Secretary of the Navy already had the authority to do
those things proposed in the amendment, and hence to argue that no
change of existing law was contemplated.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair begs to suggest that what the gentleman from Illinois has
read indicates or shows that the Secretary of the Navy has authority to
make certain classifications, etc. The amendment which the gentleman on
yesterday offered is a direction to the Secretary--a statutory,
mandatory direction to the Secretary to do something which under the
law he has authority to do in his discretion. This, then, is a
direction where the statute gives the Secretary discretion; therefore
it seems to the Chair that it is a legislative provision, and obnoxious
to the rule. * * * The Chair, of course, does not enter into the
question of the propriety of the legislative provision, but the matter
as to whether or not it can be done upon an appropriation bill and the
Chair thinks it can not be done, and sustains the point of order.
3864. A proposition to establish affirmative directions for an
executive officer constitutes legislation, and is not in order on a
general appropriation bill.--On December 12, 1906,\3\ the legislative
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union when Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of
Indiana, raised a question of order against a portion of the bill
appropriating for the service in the Government Printing Office. After
debate the Chairman \4\ stated the question and ruled as follows:
The language assailed by the point of order is as follows:
``Hereafter in printing documents authorized by law or ordered by
Congress or either branch thereof, the Government Printing Office shall
follow the rules of orthography established by Webster's or other
generally accepted dictionaries of the English language.''
That language is assailed by a clause of Rule XXI, which is as
follows:
``Nor shall any provision changing existing law be in order in any
general appropriation bill, or in any amendment thereto.''
The language of the provision I have read is either an enactment or
it is a legislative construction of what we generally term the common
law. The attention of the Chair has not been called to any
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, p, 2901.
\2\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 312-318.
\4\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
Sec. 3855
statute upon this subject, and if there is any law upon the subject it
is simply the law of usage or of custom. If it is an enactment, it is
obnoxious to many of the precedents established in this House. For
instance, it has been held that the enactment of positive law where
none exists is a change of existing law within the meaning of Rule XXI.
Again, it has been generally held that provisions giving new
construction of law or limiting the discretion which has been exercised
by the officers charged with the duties of administration are changes
of law within the meaning of the rule.
Again, a provision authorizing or directing an officer of the
Government to do things involves legislation. The language of this
statute requires the Public Printer hereafter to pursue a particular
line of action or to do things. It has been held that in the pension
appropriation bill a paragraph proposing a construction of existing law
different from that adhered to by the Department was legislation and
not a limitation. Again, it has generally been held that provisions
giving a new construction of law or limiting the discretion which has
been exercised by officers charged with the duties of administration
are changes of law within the meaning of the rule.
In view of these precedents, the point of order will be sustained.
3855. On February 20, 1907,\1\ the Post-Office appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union when the Clerk read:
For substitutes for clerks on vacation, $50,000: Provided, That the
Postmaster-General may allow railway postal clerks whose duties require
them to work six days or more per week, fifty-two weeks per year, an
annual vacation of fifteen days with pay.
Mr. Ashbury F. Lever, of South Carolina, proposed to amend the
proviso so as to read:
That the Postmaster-General may allow railway postal clerks an annual
vacation of fifteen days with pay.
Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
amendment involved a change of law.
After debate the Chairman \2\ ruled:
Under the act of 1906 the Postmaster-General may allow railway postal
clerks whose duties require them to work six days or more a week and
fifty-two weeks in the year an annual vacation of fifteen days with
pay. That is permanent law, and would still be in force even though the
paragraph just read or the proviso were omitted entirely. But the
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina strikes out
certain words and would change the permanent provision of law. It
therefore violates the rules of the House, and the Chair sustains the
point of order.
3856. On May 16, 1906,\3\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read:
And provided further, That the Secretary of the Navy shall cause a
thorough inquiry to be made as to the cost of armor plate and of an
armor plant, the report of which shall be made to Congress.
Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order against the
amendment, that it involved new legislation.
Mr. John F. Rixey, of Virginia, stated that this provision was
carried in the naval appropriation bill which was passed about a year
ago, and was the present law. When the Secretary of the Navy was before
the committee, he had stated that he had not made the investigation,
that his attention had not been called to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3477.
\2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 6991.
Sec. 3857
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
3857.--On February 14, 1901,\2\ the sundry civil appropriation bill
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, and the Clerk had read the paragraph providing for the rent
of certain offices in the old custom-house in New York City.
Mr. William A. Jones, of Virginia, thereupon offered this amendment:
But the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to deduct from
this sum of $371,047.12 the sum of $50,000, the same being the amount
still due and unpaid by the National City Bank to the United States
upon the purchase price of the said old custom-house.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
amendment proposed legislation.
After debate, the Chairman \3\ held:
The paragraph under consideration, on page 5 of the bill, provides
for the appropriation of $371,047.12 in payment for the rental of the
old custom-house in New York City from August 28, 1899, to June 30,
1902. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia provides
that from this payment shall be deducted the deferred payment of
$50,000 remaining unpaid by the City National Bank of New York City to
the United States Government as the final payment on the purchase price
of this property.
The Chair has before it the act of March 2, 1899, entitled ``An act
to supplement and amend an act entitled `An act for the erection of a
new custom-house in the city of New York, and for other purposes.' ''
This act provides for the erection of a new custom-house and for the
sale of the old building. The provisions relating to the sale of the
old custom-house are found in section 4 of this act. The act is
mandatory. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to sell this
property upon certain terms. It also directs what some of the terms of
this sale shall be--among others, that the United States Government
shall be entitled to retain control and possession of this property
until the completion of the new custom-house, paying as a rental
therefor 4 per cent of the purchase price of the property.
In reference to the method of the payment of the purchase price this
act provides:
``And the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to accept
the said purchase price in several payments, from time to time, as he
may deem most advantageous: Provided, however, That the use,
occupation, and possession of said property shall not be surrendered
until the new custom-house is ready for occupation and the final
payment fully made.''
A certain discretion is distinctly vested in the Secretary of the
Treasury in reference to the method by which he shall exact the payment
of this purchase price. Pursuant to this act, a contract was entered
into between the United States Government and the City National Bank of
New York. That contract provided that the deed should be delivered to
the bank upon the payment of the balance of said purchase price when a
new custom-house, to be erected by the United States on the so-called
Bowling Green site, shall be occupied by the United States.
The delivery of the deed as provided by this contract is to depend
upon two things--the payment of the final installment of the purchase
price and the occupancy of the new custom-house at Bowling Green. That
contract, the Chair submits, was entered into under the discretion
clearly vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by section 4 of the act
of 1899. As the Chair recollects, there is a long line of decisions,
which hold that a limitation of a discretion duly vested by law in an
executive officer is new legislation. Under these circumstances,
considering the distinct discretion vested in the Secretary of the
Treasury by this act--considering the terms of the contract which he
entered into pursuant to the discretion vested in him by that act,
which terms are that the deed is to be delivered on the consummation of
two things, the completion of the new custom-house and the final
payment of the purchase price--the Chair is constrained to rule,
whatever opinion he may have in reference to the merits of the
question, that this amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
does affect and limit the discretion of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 2432-2434.
\3\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3858
Secretary of the Treasury as conferred upon him by section 4 of the act
referred to. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order made by
the gentleman from Illinois.
3858. On February 26, 1904,\1\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when this paragraph was read:
That the Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized to procure by
contract armor of the best quality for any or all vessels herein
authorized, provided such contracts can be made at a price which, in
his judgment, is reasonable and equitable; but in case he is unable to
make contracts for armor under the above conditions be is hereby
authorized and directed to procure a site for and to erect thereon a
factory for the manufacture of armor, and the sum of $4,000,000 is
hereby appropriated toward the erection of said factory.
Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the
paragraph was legislation.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair finds, in section 531 of the Parliamentary Precedents, the
general principle thus stated:
``It has generally been held that provisions giving a new
construction of law or limiting the discretion which has been exercised
by officers charged with the duties of administration are changes of
law within the meaning of the rule.''
A number of precedents are there cited, the first one being a ruling
by Hon. John. G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, upon an amendment to the
deficiency appropriation bill, in this language:
``Provided, That the Commissioner of Pensions shall not withhold a
pension from any soldier or pensioner of the war of 1812 who was
granted a pension under the act of Congress of 1871 and was dropped for
charges of disloyalty and reinstated under the act of 9th March, 1878,
and their pension shall be paid from 9th March, 1878.''
In the course of his ruling Mr. Carlisle said:
``The Chair thinks that it will change the law within the meaning of
the rule, because, undoubtedly if the amendment be adopted the
Commissioner of Pensions will hereafter be required by the express
letter of the law to do what he has not been heretofore required to do
by express letter of the law.''
Now, the Chair thinks that this provision, against which the point of
order is made, authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Navy upon
certain conditions to procure a site and erect thereon a factory for
which there is not now authority of law, requires him to do ``what he
has not been heretofore required to do by express letter of the law,''
and the ruling of Mr. Carlisle is directly in point.
The Chair also finds that Mr. William H. Hatch, of Missouri, in 1894,
ruled an amendment out of order because it limited the discretion of
the Postmaster-General. This amendment clearly proposes to limit the
discretion of the Secretary of the Navy. There is a long line of
authorities, which the Chair will not take time to cite.
In the third session of the Fifty-fifth Congress, the naval
appropriation being then as now bill under consideration, a proposition
was offered in an amendment making an appropriation for the
establishment of an armor-plate factory--the very proposition which is
now before the committee--ruling upon the point of order against that,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Sherman] said:
``It is so clear to the Chair that this proposed amendment is
obnoxious to Rule XXI, the Chair thinks it unnecessary to make any
statement. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.''
In a later Congress a similar proposition was again ruled out, Mr.
Payne, of New York, in the chair.
Following these precedents, and for these reasons, it clearly
appearing that in a number of particulars this paragraph not only
changes existing law but provides for an appropriation for a purpose
not authorized by law, the Chair sustains the point of order made by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. William W. Kitchin, of North Carolina, having appealed, the
decision of the Chair was sustained, ayes 131, noes 93.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2438-2440.
\2\ Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
Sec. 3859
3859. On April 2, 1902,\1\ while the sundry civil appropriation bill
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, Mr. Richard W. Parker, of New Jersey, made a point of order
on the following paragraph in the bill:
The Secretary of War is authorized and directed to prepare and submit
in the annual estimates, at the next session of Congress, a proposition
providing for the consolidation of the existing commissions having
charge of the several national military parks, or substituting therefor
a commission consisting of one or more members to have charge and
direction, under the War Department, of the future improvement, care,
and maintenance of all of said military parks. The Secretary of War
shall also submit estimates for each of said parks in accordance with
the proposition herein required to be submitted.
It was urged against the point of order that the provision contained
no existing law, and was in effect merely a provision of inquiry.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The pending paragraph authorizes and directs the Secretary of War to
do certain things which in the opinion of the Chair he is not now
authorized and directed to do by existing law. In other words, it is an
effort to enact law where no law now exists, and is thus a change of
existing law and obnoxious to the rules, that--
``no provision changing existing law shall be in order on any general
appropriation bill or in any amendment thereto.''
While the Chair has a great deal of sympathy with the spirit and
purpose of the paragraph, he feels constrained to sustain the point of
order.
3860. Where an executive officer has general discretion as to the
application of an appropriation for a public work, an appropriation
limited to a specific detail has been held to involve legislation.--On
February 3, 1898,\3\ the fortifications appropriation bill being under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, Mr. Israel F. Fischer, of New York, offered this amendment:
For preliminary work necessary for the erection of a fortification on
Romers Shoals, in the harbor of New York, $25,000.
Mr. J. A. Hemenway, of Indiana, made the point of order against the
amendment.
After debate the Chairman \4\ ruled:
The appropriations provided for in this bill are to be expended under
the direction of the War Department. The amendment limits and controls
the discretion of the Department. It directs to be done what the
Secretary of War or the proper officer in the War Department, in the
discharge of his duties in expending the appropriations provided for in
this bill, might think to be unnecessary or unwise, and in that respect
is in violation of Rule XXI, section 2, which provides that--
``No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation
bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not
previously authorized by law, etc., * * * nor shall any provision
changing existing law be in order in any general appropriation bill or
in amendment thereto.''
The Chair thinks there is a clear line of distinction between an
appropriation contemplated in the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York and the appropriations provided for in the pending bill
for certain specified places. Those appropriations are permissible
under section 2, Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 3569, 3570.
\2\ George P. Lawrence, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1420.
\4\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
Sec. 3861
XXI, which provides that such appropriations are authorized in a bill
of this character where they are in continuation of appropriations for
public works and the object already in progress. The places mentioned
by the gentleman from New York in the bill as being of the same
character as the appropriations contemplated in his amendment are
appropriations for continuing works already begun at those specified
places. His amendment is for a place heretofore unappropriated for. It
is the creation of a new public work, and, inasmuch as it directs the
Department to expend money for this purpose, is in violation of the
rule just quoted. For these reasons the Chair will sustain the point of
order.\1\
Mr. Wallace T. Foote, jr., of New York, having appealed, the decision
of the Chair was sustained, 98 ayes to 40 noes.
3861. On February 24, 1898,\2\ the sundry civil appropriation bill
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union. The paragraphs relating to the Geological Survey being read,
Mr. Marcus A. Smith, of Arizona, proposed an amendment to provide that
$5,000 of the appropriation should ``be expended in the county of Yuma,
Territory of Arizona.''
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, having made a point of order,
after debate the Chairman \3\ ruled:
The Chair understands that the Secretary of the Interior is given a
general discretion as to how and in what localities he shall use the
appropriation. This amendment would limit that discretion, and
therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
3862. The law providing that the Secretary of the Navy should name
battle ships, a proposition to name one in an appropriation bill was
held to be legislation.
A legislative paragraph which remains in an appropriation bill
without objection may be perfected by any germane amendment which does
not add more legislation.
On April 1, 1898,\4\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, and the Clerk had read the paragraph providing for the
construction of new battle ships, one to be named the Maine.
Mr. Robert N. Bodine, of Missouri, offered this amendment:
And one of said battle ships to be named the Missouri.
Mr. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, made the point of order against the
amendment.
After debate the Chairman \5\ ruled:
It seems to the Chair that while the law expressly provides that the
Secretary of the Navy shall name the battle ships, the provision
inserted in the bill was subject to a point of order if it had been
raised; but not having been raised, it would be permissible to strike
out the word Maine and insert any other name. That does not, however,
permit the changing of the law so as to name more than one ship.
Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
3863. A requirement that the Secretary of the Navy should have
certain new vessels constructed in navy-yards was held to be
legislation and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For another ruling relating to this subject see Record, pp. 1730,
1731, second session Fifty-fourth Congress.
\2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 2142, 2143.
\3\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3474.
\5\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 3864
not a limitation.--On April 20, 1900,\1\ the naval appropriation bill
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, when Mr. J. J. Fitzgerald, of New York, offered to the
provision for building new vessels the following amendment:
To be constructed under the supervision and direction of the
Secretary of the Navy in such of the navy-yards of the United States as
are best adapted therefor.
Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, made a point of order against this
amendment.
After debate the Chairman \2\ said:
It appears to the Chair that the natural interpretation of the
language just read by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fitzgerald] is
that under the construction of the present law by the Secretary of the
Navy there is no law for building any of these vessels in the navy-
yards, but that legislation would be necessary in order to authorize
that. This is the interpretation the Chair would put upon the language
which the gentleman has just read.
Aside from that, however, the question now before the Committee of
the Whole is whether this provision is new legislation or whether it is
a limitation of the appropriation. There are several decisions to which
the attention of the Chair has been called. One of them reads in this
way:
``Provisions that bids for the construction of naval vessels should
be limited to bidders having adequate plants and not having over a
specified number of vessels under construction were held to be in the
nature of legislation and not a limitation.''
That decision would seem to throw a good deal of light upon the
question of order on this amendment, which provides that the Secretary
of the Navy shall construct these vessels ``in such navy-yards of the
United States as are at present established therefor.'' This would seem
to be a parallel case. The Chair therefore, following the decision made
in the Fifty-fifth Congress, sustains the point of order.
Mr. Fitzgerald having appealed, the decision was sustained on a vote
by tellers, ayes 82, noes 74.
3864. An amendment to the description of the object for which an
appropriation is made is not legislation.--On March 1, 1905,\3\ the
general deficiency appropriation bill was under consideration in
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, when this
paragraph was read:
For pay of bailiffs and criers, not exceeding three bailiffs and one
crier in each court, except in the southern district of New York:
Provided, That all persons employed under section 715 of the Revised
Statutes shall be deemed to be in actual attendance when they attend
upon the order of the courts: Provided further, That no such person
shall be employed during vacation; of reasonable expenses for travel
and attendance of district judges directed to hold court outside of
their districts, not to exceed $10 per day each, to be paid on written
certificates of the judges, and such payments shall be allowed the
marshal in the settlement of his accounts with the United States;
expenses of judges of the circuit courts of appeals, not to exceed $10
per day; of meals and lodgings for jurors in United States cases, and
of bailiffs in attendance upon the same, when ordered by the court; and
of compensation for jury commissioners, $5 per day, not exceeding three
days for any one term of court, $35,000.
Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, offered this amendment:
After the word ``district,'' strike out the words ``not to exceed $10
a day;'' and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``The liquidated sum of $10 for each day necessarily occupied in
traveling and attending at any term of court so held by any such judge
outside of his own district.''
Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, made a point of order against the
amendment, that it involved legislation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4493.
\2\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
\3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 3802-3804.
Sec. 3865
Mr. Hemenway explained that there was no law on the subject other
than this provision, which had run in appropriation bills of previous
years:
Of reasonable expenses for travel and attendance of district judges
directed to hold court outside of their districts, not to exceed $10
per day each, to be paid on written certificates of the judges, and
such payments shall be allowed the marshal in the settlement of his
accounts with the United States.
Mr. Olmsted said:
If there be no existing law authorizing this, it is of itself new
legislation; but no point of order having been made against the new
legislation already in the bill an amendment germane thereto is in
order.
At the conclusion of the debate the Chairman \1\ said:
Section 596 of the Revised Statutes of 1878 prohibits the payment of
anything toward the expense of a district judge holding court in
another district, except in one case, which is not covered by the
present amendment. So that the item itself in the bill, if there has
been no change of law since section 596 was enacted, was subject to a
point of order. And that point of order not having been raised, any
germane amendment to the paragraph would now be in order. But the Chair
is of the opinion that the language in reference to this item is
clearly a matter of description of the appropriation, is not continuing
law, has no effect upon anything except the money carried by this item,
and, being a mere matter of description of the item, may be changed by
amendment in the committee. The Chair therefore overrules the point of
order.
3865. A limit of cost on a public work may not be made or changed on
an appropriation bill.--On May 2, 1906,\2\ the Military Academy
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, when the clerk read:
For completing the necessary improvements at the United States
Military Academy at West Point, N. Y., in accordance with the general
plan approved by the Secretary of War, the limit of the total
expenditure for this work fixed in the act of Congress approved June
28, 1902, is extended $1,500,000, and the Secretary of War is
authorized to proceed with the work under the conditions already
prescribed for it by law: Provided, That all limitations and
restrictions in the act approved June 28, 1902, shall apply to this
increased authorization.
Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the paragraph proposed legislation.
In the debate it was urged that the act of 1902 did not provide a
fixed limit of cost by permanent law, but merely a limitation to the
appropriation therein carried:
To increase the efficiency of the United States Military Academy at
West Point, N. Y., and to provide for the enlargement of buildings and
for other necessary works of improvement in connection therewith, and
to provide for an increased water supply at a cost not to exceed
$100,000, made necessary by the increased number of cadets now
authorized by law, immediately available and to remain so until
expended, $2,000,000: Provided, That before any part of this amount is
expended, except so much as may be necessary to provide an immediate
increased water supply, to install a heating and lighting plant, and to
complete the improvements begun on the cadet mess building, complete
plans shall be prepared and approved by the Secretary of War, covering
all necessary buildings and improvements at West Point, and for each
and every purpose connected therewith, which plans shall involve a
total expenditure of not more than $5,500,000, including the sum herein
appropriated: Provided further, That alter the preparation and approval
of the plans herein provided, the Secretary of War is authorized to
enter into a contract or contracts for any part or all of the
improvements herein authorized within the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James R. Mann, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 6288-6295.
Sec. 3866
said limit of cost, to be paid for from the appropriations annually
made for this purpose: Provided further, That no money shall be
expended or obligation incurred for architects after the plans for
improvement above provided for have been approved by the Secretary of
War, except that the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to employ,
in his discretion, a consulting architect at a compensation not
exceeding $5,000 per annum.
It was also urged that the provision of the pending bill was in the
nature of the continuation of a public work or object.
As to the contention that the act of 1902 did not make permanent law
the Chairman \1\ held:
It is in the appropriation bill, it is true, but it is general law,
and this bill provides that the limit of total expenditure for this
work fixed in the act of Congress of June 28, 1902, is extended. The
bill itself states that it is fixed--fixed by a previous law. It is
also fixed by the act of 1904 and also by the act of 1905, so that
there are three different bills fixing the cost not to exceed five and
a half million dollars. If there is no existing law on the subject,
then this bill creates a law, and if there is an existing law then this
bill changes it. In either event it is new legislation.
As to the contention that the provision was admissible as in
continuation of a public work, the Chairman said:
The Chair would call the attention of the gentleman from New York to
the fact that this is not a continuation of the appropriation. This is
a change of limit. It says that the limit is extended $1,500,000. It is
not an appropriation for a million and a half of dollars, but it is a
change from the limit of $5,500,000 to $7,000,000.
Therefore the point of order was sustained.
3866. On May 12, 1892,\2\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the sundry civil
appropriation bill.
Mr. John L. Wilson, of Washington, offered the following amendment:
At Grays Harbor, Washington, a first-order light-house and fog
signal, at a cost not to exceed $60,000, in addition to the
appropriation of $15,500 made in the act approved July 7, 1884, for a
harbor light at this point.
Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, having made a point of order, the
Chairman \3\ inquired:
The Chair understands it to be the fact that a certain amount has
been appropriated by law for a light-house, and the amendment proposes
to increase the limit which was authorized before. Is that the fact?
The mover of the amendment having admitted this to be the fact, the
Chair sustained the point of order.
3867. On February 21, 1901,\4\ the general deficiency appropriation
bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, when Mr. David H. Mercer, of Nebraska, offered the
following amendment:
To enable the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to give
effect to and execute the provisions of existing legislation
authorizing the purchase of sites and the erection thereon of public
buildings in the several cities hereinafter enumerated, the limit of
cost heretofore fixed by Congress therefor be, and the same is hereby,
increased, respectively, as follows, and the Secretary of the Treasury
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John F. Lacey, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, pp. 4227, 4228.
\3\ Rufus E. Lester, of Georgia, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 2793, 2794.
Sec. 3868
is hereby authorized to enter into contracts for the completion of each
of said buildings within its respective limit of cost, including site,
hereby fixed:
United States post-office and court-house at Aberdeen, S. Dak., from
$87,000 to $100,000.
United States post-office and court-house at Abilene, Tex., from
$75,000 to $100,000, etc.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, having made a point of order, the
Chairman \1\ held:
This evidently increases the limit of expenditure, and therefore is
new legislation, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Mercer having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
3868. A proposition to authorize a contract for future expenditures
on public works was held to propose legislation.--On April 10, 1890,\2\
the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
considering the naval appropriation bill.
Mr. Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama, offered as an amendment the following
proviso to a paragraph relating to the construction of ships:
Provided, That the Secretary of the Navy be, and is hereby,
authorized to make contracts with one or more ship building or owning
companies by which the said company or companies shall agree to
construct two vessels of such type and speed as shall render them
specially suitable for service as armed cruisers, said vessels to be
built in accordance with plans and specifications to be submitted by
the Navy Department. Said contract shall stipulate that in the event of
war the Government shall have the right to charter or purchase said
vessels upon such reasonable terms as the Secretary of the Navy may
prescribe in the said contract: Provided further, That in consideration
of the privileges given to the Government by said contract the owners
of vessels so constructed shall be entitled to receive from the
Government a sum not greater than $4 per gross registered ton per annum
for a period of five years from the date of the commencement of the
first voyage of said vessels.
Mr. Charles A. Boutelle, of Maine, having made a point of order
against the amendment, after debate the Chairman \3\ ruled:
On examination, the Chair is satisfied that the amendment proposes
legislation not authorized on an appropriation bill. The clause of the
amendment providing for payment of so much per ton is not a limitation
on an appropriation to be devoted to the construction of ships. The
Chair sustains the point of order.\4\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ George P. Lawrence, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 3262-3264.
\3\ Benjamin Butterworth, of Ohio, Chairman.
\4\ On April 9, 1896 (first session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p.
3783), the District of Columbia appropriation bill, which had been
recommitted with certain instructions, was reported back to the House
with this new paragraph:
``For the relief and care of the poor and destitute, and for such
charitable and reformatory work, and such care and medical and surgical
treatment of poor and destitute patients in the District of Columbia as
have been heretofore usually provided for by direct appropriations to
private institutions, and as the District Commissioners may deem
necessary, the sum of $94,700, to be expended under the direction of
said Commissioners, either under contract with responsible and
competent persons or institutions or by employing for the purpose the
public institutions or agencies of said District, where practicable:
Provided, That no such contract shall extend beyond the 30th day of
June, 1897, and that no payment shall be made under any such contract
except for service actually rendered, for which compensation shall be
provided in said contract; and that said Commissioners shall report to
Congress on or before the first Monday of December in each year a
detailed statement of their expenditures theretofore made under this
appropriation, and of all contracts made by them hereunder, giving the
names of the persons and institutions contracted with, and stating what
further expenditures will be
Sec. 3869
3869. On June 7, 1906,\1\ the sundry civil appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read:
Toward the construction of a steam vessel specially fitted for and
adapted to service at sea in bad weather, for the purpose of blowing up
or otherwise destroying or towing into port wrecks, derelicts, and
other floating dangers to navigation, said vessel to be operated and
maintained by the Revenue-Cutter Service, under such regulations as the
Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, as authorized by the act of
Congress approved May 12, 1906, to be immediately available, $100,000;
and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to enter into a
contract or contracts for such construction at a cost not to exceed
$250,000, the limit fixed by said act.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the last
clause, authorizing the making of a contract, was contrary to existing
law.
In the debate it appeared that the construction of the vessel had
been authorized; and also the following sections of the Revised
Statutes were read:
3679. No Department of the Government shall expend in any one fiscal
year any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that
fiscal year, or involve the Government in any contract for the future
payment of money in excess of such appropriation.
3772. No contract or purchase on behalf of the United States shall be
made, unless the same is authorized by law or is under an appropriation
adequate to its fulfillment, except in the War and Navy Departments,
for clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, or transportation,
which, however, shall not exceed the necessities of the current year.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the paragraph is obnoxious
to the rule, and the point of order is sustained.
3870. On May 11, 1906,\3\ the naval appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read:
Naval training station, Great Lakes, buildings: Toward the
construction of buildings, and for other necessary improvements at the
naval training station, Great Lakes, $750,000: Provided, That
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
required thereunder: And provided further, That no part of the money
herein appropriated shall be paid for the purpose of maintaining or
aiding, by payment for services or expenses, or otherwise, any church
or religious denomination, or any institution or society which is under
sectarian or ecclesiastical control.''
Mr. Franklin Bartlett, of New York, made a point of order against the
section.
After debate, the Speaker (Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker) held:
``The ultimate thing to be sought after in this matter is what the
appropriation is. The appropriation is for the care of the poor and
destitute, and for charitable and reformatory work. It is evident that
such an appropriation as that is not contrary to law; at any rate not
for the present purposes. That question has been fully considered in
Committee of the Whole, and no point of order was made in regard to it.
Hence, for the purpose of this decision, it must be taken to be true
that Congress has the right to make the appropriations named, as it has
already been making such appropriations. If it has the right to
appropriate, then it has the right to select whatever instrumentalities
it thinks suitable for the purpose; and the fact that the Commissioners
are officers, also, of the Government does not, in the judgment of the
Chair, interfere with the matter at all, because Congress can impose
that duty upon individuals, and certainly upon the Commissioners. As to
the absurdity, or supposed absurdity, involved in the appropriation for
the Industrial Home School, that is a matter for the House to pass
upon, as it would be upon a constitutional question, the Chair not
being able to decide upon either a constitutional question conclusively
or upon a question of absurdity. The Chair overrules the point of
order.''
\1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 8020-8022.
\2\ James E. Watson, of Indiana, Chairman.
\3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 6747, 6904-6906.
Sec. 3870
before any of this sum is expended complete plans shall be prepared and
approved by the Secretary of the Navy covering the contemplated new
buildings at the naval training station, Great Lakes, which plans shall
involve a total expenditure of not more than $2,000,000: Provided
further, That after the preparation and approval of the plans herein
provided for the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to enter into
contract or contracts for the buildings on plans as approved to an
amount not to exceed $2,000,000, to be paid for as appropriations may
from time to time be made by law.
Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made a point of order against the
last proviso, on the ground that it involved legislation.
In the course of the debate the attention of the Chair was directed
to certain sections of the Revised Statutes relating to the making of
contracts.
On May 15 the debate was continued, Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois,
stating in the course of his argument precedents as follows:
Now, we come to the general proposition of whether it is in order to
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract for a
greater sum than the appropriation provided in the bill, and that is
the real proposition before the committee. In 1883,\1\ when we started
in to build a new Navy, in the act of that year a point of order was
raised by Mr. Blount, of Georgia, upon the paragraph for the increase
of the Navy, and the point of order was made to the whole paragraph.
That section provided for the construction of the steel cruiser of not
less than 4,000 tons displacement, now specially authorized by law; two
steel cruisers of not more than 3,000 or less than 2,500 tons
displacement each, and one dispatch boat, as recommended by the naval
advisory board in its report of December 20, 1882; and this section
further provides the limit of cost for those ships as found to be
proper by this advisory board; and, furthermore, this provision
contains an appropriation for $1,300,000 less than the total cost of
the construction of those ships, so that the question is fairly
presented here whether or not it is proper or in order to authorize a
contract for a greater amount than the sum appropriated in the bill.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this was at a time, as I stated, when we first
started the construction of our new Navy and related to those ships,
the Atlanta, the Boston, the Chicago, and Dolphin, sometimes called the
A, B, C, and D of the new Navy. Mr. Blount raised the identical point
which is raised here, and on the point of order he said:
``I think we will save time by having the questions of order passed
upon at the outset. I raise the question of order on the following
language: `Two steel cruisers, of not more than 3,000 nor less than
2,500 tons displacement each, and one dispatch boat, as recommended by
the naval advisory board in its report of December 20, 1882,
$1,300,000.' I make the point of order that there is no authority of
law for the construction of those vessels, that this is a new item, and
therefore is out of order in this bill; and further, under the law as
it now stands the Secretary can not make a contract binding the
Government beyond the appropriations made by law, and yet there is a
proposition providing a portion of the sum and giving him authority to
make a contract for more. The language is explicit.''
So that this proposition was fairly brought to the attention of the
Chair, and the Chair ruled, Mr. Page, of California, then being
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole:
``The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order is not well
taken. The Chair thinks that under section 717 of the Revised Statutes
this House may make appropriations or not, as it chooses, for the
construction of new vessels of war. That is what this paragraph does,
and it only limits the appropriation, as has always been the rule. It
has always been held by former chairmen that a bill making an
appropriation for a specific purpose might limit the purpose.''
And from that decision Mr. Blount took an appeal to the committee,
and the committee sustained the opinion of the Chair.
Now, Mr. Chairman, from that time down, for twenty-two years, the
precedents are all one way upon this question of whether you can
authorize a battle ship, authorize the making of a contract for a
battle ship, fix the limit of cost upon it, and yet not appropriate a
single dollar. That has been decided time and time again. I can call
special attention to two decisions, one by Mr. Butterworth, as Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole in the first session of the Fifty-first
Congress \2\ on page 3221, volume
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ January 24, 1883, second session Forty-seventh Congress, Record,
p. 1561.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 3221, 3222. April
9, 1890.
Sec. 3870
106, where he decides in substance the same question. I will not read
that decision, but if the Chair desires to read the decision I would be
pleased to have him. Then the same decision was made by Mr. Sherman in
the second session of the Fifty-fifth Congress (p. 3458, vol. 172,
Congressional Record), all sustaining the point that you can authorize
a ship without appropriating a single dollar for it, authorize the
making of a contract, and fixing thereon the limit of cost.
At the conclusion of the debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The paragraph provides for the construction of buildings and other
necessary improvements at the naval training station on the Great Lakes
and carries an appropriation of $750,000, and, among other things,
provides that, before any part of the sum is expended, complete plans
are to be prepared and approved by the Secretary of the Navy covering
the contemplated new buildings at the naval training station, which
shall involve a total expenditure of not more than $2,000,000.
No question is raised respecting the provisions in the paragraph so
far as I have read, but the question of order is raised to the second
proviso, which reads as follows:
``That after the preparation and approval of the plans herein
provided for the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to enter into
contract or contracts for the buildings on plans as approved to an
amount not to exceed $2,000,000, to be paid for as appropriations may
from time to time be made by law.''
The question raised by the point of order is whether it is in order
on an appropriation bill of this character to authorize an executive
officer of the Government to contract for a building or public
improvement over and in excess of the amount of the appropriation. A
general statute upon the subject, section 3733 of the Revised Statutes
of 1878, provides:
``No contract shall be entered into for the erection, repair, or
furnishing of any public building or for any public improvement which
shall bind the Governmen to pay a larger sum of money than the amount
in the Treasury appropriated for the specific purpose.''
Then section 5503 of the Revised Statutes provides that--
``Every officer of the Government who knowingly contracts for the
erection, repair, or furnishing of any public building or any public
improvement, to pay a larger amount than the specific sum appropriated
for such purpose shall be punished by an imprisonment of not less than
six months nor more than two years, and shall pay a fine of $2,000.''
Now, it is clear that in the absence of express legal authority the
Secretary of the Navy would not have the right to contract for the
erection of buildings mentioned in the paragraph above the specific
amount appropriated. All contracts in excess of that sum would be void.
The Chair is of the opinion that the provision in last year's
deficiency act to which his attention has been called is not
applicable. If the law as it now exists prohibits contracts for more
than the amounts appropriated, any provision that would confer that
authority would of necessity change existing law.
The Chair is somewhat familiar with the decision cited by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Foss] respecting contracts for the
construction of war vessels. Without passing upon that particular
question it may be suggested that the statutes that have been quoted do
not mention and probably do not include war vessels. Those statutes
apply to public buildings and improvement, and it is a matter of
serious doubt, at least, whether war vessels come within the
designation of public buildings and public improvements.
The rules of the House permit appropriations for objects already
authorized by law. The naval training station on the Great Lakes may be
assumed for the purposes of this decision to be authorized by law. But
the rules provide that no provision changing existing law shall be in
order in any general appropriation bill or any amendment thereto. The
existing law unqualifiedly prohibits contracts for public buildings and
improvements beyond the amount specifically appropriated. The proviso
in question clearly changes existing law. It repeals pro tanto the two
sections of the statute which the Chair has read to the committee.
Whether the rule of the House respecting legislation in general
appropriation bills will operate beneficially in this particular case
or otherwise is a matter the Chair is not at liberty to consider. The
law forbids the contracts sought to be provided for. No limitation
contrary to existing law can be put upon an appropriation in a general
appropriation bill. The point of order is sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, Chairman.
Sec. 3871
3871. A provision making conditions as to the rate of compensation of
certain employees appropriated for on an appropriation bill was held to
be legislation.--On February 18, 1901,\1\ the sundry civil
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, and the Clerk read a paragraph
providing an appropriation to meet the expenses of protecting timber on
the public lands, etc., with this proviso:
Provided, That agents and others employed under this appropriation
shall be selected by the Secretary of the Interior and allowed per
diem, subject to such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, in
lieu of subsistence, at a rate not exceeding $3 per day each and actual
necessary expenses for transportation, including necessary sleeping-car
fares.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that the
proviso proposed legislation.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, urged that this language had been
in the appropriation bills for many years, and that it simply provided
a limitation on the expenditure.
The Chairman \2\ held:
The Chair is constrained to hold the point is well taken. The
language of the proviso clearly states that agents and others employed
under this appropriation shall be selected by the Secretary of the
Interior. That is new legislation, and the Chair will sustain the point
of order.\3\
3872. Under the present rule a proposition to regulate the public
service, as by transfer of a portion of it from one Department to
another, may not be included in an appropriation bill.--On December 16,
1896,\4\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union considering the army appropriation bill, when this paragraph
was reached:
Construction and repair of hospitals: For construction and repairs of
hospitals at military posts already established and occupied, including
the extra-duty pay of enlisted men employed on the same: Provided, That
the Army and Navy Hospital at Hot Springs, Ark., is hereby abandoned
and all improvements on Government reservation are surrendered and
turned over to the Interior Department, except quarters for the
officers, $75,000.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 2610, 2611.
\2\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ On February 9, 1893 (second session Fifty-second Congress,
Record, p. 1394), the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union considering the legislative, executive, and judicial
appropriation bill.
The Clerk had read a section of the bill regulating the hours of
labor in the Executive Departments of the Government and allowing sixty
days' annual leave and sixty days' sick leave to clerks under certain
conditions.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, offered an amendment extending
the same regulations to employees of the Government Printing Office.
Mr. Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, having made a point of order,
the Chairman (John C. Tarsney, of Missouri, Chairman) ruled:
``The Chair understands that by law leave of absence is granted to
the employees of several of the Departments and bureaus of the
Government and that the Printing Office is not included in existing
law. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Richardson] extends such leave of absence to the employees of the
Printing Office, and carries in this appropriation the obligation to
pay such employees for the time they are absent, which obligation now
exists as to certain other bureaus. This is clearly new legislation,
and changes existing law, and is therefore obnoxious to the point of
order. The Chair therefore holds that the amendment is out of order.''
\4\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 218.
Sec. 3875
Mr. John S. Little, of Arkansas, having made a point of order that
the proviso changed existing law, the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The law provides an appropriation of $100,000 to be appropriated for
the erection of an army and navy hospital at this place, and that it
shall be erected by and under the direction of the Secretary of War, in
accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared and submitted
to the Secretary of War by the Surgeons-General of the Army and Navy,
etc. The Chair is of the opinion that it can not be transferred from
the War Department to the Interior Department in an appropriation bill,
and will sustain the point of order made by the gentleman from
Arkansas.
3873. On January 26, 1897,\2\ the Indian appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union. and Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, offered the following
amendment:
And in connection with every Indian school hereafter erected and
established there shall be provided a completely equipped manual-
training department.
4Mr. James S. Sherman having raised the point or order. after debate
the Chairman \1\ sustained it.
3874. A paragraph providing for a new department in the District
government was held to involve legislation.--On March 15, 1900,\3\ the
District of Columbia appropriation bill was under consideration in
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and the
following paragraph had been read:
Electrical department: For electrical engineer, $2,400;
superintendent of lamps, $1,000; superintendent of telegraph and
telephone service, $1,600; electrician, $1,200; chief operator, $1,200;
chief inspector, $1,200; machinist, $800; 3 telegraph operators, at
$1,000 each; 3 inspectors, at $900 each; clerk, $800; clerk, $600; 3
telephone operators, at $600 each; 3 assistant telephone operators, at
$360 each; driver, $480; laborer, $480; expert repairman, $960; 3
repairmen, at $720 each: 2 laborers, at $400 each; telephone messenger,
$360; in all, $24,440.
Mr. Mitchell May, of New York, made the point of order that the
paragraph created a new department in the District government. And was
therefore legislation.
After debate the Chairman \4\ said:
It seems to the Chair that this provision contemplates the
establishment of a new department in the District government, and to
that extent is new legislation and obnoxious to the rule. There are
certain items in this paragraph that have been provided for by former
appropriation bills, and so fax as those items are concerned, they are
not obnoxious to the rule; but the paragraph as a whole is.
3875. An amendment proposing a change in the organization of the Navy
Department was ruled out of order on the naval appropriation bill.--On
January 23, 1901,\5\ the naval appropriation bill (H. R. 13705) was
under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, and the following paragraph was read:
There shall be detailed, temporarily, as assistant to the Chief of
each of the Bureaus of the Navy Department, a commissioned officer of
the Navy. This officer shall be detailed from the same corps from which
the Chief of the Bureau is appointed. Such officer, during said detail,
shall receive the highest pay and allowances of his grade, and in the
case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 1190, 1191.
\3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 2947, 2948.
\4\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
\5\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1362, 1363.
Sec. 3876
of the Chief of the Bureau, shall, unless otherwise directed by the
President, perform the duties of the Chief of the Bureau until the
appointment of a successor or until such absence or sickness shall
cease: Provided further, That in case the Chief of any Bureau and the
assistant thereof shall be for any reason incapacitated, the chief
clerk shall act temporarily as Chief of the Bureau.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made a point of order that the
paragraph included legislation.
After debate, the Chairman \1\ held:
This provision, as the Chair understands, provides for the detail of
naval officers to the position of assistants to the chiefs of bureaus
in the Navy Department. It prescribes for the officer thus detailed his
duties in that office and provides that he shall be detailed from the
corps from which the chief of bureau is appointed. It provides that in
case of the absence, death, resignation, or sickness of the chief of
bureau the assistant shall be, until the President intervenes, in the
line of succession, and perform the duties of the chief of the bureau.
The Secretary of the Navy would make this detail. Either that officer
at the present time has authority, in his discretion, to make such a
detail or he has not.
If he has, then this provision, which declares that he ``shall'' make
the detail, would abridge and restrict that discretion. In accordance
with many precedents which the Chair will not cite, but to which he
will call the attention of the gentleman from West Virginia (they are
to be found on page 338 of the Manual and Digest), a provision in an
appropriation bill which abridges and restricts the discretion vested
by law in an officer of the Government is legislation, and as such is
obnoxious to the point of order now invoked. If, on the other hand, the
Secretary of the Navy has not the right, in his discretion, to make
such a detail as this, then that right would be created by the very
words of this provision. It seems to the Chair, with due regard to the
opinion of the gentleman from West Virginia, that, taking either horn
of the dilemma, this provision is legislation and is subject to the
point of order. Accordingly, the point is sustained.
3876. An amendment proposing a reorganization of the Agricultural
Department was ruled out of order on the agricultural appropriation
bill.--On January 30, 1901,\2\ the agricultural appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. Leonidas F. Livingston, of Georgia, offered this
amendment:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby
authorized to make such further reorganization of his Department as
will in his judgment be conducive to the interests of the public
service: And provided further, That the total expenditure shall not
exceed the aggregate amount hereby appropriated.
Mr. William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, made the point of order
against the amendment.
Mr. Livingston, in debate, urged that the original act constituting
the Department of Agriculture provided (see. 4, chap. 72, Laws of 1862)
that the Commissioner of Agriculture should--
appoint such other employees as Congress may from time to time provide.
The Chairman \2\ said:
The Chair will call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that
the act says ``as Congress may from time to time provide.'' How can
Congress provide except by legislation? * * * The Chair sustains the
point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1707.
\3\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 3877
3877. A direction to the Secretary of the Navy to appoint a
commission to consider the proposed establishment of a dry dock was
held to be legislation and not in order on an appropriation bill.--On
March 30, 1898,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union considering the naval appropriation bill, when this
paragraph was reached:
And the Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized and directed to
appoint a board of naval officers to determine the desirability of
locating and constructing a dry dock in the harbor of Galveston, Tex.,
and to report such finding to the next session of the present Congress,
and the sum of $1,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is
hereby appropriated to defray the expenses of said board.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made a point of order against the
paragraph.
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair is ready to rule. The question raised by the point of order
to this section is not identical with the other question raised against
the provision for more battle ships or the provision for building dry
docks. This is a section providing for neither of those purposes. It
simply provides for the appointment of a board to determine the
desirability of locating and constructing a dry dock at a particular
point. It seems to the Chair that that is entirely different from
either of the other decisions, and those decisions need not be reviewed
in coming to a conclusion upon the point of order here raised, which,
it seems to the Chair, must be sustained, because the provision is
clearly obnoxious to the rules. The Chair sustains the point of order.
3878. A specific appropriation for designated officials of an
exposition at stated salaries, there being no prior legislation
establishing such positions or salaries, was held out of order,
although a general appropriation for the exposition was authorized by
law.--On February 28, 1898,\3\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the sundry civil
appropriation bill, when the section making an appropriation of
$100,000 for participation of the United States in the Paris Exposition
was reached. This section provided also for the appointment of a
commissioner-general and other officials, with specified duties and
salaries; authorized certain heads of Departments to prepare exhibits
under certain conditions and regulations, etc.
Mr. Levin I. Handy, of Delaware, made the point of order that this
was legislation on an appropriation bill.
After debate, during which the act of 1897, in which the invitation
of the French Government was accepted and a special commissioner was
authorized to make report on the subject, was referred to as authority
for the provisions of the section, the Chairman \4\ ruled:
``The Chair thinks the act of 1897 is sufficient foundation for an
appropriation, but not for legislation. The Chair is unable to see
wherein it authorizes the office of commissioner-general or assistant
commissioner from the reading of the law by the gentleman from
Illinois. The rule in regard to the continuation of public works simply
authorizes an appropriation in the continuance of public works and not
the appointment of officers. * * * The rule would simply authorize an
appropriation, but would not authorize legislation upon the subject in
a general appropriation bill. There are in this paragraph several
clauses which are distinctly new legislation, and if in a paragraph any
clause or provision is out of order the point of order against the
whole paragraph must be sustained. Of course after the paragraph had
gone out it would be in order to offer any provision relating to the
same subject which might
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 3390.
\2\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2287.
\4\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 3879
be in order; but when the point is raised against the whole paragraph,
and the paragraph contains a clause obnoxious to the rule, the whole
paragraph must go out. * * * The gentleman from Illinois speaks of the
matter of limitation. Now, a limitation on an appropriation has been
held to be in order; but it must be purely a limitation. Under the
guise of a limitation it is not competent to insert in an appropriation
bill new legislation, affirmative legislation.
Therefore the Chair sustained the point of order.
3879. A paragraph constituting a commission to make plans for the
reconstruction of buildings at a public institution, and suspending a
law authorizing a partial construction, was held to involve
legislation.--On February 17, 1899,\1\ the naval appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when the Clerk read a paragraph providing for the constitution
of a joint select committee of Congress to examine the buildings of the
Naval Academy and report to the next Congress a plan for reconstruction
of them; authorizing the committee to employ expert assistance, to call
for persons and papers, etc.; appropriating $10,000 for expenses; and
suspending and making inoperative the paragraph in the naval
appropriation bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1899, providing
for the construction of an armory, boat house, and power house at the
Academy.
Mr. Sidney E. Mudd, of Maryland, made a point of order against this
paragraph under section 2 of Rule XXI.
After debate, and on the succeeding day, the Chairman \2\ held:
During the discussion of the point of order much has been said of the
merits of the proposition. However meritorious or advisable or
absolutely necessary any legislation may be or appear to be, it is not
the province of the Chair to take that into consideration. And that
fact, it seems to the present occupant of the chair, has been
emphasized during the earlier days of this week. It is the province of
the Chair simply to apply the rules which the House has heretofore
adopted to the proposition now before the Chair.
Under the second section of Rule XXI, which need not be reread,
because all members of the committee are very familiar with it, the
House is prohibited from putting on a general appropriation bill any
provision changing existing law or to make any appropriation except for
the continuance of objects already in progress. It seems to the Chair,
and those who have discussed the proposition, including members of the
Naval Committee, have admitted, that this is a legislative proposition.
It seems to the Chair perfectly clear that this is a provision
materially changing existing law; and so understanding, the Chair is
constrained to sustain the point of order.
3880. An amendment permitting a change in the manner of appointment
of clerks provided for in an appropriation bill was held to be
legislation.--On February 16, 1900,\3\ the legislative, etc.,
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, when this paragraph was read:
For additional force for bringing up work of assorting and checking
money orders one year or more in arrears, and for increased business,
namely: For 5 clerks of class 4; 4 clerks of class 3; 5 clerks of class
2; 8 clerks of class 1; 12 clerks, at $1,000 each; and 5 clerks, at
$900 each; in all, $48,500.
Mr. George W. Steele, of Indiana, offered an amendment striking out
the word ``additional'' and inserting ``temporary.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session, Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 2010, 2011-2016,
2067.
\2\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
\3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1890.
Sec. 3881
Mr. Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, made the point of order
that the existing law provided the manner of appointing these clerks,
and that the substitution of the word ``temporary,'' which had received
a construction such as might enable the clerks to be appointed in a
manner different from that now provided by law, would change that
existing law.
The Chairman\1\ sustained the point of order.
3881. An amendment changing the compensation received by Government
employees under the law was held not in order on the post-office
appropriation bill.--On January 31, 1901,\2\ the post-office
appropriation bill (H. R. 13729) was under consideration in Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, when Mr. John B. Corliss,
of Michigan, offered this amendment:
Provided, That the compensation of substitute letter carriers and
clerks required to be in daily attendance for the service shall he
allowed and paid, in lieu of per diem compensation, $50 per month.
Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, made a point of order that this
proposed a change of existing law.
After debate, the Chairman \3\ held:
It is claimed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Loud], and
conceded by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Corliss], that the
amendment if adopted would change the compensation that this class of
employees now receive under the law. Whether that would be desirable or
not is not for the Chair to discuss. This is a general appropriation
bill. The last clause of Rule XXI says:
``Nor shall any provision changing existing law be in order in any
general appropriation bill or any amendment thereto.''
The amendment is clearly subject to a point of order; and the point
is sustained.
3882. A treaty with Indians is not in order for ratification on the
Indian appropriation bill.--On January 28, 1897,\4\ the Indian
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union and the Clerk had begun the reading of
an agreement with ``the Shoshone and Arapahoe tribes of Indians in the
State of Wyoming.''
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, having made the point of order
that the agreement was legislation, the Chairman, \5\ decided:
In the opinion of the present occupant of the chair these sections
are not germane to this appropriation bill, and so the Chair will
sustain the point of order.\6\
3883. A proposition that payments for interest and sinking fund for
the debt of the District of Columbia should be paid out of the revenues
of the District was held to be a change of law and not in order on an
appropriation bill.--On February 4, 1896,\7\ the District of Columbia
appropriation bill was under consideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, and this paragraph was read:
For interest and sinking fund on the funded debt, exclusive of water
bonds, $1,213,947.97.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1753, 1754.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1266
\5\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
\6\ Such treaties are usually ratified on the Indian appropriation
bill, the point of order being rarely raised. For status of these
treaties under the Constitution, see sections 1534-1536 of Vol. II of
this work.
\7\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1310.
Sec. 3884
To this Mr. D. A. De Armond, of Missouri, proposed this amendment:
To be paid out of the revenues of the District of Columbia.
A point of order having been made, the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The proposition of the amendment is that this sum shall be paid out
of the revenues of the District of Columbia. The Chair has been cited
to a number of laws regarded as relating to this matter. He has
examined all of them carefully, and, in the opinion of the Chair, none
of them are applicable to this question except what is contained in the
law of 1878 and the law of 1879. The law of 1878 is the law which
provides that the expenses of the District of Columbia shall be
reported by the Commissioners to the Secretary of the Treasury, and his
estimates shall be sent to Congress. Then follows this provision:
``To the extent to which Congress shall approve of said estimates
Congress shall appropriate the amount of 50 per cent thereof, and the
remaining 50 per cent of such approved estimate shall be levied and
assessed upon real and personal property in the District of Columbia
other than the property of the United States and of the District of
Columbia.''
In this same act there is a reference to the expenses of the District
of Columbia in these words:
``Hereafter the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay the interest on
the 3.65 bonds of the District of Columbia issued in pursuance of the
act of Congress approved June 20, 1874, when the same shall become due
and payable, and all amounts so paid shall be credited as a part of the
appropriation for the year by the United States toward the expenses of
the District of Columbia as hereinafter provided.''
The Chair thinks that provision makes the interest due upon these
bonds a charge against the appropriation which the United States makes
toward the expenses of the District of Columbia, and it is to be
credited upon the amount of that appropriation. Of course, if the
appropriation is such that it shall equal the amount raised by taxes on
property in the District of Columbia, it will result in the United
States paying half of this interest and the District of Columbia the
other half. But, however that may be, here is a positive enactment by
statute that the interest shall be paid by the United States and
credited by the United States upon the appropriation of one-half the
expenses of the District of Columbia.
In the following year, the year 1879, a similar provision was made,
which includes both the interest on the bonds and their principal. It
is in these words:
``And there is hereby appropriated out of the proportional sum which
the United States may contribute toward the expenses of the District of
Columbia in pursuance of the act of Congress approved June 11, 1878,''
the act from which I have just read, ``for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1879, and annually thereafter, such sums as will, with the interest
thereon at the rate of 3.65 per cent per annum, be sufficient to pay
the principal of the 3.65 bonds of the District of Columbia issued
under the act of Congress approved June 30, 1874, at maturity.''
In other words, it is provided that out of this appropriation made by
the Government of the United States toward the expenses of the District
of Columbia there shall be paid an amount equal to the interest on the
bonds and also an amount which will provide for a sinking fund to pay
their principal. The Chair is therefore of the opinion that the
amendment would change existing law and is subject to the point of
order. The point of order is sustained.
3884. A proposition that certain specified amounts to be severally
appropriated for certain specified objects, should be to a limited
extent interchangeable among those several objects, was held to be in
order.--On February 16, 1901,\2\ the sundry civil appropriation bill
was under consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, when, in the portion relating to the Fish
Commission, the Clerk read this paragraph:
And 10 per cent of the foregoing amounts for the miscellaneous
expenses of the work of the Commission shall be available
interchangeably for expenditure on the objects named, but no more than
10 per cent shall be added to any one item of appropriation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 2539-2541.
Sec. 3885
Mr. William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, made the point of order that this
paragraph proposed a change of the law embodied in section 3678 of the
Revised Statutes:
All sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditure in the
public service shall be applied solely to the objects for which they
are respectively made, and for no other.
After debate, during which the point was made by Mr. William H.
Moody, of Massachusetts, that the statute cited was intended not to
regulate appropriations, but to regulate their expenditure after they
were made, the Chairman \1\ held:
Since the gentleman from Massachusetts has called the attention of
the Chair to that, the Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa that
there is a decision upon that point which would materially modify the
views of the Chair. The statute itself relates to expenditures, and
under that view the Chair will modify his decision and will overrule
the point of order.
3885. Under the former rule admitting legislation on appropriation
bills, if it were germane and retrenched expenditures, questions used
to arise over propositions to regulate the public service.--On April
28, 1876,\2\ the House was considering the legislative appropriation
bill, upon the fourth section of which a point of order had been made
in Committee of the Whole, and the decision of which had been referred
to the House. The section in question proposed to transfer the
management of Indian affairs from the Interior to the War Department,
and the point of order was made by Mr. Julius H. Seelye, of
Massachusetts, that it changed existing law and did not retrench
expenditures.
After debate the Speaker \3\ ruled, saying:
In the first place, to what considerations in the making of a ruling
has the Chair a right to look? Can he go outside of this bill and
inquire generally, as it is the right and duty of a Member on the floor
of this House to do, what will be the effect of this fourth section; or
is it his duty to limit his inquiries to the face of the bill, to the
specific terms of the section in question, the law of the land so far
applicable, and the parliamentary rules and practices of this House? In
the judgment of the Chair the range of his investigation is the latter,
and he can not properly go beyond these three considerations. The
language of the amended rule \4\ is:
``No appropriation shall be appropriated in such general
appropriation bills, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any
expenditure not previously authorized by law, unless in continuation of
appropriations for such public works and objects ``are already in
progress, nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment thereto
changing existing law be in order except such as, being germane to the
subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures.''
Much has been said on the question whether this fourth section is
germane to the subject-matter of this bill. The subject-matter of the
bill is indicated in its title, ``A bill making appropriations for the
legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the
year ending June 30, 1877, and for other purposes.'' The purpose of the
bill further is to regulate the salaries of officers, and in some cases
to retrench expenditures by the abolition of offices, and necessarily
of their salaries. In other words, in the judgment of the Chair, the
subject-matter of this bill is so comprehensive that it can not be said
that a provision proposing in specific terms the abolition of numerous
offices is not germane to a bill which regulates many offices and fixes
the salaries thereto attached and abolishes other offices and their
salaries. The Chair has to say, therefore, in conclusion on this point
that he is not embarrassed by the question whether or not this section
is germane to the subject-matter of this bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2822.
\3\ Michael C. Kerr, of Indiana, Speaker.
\4\ For various forms of this rule see section 3578 of this work. The
form of rule on which this and the accompanying rulings were made is
not now in use.
Sec. 3886
The embarrassment of the Chair arises out of the latter portion of
the amended rule, ``shall retrench expenditures.'' Does this section
retrench expenditures? To answer that inquiry the Chair can only look
at the section itself, to the existing law, and to the rules of
parliamentary practice and proceedings in this House. The Chair sees
that in this bill there is no provision for the practical management of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, if it shall be transferred as proposed by
this section; there is no appropriation for that purpose, no regulation
of and no indication how the duties of that Bureau after it is
transferred shall be performed or by whom those duties shall be
performed, other than in the somewhat general language of the section
itself. It is true the section provides--
``That the office of Commissioner of Indian Affairs is hereby
abolished, and the execution of all laws and parts of laws applicable
to the management of Indian affairs and of matters arising out of
Indian relations is hereby lodged with the Secretary of War; and that
the duties now being intrusted to and performed by Indian agents and
other officials and employees of every kind and description will be
performed by officers, soldiers, and employees of the Army.''
It is entirely apparent upon the face of this section that the
section itself contemplates, distinctly and unequivocally, further and
additional important legislation on this same subject, in order to
effectuate the intention of the House as evidenced in this provision. *
* * It can not be said, therefore, that, if enacted, it will be such an
amendment as ``shall retrench expenditures'' as the mere result of its
own enactment in this bill, unaided by future essential and appropriate
legislation. The inquiry then recurs., Is this amendment such a one as
by its own force and the other provisions of this bill retrenches
expenditures? Does that appear? The Chair might answer that to abolish
an office is the retrenchment of expenditure; and if such abolition
were begun and perfected in this bill, the Chair would have no
hesitation in holding that such an abolition did accomplish a
retrenchment of expenditure; there would then be no doubt on the point.
The Chair might hold that, because it requires the duties now intrusted
to Indian agents to be hereafter performed by soldiers, it is the
intention of the framers of the provision to require those duties to be
performed by those persons without additional compensation; but that
does not appear--that is not a perfected result that can follow the
enactment of this section into law. Nothing of that kind can result
except by the aid of further and additional legislation. * * * In other
words, the Chair desires it to be distinctly understood that the point
upon which his decision in this case turns is that from the face of the
section it does not appear that the provision comes within the
requirement of this rule, which is that it shall be germane to the
subject matter of the bill and ``shall retrench expenditures.'' It does
not, affirmatively, appear upon the face of the bill or the laws of the
land or the usual and customary mode of proceeding of this body that
this section, if enacted in this bill, will retrench expenditures. * *
* The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
3886. On June 8, 1892,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, considering the agricultural
appropriation bill.
Mr. Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, having made a point of order
against this provision in the paragraph relating to quarantine
stations--
Provided, That the supervision of the importation of animals for
breeding purposes under paragraph 482 of the act of October 1, 1890, is
hereby transferred from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary
of Agriculture--
The Chairman \2\ ruled:
The Chair, sustains the point of order on the ground that it contains
new legislation.
3887. On February 10, 1893,\3\ the House resolved itself into
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the bill making appropriations for the payment of
invalid and other pensions. The bill having been
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 5167.
\2\ Alexander B. Montgomery, of Kentucky, Chairman.
\3\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Record, pp. 1429, 1690,
1691.
Sec. 3886
read, Mr. William Mutchler, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on
Appropriations, offered a series of amendments to the bill, providing
(1) for the transfer of the Bureau of Pensions from the Interior to the
War Department, abolishing the offices of Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner of Pensions, and designating army officers to perform
these duties without additional pay; (2) to substitute for the
examining surgeons of pensions medical examiners in the Record and
Pension Office of the War Department and a limited number of special
medical examiners, such examiners and special examiners to be assigned
to various suitable localities in the United States; and (3) for
regulating the rating of pensioners, limiting the construction of the
law of 1890 to persons incapable of manual labor and having an annual
income of less than $600, and defining the status of certain soldiers'
widows with the effect of limiting the pensionable class.
Various points of order having been made on these amendments. after
debate, on February 16, the Chairman \1\ ruled:
At the rising of the committee yesterday points of order had been
made and debated upon sundry amendments proposed to be offered
successively to this bill by the Committee on Appropriations, which
reported the bill. It is now the duty of the Chair to rule upon those
points of order and to decide as best he may whether, under the rules
of the House and the parliamentary practice heretofore prevailing,
those amendments are in order upon a bill like this, or whether they
must be excluded from the consideration of the committee by the action
of the Chair.
The Chair has nothing to do with the question whether these
amendments or any of them are wise or unwise, whether they might work
hardship on the one hand or be wise and proper reforms upon the other,
or whether their ultimate effect might be to save the expenditure of
public money. He is called upon to repeat the interpretation given to
the rule of the House and to endeavor to apply that rule in turn to
these amendments.
Fortunately for the Chair, the rule allowing amendments to
appropriation bills was the subject of a very thorough debate in the
first Congress which adopted it--the Forty-fourth--a debate
participated in by such men as Mr. Garfield, Mr. Randall, Mr. McCrary
of Iowa, Mr. Seelye of Massachusetts, and others, and of a careful
construction by the Speaker of that Congress, Mr. Kerr, who was
universally recognized as an able and learned parliamentarian. Speaker
Kerr held that the rule should have a liberal construction in the
interest of retrenchment.
``The purpose of the rule is most beneficent and proper, and the
Chair, under any circumstances not attended with extreme doubt, would
hold it to be his duty to enforce the rule.''
By which I understand he meant to admit an amendment.
The second clause of Rule XXI provides that no amendment to an
appropriation bill changing existing law shall be in order unless it be
germane to the subject-matter of the bill and retrenches expenditures
in one of three modes prescribed in that rule. The rule upon which
Speaker Kerr made his decision was in the same language, except that
the modes of retrenching expenditures had not then been specified.
The first question that the Chair is called upon to decide is whether
the first amendment offered by the Committee on Appropriations is
germane to the subject-matter of this bill, and, if germane, whether it
retrenches expenditures in any of the modes required by the rule. It
was argued with great force by the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Dingley,
that it was not germane to the subject-matter of the bill, because this
is a bill making appropriations for the payment of invalid and other
pensions under existing laws, whereas the amendment refers to the
administration of the Pension Bureau itself, and it has been the
practice of the House to appropriate for the salaries of the officers
of the Pension Bureau in the legislative, executive, and judicial
appropriation bill.
There is much force in the argument. But it must be observed, when we
come to examine the subject-matter of the bill, that it not only makes
appropriations for the payment of pensions, but deals with a part of
the machinery or official staff through which these appropriations are
to be administered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William L. Wilson, of West Virginia, Chairman.
Sec. 3887
Can it be held that to such a bill, carrying, as does the present,
appropriations of more than $166,000,000, an amendment which merely
prescribes or deals with the administrative machinery through which
those appropriations are to reach their beneficiaries is not germane?
The Chair thinks not, and he accordingly rules that the amendment under
consideration is germane to the subject-matter of this bill.
The question next arises, Does it retrench expenditures in any of the
modes prescribed by the rule? And here the Chair finds himself greatly
relieved by decisions heretofore had in a similar case, or in one so
nearly like to that now before this committee as to furnish a good
precedent.
Speaker Kerr laid down the rule that in considering the question
whether an amendment operates to retrench expenditures the Chair can
look only to what is properly of record before him--that is, the
pending bill, the specific section under consideration, the law of the
land, so far as it is applicable, and the parliamentary rules and
practice of the House; and beyond these he is not permitted to go in
deciding the question.
When the general legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation
bill was pending in the House in the Forty-fourth Congress an amendment
was offered transferring the Indian Bureau to the War Department; and
upon the point of order made against that amendment Speaker Kerr's
decision was given. He held, in substance, that as the amendment
operated to reduce the number and the salaries of officers paid out of
the Treasury of the United States it would have been in order if it had
been in itself a perfect and complete piece of legislation, but that on
the face of the amendment it was clear that it would have to be
perfected by further and additional legislation, and it was not
possible for the Chair to determine whether this necessary additional
legislation would operate to retrench or to increase expenditures. He
based his decision in favor of the point of order strictly upon that
ground.
When the Indian appropriation bill came before the House a few days
later an amendment making this transfer was again offered. It was then
in itself a complete piece of legislation. The Chair could see by an
examination of it that it would operate, of its own force, to effect
this transfer and to abolish certain offices and then bring about a
retrenchment of expenditures; and Mr. Springer, of Illinois, then
occupying the Chair, delivered a careful and elaborate opinion, which
had been submitted to and concurred in by Speaker Kerr, holding the
amendment to be in order. In accordance with these precedents, the
Chair holds that the first amendment proposed to this bill by the
Committee on Appropriations is in order, and overrules the point of
order made by the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Dingley.
The second amendment proposed by the Committee on Appropriations is
to abolish two members, as the Chair understands, of all the local
examining boards, and in their stead to authorize the appointment of a
certain number of medical examiners, one hundred and twenty in number,
with fixed salaries, who, in connection with the remaining member of
each board, are to perform the duties now committed to the local
examining boards.
The Chair may believe as an individual that the effect of this
amendment would very probably be to save a considerable sum of money to
the Treasury of the United States. He may see as an individual that
such would be its effect; but he can not see by the record to which he
is now confined that the amendment propria, vigore would necessarily
bring about such a result. Under the practice, or perhaps under the law
as it exists to-day, members of the local examining boards are paid
according to the services they perform. They have no fixed salaries and
the amount that is to be paid is entirely one of estimate and
conjecture based upon past experience. How abolishing two-thirds of the
membership of boards, which today have no fixed salaries, but receive
fees depending entirely on the number of examinations they make, and
substituting 120 salaried officers, who are each to receive $1,500 a
year as salary and $3 per day for subsistence when traveling on duty,
together with an allowance for actual and necessary expenses for
transportation and assistance--an indefinite charge upon the Treasury--
will necessarily retrench expenditures, the Chair is unable to see,
looking only to such things as the Chair can properly look in ruling on
this point. The Chair sustains the point of order to the second
amendment.
The next amendment is as follows:
``That the rating of all pensions for like disabilities shall be
uniform, and that all pensions heretofore granted or hereafter to be
granted in pursuance of the act of June 27, 1890, shall be rated upon
the inability of the pensioner to earn a living by manual labor.''
The Chair also sustains the point of order made to that amendment,
because it is not in the power of the Chair from the proper record to
determine whether it will operate a decrease or an increase of
expenditures
Sec. 3888
As to the amendments numbered 6 and 7 in the printed bill, the Chair
finds that it has already been held by occupants of the chair in
Committee of the Whole, notably the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Outhwaite,
presiding at the first session of the present Congress, that an
amendment to the pension appropriation bill tending to increase the
class of persons prohibited from the benefits of the pension laws is in
order, because its effect will be to reduce expenditures.
Adopting that ruling, which has heretofore been made, the Chair
overrules the point of order to the amendments numbered 6 and 7,
holding * * * that payments of pensions are made in pursuance of
statutes already enacted. A pension is a claim to which the pensioner
has a right by virtue of existing law; and while, perhaps technically,
it may not come under the head of ``compensation,'' the Chair,
deferring to the ruling already made, would hold that pensions, being
legal claims ascertained and declared by law, might come under that
head; and, furthermore, that the effect of these amendments would
necessarily be to reduce the amount carried by a pension bill.
Mr. Burrows having appealed from the decision of the Chair on the
first amendment, the decision of the Chair was sustained, after
debate--103 yeas to 63 nays.
3888. On March 15, 1894,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the sundry civil
appropriation bill.
Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, offered an amendment for
abolishing the Bureau of the Coast and Geodetic Survey in the Treasury
Department and transferring the duties of the Bureau to the Navy
Department and to the Interior Department.
Mr. Joseph D. Sayers, of Texas, having made the point of order, the
Chairman \2\ ruled:
The point of order is made that this is new legislation and does not
come within the exception of Rule XXI in reference to legislation on an
appropriation bill. * * *
Now, so far as the first portion of this amendment is concerned,
which strikes out all of the provision in reference to the Survey,
there can be no question but that it would be in order, and would, of
course reduce expenditures--that is, the amount of money carried by the
bill. That would do it, and therefore would come under that exception
in the rule with reference to the amount of money covered by the bill.
But the amendment is offered as a whole. It is an amendment that
makes legislation and changes existing law. It is doubtful if this part
of it is germane to the bill. But besides that, it is clear that, when
taken by itself, it makes new legislation. In other words, it changes
the law in reference to the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and transfers it
to the Navy Department. It also abolishes a certain office, which might
bring it under the rule as reducing the ``number of officers'' and
reducing the expenditures ``by the reduction of the number of
officers.'' But the trouble about the amendment is this: Does the
legislative part of this amendment, that which changes the law in
reference to existing law, of itself reduce expenditure by the
reduction of offices? The Chair thinks it does not; and therefore does
not come within the exceptions mentioned in the rule, which says such
legislation may be in order in appropriation bills when the number of
officers are reduced; that is to say, when the number of officers are
reduced by it.
But the new legislation which is proposed does not reduce the number
of officers. The provision of the amendment which does reduce them is
disconnected altogether from the legislative part of the amendment.
Now, if part of an amendment is subject to a point of order, then the
whole of it is. The fact that an amendment reduces expenses must
clearly appear upon the face of the amendment. The Chair thinks that
the legislative portion of this amendment does not come within the
exception of the rule, because it does not appear that the legislation
proposed by the amendment of itself reduces expenditures. The Chair,
therefore, sustains the point of order.
Mr. Enloe having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Record, pp. 2997, 3002.
\2\ Rufus E. Lester, of Georgia, Chairman.
Sec. 3889
3889. Interpretations of the former rule which admitted legislation
to a general appropriation bill when germane and effecting retrenchment
of expenditures.--On February 9, 1893,\1\ the House was in Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union considering the legislative,
executive, and judicial appropriation bill.
Mr. Nelson Dingley, jr., of Maine, moved to amend the appropriate
paragraph of the bill by striking out a portion and inserting the
following:
Three clerks, at $1,200 each, and one messenger; in all, $33,440:
Provided, That so much of an act ``to afford assistance and relief to
Congress and the executive Departments in the investigation of claims
and demands against the Government,'' approved March 3, 1883, as
authorizes any committee of the Senate or House of Representatives to
refer any claim against the Government to the Court of Claims, is
hereby repealed.
Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, having made the point of order
that the amendment changed existing law and did not reduce
expenditures, the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley]
provides, first, for a reduction of the clerical force in the Court of
Claims, and then provides for the repeal pro tanto of what is known as
the Bowman Act. The rule of the House provides that before a
proposition changing existing law shall be in order in an appropriation
bill it must be germane to the subject-matter of the bill and retrench
expenditures, etc.\3\
The first question for the Chair to decide is whether this
proposition is germane to the pending bill. Now, the first part of this
amendment, so fax as it reduces the clerical force, or the number of
employees, is clearly germane. The latter part of it, which repeals or
modifies the Bowman Act, it seems to the Chair, is not germane to a
general appropriation bill. * * *
Now, the amendment certainly covers two substantive propositions. One
is in order, and retrenches expenditures in the manner provided in the
rule, the other does not. The amendment therefore is obnoxious to the
rule, because the latter clause is obnoxious; but it may be divided, if
the gentleman sees fit to divide it. * * * If the gentleman proposed to
accomplish simply the repeal of the Bowman Act by a provision in the
appropriation bill, it seems to the Chair that he would be compelled to
hold immediately that it was not in order. Now, when he seeks to couple
with it a reduction of the employees of the Government, with a view of
making the latter part of it within the rule, it seems to the Chair it
can not be done.
If this can be done, then the whole internal-revenue law could be
repealed in this appropriation bill, because the bill provides for
paying some of the employees or clerical force of the internal-revenue
service. Now, if the gentleman moved to strike out the appropriation
for one clerk in that Bureau, he could, if this amendment is in order,
hang upon that a provision repealing the internal-revenue law and other
laws where clerical forces are appropriated for in this bill.
The Chair thinks that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wilson]
decided this question properly when he held, in the first session of
this Congress, as referred to by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Blanchard], in a similar case, that both branches of a proposed
amendment must be germane to the bill or the amendment would not be in
order.
Now, as the Chair has already stated, while the first part of this
amendment is clearly germane, the latter part is not germane to an
appropriation bill.
The further proposition is maintained that the amendment retrenches
expenditures. How? It is insisted that if this amendment be adopted
there will be fewer claims referred to the Court of Claims by the
Senate and by the House, acting jointly or acting separately.
In order for the Chair to reach that conclusion, he is asked to hold
that the committees of the House improvidently refer claims, but that
the House or Senate would not improperly do so. If the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-second Congress, Record, pp. 1386, 1392.
\2\ James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, Chairman.
\3\ See section 3578 of this volume for the form of this rule.
Sec. 3890
House and Senate act lawfully in referring claims and the committees of
the two Houses act lawfully, the same number would be referred by the
committee that are referred by the two Houses. Therefore the Chair can
not conclude that the committees would not do their duty, and that they
would refer more cases than the two Houses would refer and thereby
create a larger demand for clerical force for the Court of Claims, and
if not, there would be no retrenchment in fact.
3890. On May 12, 1892,\1\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the sundry civil
appropriation bill.
In the paragraph of the bill providing for the supply of the Light-
House Establishment was this proviso:
Provided, That all articles imported for the use of the Light-House
Establishment shall be admitted without the payment of duties.
Mr. Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, having made the point of order,
the Chairman \2\ ruled:
The point of order is made upon the proviso at the end of this
paragraph that it is not germane to the bill; that it changes existing
law and does not come within the exception mentioned in paragraph 2 of
Rule XXI. * * * It is very clear to the Chair that the proviso in the
bill changes existing law and does not come within any of these
exceptions, the exceptions being provisions which ``retrench
expenditures,'' first, ``by the reduction of the number and salary of
the officers of the United States;'' second, ``by the reduction of the
compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United
States;'' third, ``by the reduction of the amounts of money covered by
the bill.'' This proviso does not reduce the salary of any officers; it
does not reduce the compensation of any person paid out of the
Treasury, nor does it reduce the amounts of money covered by the bill;
neither does it come within the proviso in section 2 of Rule XXI, in
relation to amendments, because it is not an amendment, and therefore
the proviso in the rule does not apply. The Chair therefore sustains
the point of order.
3891. On June 2, 1892,\3\ the House was in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union considering the post-office
appropriation bill.
The paragraph relating to inland transportation by railroad routes
having been reached, Mr. James H. Blount, of Georgia, offered as an
amendment the following proviso:
That the Postmaster-General be, and he is hereby, authorized and
directed to readjust the compensation to be paid from and after the 1st
day of July, 1893, for transportation of mail on railroad routes by
reducing the compensation to all railroads for the transportation of
mail 10 per cent per annum from the rate for the transportation of mail
on the basis of the average weight fixed and allowed by the act of June
17, 1878.
Mr. Christopher A. Bergen, of New Jersey, having made the point of
order that this changed existing law, the Chairman,\4\ having caused
the section of Rule XXI to be read, ruled:
This clause of the rule seems to require, in the first place, that
the proposition offered shall be germane to the subject-matter of the
bill; secondly, that it shall reduce either the number of employees, or
the salaries paid to such employees, or the amount of money covered by
the bill. The paragraph of the bill now under consideration provides
for the compensation of the railroads of the United States for carrying
the mails. The amendment proposes to limit that compensation by a
reduction of 10 per cent. It seem to the Chair that it is clearly
within the first requirement of the rule, which is that the amendment
shall be germane. Further than that, the provision for a reduction of
10 per cent of the present compensation brings the amendment within the
other requirement of the rule, that it shall
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, pp. 4229, 4232.
\2\ Rufus E. Lester, of Georgia, Chairman.
\3\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, pp. 4971-4974.
\4\ Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, Chairman.
Sec. 3892
reduce the ``amount of money covered by the bill.'' The Chair,
therefore, without any reference whatever to the merits of the
proposition overrules the point of order, and holds the amendment to be
in order under the rule.
3892. Instance of introduction of amendments carrying legislation
under the old ``rider'' rule.--On May 5, 1880,\1\ the post-office
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, when Mr. George D. Robinson, of
Massachusetts, offered this amendment to the paragraph providing
$9,500,000 for transportation of mails on railroad routes:
Strike out all in the sixtieth and sixty-first and sixty-second lines
between the word ``namely,'' in the sixtieth line, and the word
``provided,'' in the sixty-second line, and substitute the following:
``For transportation on railroad routes, $9,490,000, of which sum
$150,000 may be used by the Postmaster-General to maintain and secure
from railroads necessary and special facilities for the postal service
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881.''
Mr. James H. Blount, of Georgia, made a point of order against the
amendment, under Rule XXI,\2\ as it then existed in a modified form
adopted at that session of Congress:
Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment thereto
changing existing law be in order, except such as, being germane to the
subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench 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.
After debate the Chairman \3\ said:
Although the meaning of the words ``necessary and special facilities
for postal service'' is not very clear, yet the Chair held yesterday,
after giving the subject some consideration, that the effect of such an
amendment would be to change existing law. The Chair still adheres to
that opinion. But under the third clause of Rule XXI an individual
Member upon the floor may offer an amendment changing existing law
provided it retrenches expenditures in one of three modes: First, by
reducing the number and salaries of the officers of the United States;
or, secondly, by reducing the compensation of persons paid out of the
Treasury of the United States; or, thirdly, by reducing the amounts
covered by the bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts does not propose to add an appropriation of $150,000 to
the bill; but it provides that of the amount appropriated by the bill
the sum of $150,000 may be used for certain purposes, and it diminishes
the amount covered by the bill by striking out ``19,500,0000'' and
inserting ``$9,490,000.'' So that the Chair is bound to hold that the
amendment conforms strictly to the language of the rule. Whether the
language actually used in this rule accomplishes the exact purpose
which the House had in view in adopting it is not a question for the
Chair to decide; but taking the language of the rule as it stands and
putting upon it the construction which ordinarily would be put upon
such language in a statute or in a rule of the House, the Chair is
compelled to hold that the amendment comes within the rule, and is in
order.
3893. In appropriating for a bridge it is not in order by provisos
determine conditions of future use of it.--On March 2, 1904,\4\ the
District of Columbia appropriation bill was under consideration in
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and the Clerk
read this paragraph:
For the reconstruction of the Anacostia Bridge, under direction of
the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, $100,000, and the said
Commissioners are authorized to enter into a contract or
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 3023, 3024.
\2\ See section 3578 of this volume.
\3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Chairman.
\4\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2699, 2700.
Sec. 3894
contracts for the reconstruction of said bridge, to be completed within
two years from July 1, 1904, at a cost not to exceed $250,000, to be
paid from time to time as appropriations therefor may be made by law:
Provided, however, That before the Anacostia and Potomac River Railroad
Company shall use or have any right whatever to use the new bridge it
shall pay to the collector of taxes of the District of Columbia the
entire cost of the pavement lying between the exterior rails of the
tracks and for a distance of 2 feet from the said exterior rails of
said tracks on each side thereof and the entire floor system supporting
said pavement, and said collector shall deposit one-half of same in the
United States Treasury to the credit of the District of Columbia and
one-half to the credit of the United States: Provided further, That
hereafter one-half the cost of maintenance and repair of said new
bridge shall be borne by the Anacostia and Potomac River Railroad
Company, etc. * * *
Mr. Charles R. Davis, of Minnesota, made a point of order against the
whole in paragraph.
After debate the Chairman \1\ said:
This is a paragraph making an appropriation for the reconstruction of
the Anacostia Bridge. Coupled with this appropriation are certain
provisos. The first is:
``That before the Anacostia and Potomac River Railroad Company shall
use or have any right whatever to use the new bridge it shall pay to
the collector of taxes of the District of Columbia the entire cost of
certain paving.''
The second proviso stipulates that hereafter one-half of the cost of
the maintenance and repair of said new bridge shall be borne by the
Anacostia and Potomac River Railroad Company.
The third proviso is--
``That said railroad company and all other railroad companies that
may hereafter cross said bridge, as hereinafter provided, shall, in
addition to the taxes imposed upon said railroads by existing law, pay
to the collector of taxes the sum of one-fourth of 1 cent for each and
every passenger carried by said railroads on said bridge.''
The fourth proviso is that steam power shall not be used on said
bridge for traction purposes.
The final proviso is--
``That any other railroad company now or hereafter authorized by
Congress to use said bridge shall have the right to use the tracks of
the Anacostia and Potomac River Railroad Company thereon upon such
reciprocal trackage and such compensation as may be mutually agreed
upon.''
The Chair has read, he thinks, sufficient of the provisos to show
that they are all legislative in that they propose to enact law where
none now exists; and the enacting of law where none now exists has
always been construed to be a change of existing law. The Chair must
hold that these provisos are new legislation, and thus obnoxious to
Rule XXI. The point of order is therefore sustained.
3894. A provision for the appointment of a commission to consider the
proposed establishment of a naval training station is new
legislation.--On February 24, 1904,\2\ the House was considering the
naval appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union, when Mr. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin, offered the
following as an amendment:
Naval training station: The President is hereby authorized and
empowered to appoint a board of not less than three members, none of
whom shall reside in a State adjoining the Great Lakes, whose duty it
shall be to select on one of the Great Lakes a suitable site for a
naval training station, and having selected such site, if it be upon
private lands, to estimate its value and ascertain as newly as possible
the cost for which it can be purchased or acquired, and to make a full
and detailed report of their actions and proceedings to the President,
who shall transmit such report, with his recommendations thereon, to
Congress for its action; and to defray the expenses of said board the
sum of $5,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be
immediately available, is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ George P. Lawrence, of Massachusetts, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2329.
Sec. 3895
Mr. Alston G. Dayton, of West Virginia, made a point of order against
the paragraph.
The Chairman \1\ sustained the point of order.
3895. The Committee of the Whole, overruling its chairman, decided
that a provision for the purchase and distribution of rare and valuable
seeds was in order on the agricultural appropriation bill.--On January
29, 1907,\2\ the agricultural appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
when, to a paragraph providing for the purchase of rare and valuable
seeds and their distribution through the Department of Agriculture, Mr.
Ezekiel S. Candler, jr., of Mississippi, proposed an amendment \3\ as
follows:
Strike out the paragraph and insert:
``Purchase and distribution of valuable seeds: For the purchase,
propagation, testing, and distribution of valuable seeds, bulbs, trees,
shrubs, vines, cuttings, and plants; for rent and repairs; the
employment of local and special agents, clerks, assistants, and other
labor required, in the city of Washington and elsewhere; all necessary
office fixtures and supplies, fuel, transportation, paper, twine, gum,
postal cards, gas, and electric current, traveling expenses, and all
necessary material and repairs for putting up and distributing the
same, and to be distributed in localities adapted to their culture,
$238,000, of which amount not less than $202,000 shall be allotted for
Congressional distribution. And the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby
directed to expend the said sum, as nearly as practicable, in the
purchase, testing, and distribution of such valuable seeds, bulbs,
shrubs, vines, cuttings, and plants, the best he can obtain at a public
or private sale, and such as shall be suitable for the respective
localities to which the same are to be apportioned, and in which same
are to be distributed as hereinafter stated, and such seeds so
purchased shall include a variety of field, vegetable, and flower seeds
suitable for planting and culture in the various sections of the United
States. An equal proportion of five-sixths of all seeds, bulbs, shrubs,
vines, cuttings, and plants shall, upon their request, after due
notification by the Secretary of Agriculture that the allotment to
their respective districts is ready for distribution, be supplied to
Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress for distribution
among their constituents, or mailed by the Department upon the receipt
of their addressed franks, in packages of such weight as the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Postmaster-General may jointly determine, to the
Postmaster-General; and the person receiving such seeds shall be
requested to inform the Department of the results of the experiments
therewith: Provided, That all seeds, bulbs, plants, and cuttings herein
allotted to Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress for
distribution remaining uncalled for on the 1st of April shall be
distributed by the Secretary of Agriculture, giving preference to those
persons whose names and addresses have been furnished by Senators and
Representatives in Congress, and who have not before, during the same
season, been supplied by the Department: And provided also, That the
Secretary shall report, as provided in this act, the place, quantity,
and price of seeds purchased, and the date of purchase; but nothing in
this paragraph shall be construed to prevent the Secretary of
Agriculture from sending seeds to those who apply for the same. And the
amount herein appropriated shall not be diverted or used for any other
purpose but for the purchase, testing, propagation, and distribution of
valuable seeds, bulbs, mulberry and other rare and valuable trees,
shrubs, vines, cuttings, and plants: Provided, however, That upon each
envelope or wrapper containing packages of seeds the contents thereof
shall be plainly indicated, and the Secretary shall not distribute to
any Senator, Representative, or Delegate seeds entirely unfit for the
climate and locality he represents, but shall distribute the same so
that each Member may have seeds of equal value, as near as may be, and
the best adapted to the locality he represents: Provided, also, That
the seeds allotted to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1898-1899.
\3\ The text of Mr. Candler's amendment was identically the provision
for Congressional seed distribution that had been carried in preceding
bills, but which the Committee on Agriculture had stricken out of this
bill.
Sec. 3896
Senators and Representatives for distribution in the districts embraced
within the twenty-fifth and thirty-fourth parallels of latitude shall
be ready for delivery not later than the 10th day of January: Provided
further, That $36,000 of which sum, or so much thereof as the Secretary
of Agriculture shall direct, may be used to collect, purchase, test,
propagate, and distribute rare and valuable seeds, bulbs, trees,
shrubs, vines, cuttings, and plants from foreign countries or from our
possessions for experiments with reference to their introduction into
and cultivation in this country; and the seeds, bulbs, trees, shrubs,
vines, cuttings, and plants thus collected, purchased, tested, and
propagated shall not be included in general distribution, but shall be
used for experimental tests, to be carried on with the cooperation of
the agricultural experiment stations.''
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made a point of order that the
amendment proposed legislation.
The Chairman \1\ held:
This question was raised before the committee in almost similar terms
a year ago, and was discussed fully. It was admitted at that time that
it was a close question. Finally the point of order was withdrawn, and
the Chair, therefore, was not called upon to rule. If this were a new
question, it seems to the Chair that there could be no doubt in any
mind as to the duty of the Chair to sustain the point of order. While,
owing to some decisions and some precedents in the past, the question
is somewhat complicated and there is some doubt about it, the Chair
feels that this question should be determined by the House, once and
for all, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Candler having appealed, the decision of the Chair, on a vote by
tellers was overruled, ayes 84, noes 136.
3896. On February 5, 1904,\2\ the agricultural appropriation bill was
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union when the Clerk read the following paragraphs:
Purchase and distribution of valuable seeds: For the purchase,
propagation, testing, and distribution of valuable seeds, bulbs, trees,
shrubs, vines, cuttings, and plants; for rent of building, not to
exceed $3,000; the employment of local and special agents, clerks,
assistants, and other labor required, in the city of Washington and
elsewhere; all necessary office fixtures and supplies, fuel,
transportation, paper, twine, gum, printing, postal cards, gas, and
electric current; traveling expenses, and all necessary material and
repairs for putting up and distributing the same, and to be distributed
in localities adapted to their culture, $290,000, of which amount not
more than $48,000 shall be expended for labor in the city of
Washington, D. C., and not less than $202,000 shall be allotted for
Congressional distribution.
And the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby directed to expend * * *
etc. [as given in the preceding section].
Mr. Morris Sheppard, of Texas, made a point of order against the
second and third sections on the ground that they were in violation of
the existing law, section 527 of the Revised Statutes:
The purchase and distribution of seeds by the Department of
Agriculture shall be confined to such seeds as are rare and uncommon to
the country or such as can be made more profitable by frequent changes
from one part of the country to another.
After debate the Chairman \3\ held:
The question raised by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sheppard]
presents some difficulties. The Chair is inclined to construe the bill
somewhat as if it read in a little different manner--as if it read
thus:
``And the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby directed to expend the
said sum, as nearly as practicable, only on the following conditions:
For the purpose of testing and distribution,'' etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David J. Foster, of Vermont, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 1683-1685.
\3\ Llewellyn Powers, of Maine, Chairman.
Sec. 3897
And while admitting that you can not place a limitation upon the
discretion of the Secretary where the law gives him a right to exercise
it, yet construing this paragraph not as a limitation upon his
discretion, but rather an addition, and a limitation upon which the
appropriation is granted, I shall not sustain the point of order to the
whole section, yet there is one provision in the section that the Chair
holds to be clearly subject to the point of order. That is that part of
the section commencing with the word ``such, ``in line 2, and ending
with the word ``direct,'' in line 7, page 25:
``Such franks to be furnished by the Public Printer as is now done
for document slips with the names of Senators, Members, and Delegates
printed thereon, and the words ``United States Department of
Agriculture, Congressional seed distribution,'' or such other
phraseology as the Secretary may direct.'' \1\
It seems to the Chair that this is new legislation, and that it is
legislation on an appropriation bill, directing what the printing
department shall do, and as the Chair understands the rules of the
House, that portion of the section being subject to the point of order,
it vitiates the whole section. Therefore the Chair sustains the point
of order made by the gentleman from Texas.
Thereupon Mr. James W. Wadsworth, of New York, proposed an amendment
identical with the paragraphs ruled out, except that the provision
relating to the furnishing of franks was eliminated.
Mr. John Lind, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the
amendment was a change of existing law, the section of the Revised
Statutes already quoted.
The Chairman ruled:
As the Chair stated at first, this is a somewhat difficult question
to decide, but in the opinion of the Chair the point of order raised by
the gentleman from Minnesota against this amendment is not well taken,
as a careful reading of the whole section of the statute will show. The
Chair will read for the instruction of the House the whole of the
section of the statute of which the gentleman from Minnesota read only
a part. It is as follows:
``Sec. 527. The purchase and distribution of seeds by the Department
of Agriculture shall be confined to such seeds as are rare and uncommon
to the country, or such as can be made more profitable by frequent
changes from one part of our own country to another; and the purchase
or propagation and distribution of trees, plants, shrubs, vines, and
cuttings shall be confined to such as are adapted to general
cultivation and to promote the general interests of horticulture and
agriculture throughout the United States.''
So the committee will see that the statute is somewhat broader than
that part of it which was read by the gentleman from Minnesota. Now,
the provisions here in the proposed amendment, the Chair think, are not
necessarily in conflict with the statute when all of it is considered
and its scope and purpose considered. The amendment reads:
``And the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby directed to expend the
said sum as nearly as practicable in the purchase, testing, and
distribution of such valuable seeds, bulbs, shrubs, vines, cuttings,
and plants, the best he can obtain at public or private sale, and such
as shall be suitable for the respective localities to which the same
are to be apportioned.''
The Chair does not think there is anything in that portion of the
amendment which I have read which necessarily changes the original
statute, or is it a change of existing law; and the Chair therefore
overrules the point of order.
A similar question of order arose on May 1, 1906,\2\ and was debated
at length; but was not decided, the point of order being withdrawn.
3897. The river and harbor bill not being one of the general
appropriation bills, the rule relating to legislation on such bills
does not apply to it.--On February 7, 1907,\3\ the river and harbor
appropriation bill was under
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A law making a similar but not identical provision was in
existence, but was not cited. (32 Stat. L., p. 741.)
\2\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 6211, 6222-6224.
\3\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 2469, 2470.
Sec. 3898
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, when Mr. J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, offered an amendment
providing legislation to establish a board of inspection for river and
harbor work.
Mr. David E. Finley, of South Carolina, made the point of order that
the amendment proposed legislation.
The Chairman \1\ said:
But the gentleman must recollect that the river and harbor bill is
not a general appropriation bill within the meaning of clause 2, Rule
XXI. Legislation is proper on a river and harbor bill, and the chair
overrules the point of order.
3898. On February 7, 1907,\2\ the river and harbor appropriation bill
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, when Mr. Edward De V. Morrell, of Pennsylvania, proposed
this amendment:
Add as an additional section the following:
Sec. 7. That it is the sense and desire of this Congress that
hereafter the appropriation bill for the rivers and harbors shall be
given the same consideration and shall be on the same scale as those
for the Army, Navy, and other large appropriation bills, and constant
large appropriations being necessary to enable the United States to
keep pace with the other nations of the world, and being for the good
of the country at large, that this appropriation shall hereafter be an
annual one.''
Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, made the point of order that the
amendment was not in order.
After debate, the Chairman \1\ held:
This is a proposition which is germane to the river and harbor bill.
The only question is a question of germaneness or a question of
jurisdiction. On the river and harbor bill there is a perfect right to
legislate on any question germane to the bill, and the Chair overrules
the point of order and recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania to
discuss his amendment.
3899. On May 27, 1890,\3\ in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, Mr. James B. McCreary, of Kentucky, made a point of
order against a section of the river and harbor bill providing a
penalty of fine and imprisonment for the offense of having a bridge
obstructing free navigable waters of the United States. Mr. McCreary
urged that under Rule XI the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rivers
and Harbors was confined to the subject of the ``improvement of rivers
and harbors,'' and that under Rule XXI this was legislation not
authorized on a general appropriation bill.
The Chairman,\4\ having called attention to the fact that the river
and harbor bill was not a general appropriation bill, overruled the
point of order.
3900. On February 15, 1881,\5\ the House was in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union considering the river and harbor
appropriation bill.
The Clerk had read the paragraph--
Improving harbor at Olcott, N. Y., $3,000--
When Mr. William A. J. Sparks, of Illinois, made the point of order
that this was not an appropriation authorized by law. and therefore not
in order on a general appropriation bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frank D. Currier, of New Hampshire, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 2470.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 5362, 5397.
\4\ Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan, Chairman.
\5\ Third session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1618-1624.
Sec. 3901
In response to this point of order Mr. William Lounsbery, of New
York, claimed that the river and harbor bill was not ``a general
appropriation bill.''
After debate the Chairman \1\ ruled:
The Chair is ready to decide this question. At first he was very much
disposed to entertain the opinion that this bill was to be included
among the general appropriation bills, and treated as such under the
rules of the House; but subsequent investigation of the subject has
satisfied the Chair that such a decision would not have been correct.
Of course, if it were not for the express provision of the rules, there
would be no difference between a general appropriation bill and any
other bill brought into the House, so far as parliamentary law would be
applicable; in other words, all bills would be governed by precisely
the same rules and the same principles under general parliamentary law.
Therefore this question depends entirely upon the provisions of the
rules.
Now, it is true that the Committee on Rules, in making its report to
the House as the last session of Congress, said in one part of the
report that the bill for the improvement of rivers and harbors had
become by long usage one of the general appropriation bills. But in
another part of that report the committee used this language: ``The
river and harbor appropriation bill, although not one of the general
appropriation bills (see Rule 77)''--the Chair will in a moment refer
to Rule 77--``has for many years past been one of the regular annual
appropriation bills and has been reported by the Committee on
Commerce.''
Then follows a concise history of the river and harbor bills in the
past.
The House determined that this river and harbor bill should not be
reported by the Committee on Appropriations, as the Committee on Rules
had recommended in its first report, but should be reported by the
Committee on Commerce. Of course that fact alone would not prevent it
from being a general appropriation bill if it were in substance such.
But the whole matter depending, as the Chair has said, upon the rules,
the Chair looks at the rules and finds that there is a distinction
recognized all the way through between the general appropriation bills
and the river and harbor bill. That distinction is recognized twice in
Rule XI; it is recognized distinctly in the sixth clause of Rule XXI,
and again distinctly in the fourth clause of Rule XXIII, where these
various bills are spoken of. The Chair is therefore compelled to hold
that the river and harbor bill is not, under the new revision of the
rules, as it was not under the old Rule No. 77, a general appropriation
bill. The Clerk will read Rule 77 of the old code of rules.
``It shall also be the duty of the Committee on Appropriations,
within thirty days after their appointment, at every session of
Congress, commencing on the first Monday of December, to report the
general appropriation bills for legislative, executive, and judicial
expenses; for sundry civil expenses; for consular and diplomatic
expenses; for the Army; for the Navy; for the expenses of the Indian
Department; for the payment of invalid and other pensions; for the
support of the Military Academy; for fortifications; for the service of
the Post-Office Department, and for mail transportation by ocean
steamers; or, in failure thereof, the reasons of such failure.''
It will be observed that there is a specific enumeration in the rule
itself of all the general appropriation bills, and that the bill
appropriating money for public works upon rivers and harbors is not
included. Now, whatever may be the consequences of this ruling, the
Chair, of course, is not responsible for them. He feels that in making
this decision he is governed by the express provisions of the rules
themselves, which he can not fail to observe.
3901. On January 16, 1901,\2\ the river and harbor bill (H. R. 13189)
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, when a paragraph was read providing for the organization of
a board of engineer officers in the War Department to pass upon
projects of improvement. The paragraph specified the size and
qualifications of the board, and its duties.
Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made the point of order that the
paragraph involved legislation, and was therefore not in order on the
bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1091.
Sec. 3902
The Chairman \1\ said:
The Chair will state to the gentleman that that point will not lie to
a river and harbor bill. There is a distinction made between a general
appropriation bill and the river and harbor bill. Under the rules any
new legislation is obnoxious to the point of order raised by the
gentleman; but that does not apply to a river and harbor appropriation
bill.
3902. On January 16, 1901,\2\ the river and harbor bill (H. R. 13189)
was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, and the Clerk had read a paragraph providing for the
creation of a board of engineers in the War Department to pass upon
projects of improvement for rivers and harbors.
Mr. William H. King, of Utah, made the point of order that the
paragraph contained legislation not germane to the bill, and infringing
on the jurisdiction of the Committee on Levees and Improvements of the
Mississippi River.
After debate the Chairman I said:
The Chair will state that the rule with reference to appropriations
that there shall be no new legislation does not apply to the river and
harbor bill, and has been so decided again and again by gentlemen who
have presided at the time the bill was considered in Committee of the
Whole. The Chair thinks, also, that the section against which the point
of order has been made does not infringe upon any of the rights of the
Committee on Levees and Improvements of the Mississippi River. At the
time of the revision of the rules, in 1880, it was sought to give this
committee on the levees the authority that is now claimed by it by the
gentleman from Utah, but by an express vote of the House the authority
was denied the committee and, inferentially, was given to the Committee
on Rivers and Harbors. The Chair thinks the provision against which the
point of order has been made is in harmony with the general objects and
purposes of the bill, that it is within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and, therefore, overrules the point of
order.
3903. On February 23, 1905,\3\ the river and harbor appropriation
bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, when a paragraph was read providing for certain
locks and dams and the granting of a franchise to private parties.
Mr. John W. Gaines, of Tennessee, raised a question of order that the
paragraph involved legislation.
The Chairman \4\ held:
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Tennessee that as this is
not a general appropriation bill the point does not lie. * * * The rule
which the gentleman invokes would apply only to a general appropriation
bill, and this is not so regarded under the rule.
3904. In 1898 a Senate committee reported against a proposition to
add to a general appropriation bill legislation on an important public
question, holding it not proper to attempt thus to coerce the House of
Representatives.--On February 14, 1898,\5\ in the Senate, Mr. John T.
Morgan, of Alabama, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted
this report:
The Senate referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations an
amendment intended to be proposed to the consular and diplomatic
appropriation bill, passed by the House of Representatives and now
under consideration by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in these
words:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
\2\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1094, 1095.
\3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3202.
\4\ William A. Smith, of Michigan, Chairman.
\5\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Senate Report, No. 577.
Sec. 3904
``That a condition of public war exists between the Government of
Spain and the government proclaimed and for some time maintained by
force of arms by the people of Cuba, and that the United States of
America shall maintain a strict neutrality between the contending
powers, according to each all the rights of belligerents in the ports
and territory of the United States.''
In terms this proposed amendment is identical with a joint resolution
which passed the Senate on the 20th day of May, 1897, was sent to the
House of Representatives and referred to a standing committee of that
body, where it is still pending.
In the adoption of that joint resolution the Senate, after full
debate and mature consideration, performed what it conceived to be a
solemn duty to our country that was demanded by a proper regard for the
rights and welfare of our own people. Their love of justice, humanity,
liberty, and independence of foreign oppression constrained our people
to regard the persecuted native people of Cuba with earnest sympathy,
and caused them to admire and applaud their heroism in the defense of
their homes and family against the most atrocious violence. In this
demonstration of sympathy with the cause of the Republic of Cuba our
people, almost with one accord, admitted their obedience to the
obligations and duties of Christian civilization, and demanded the
intervention of our Government against their cruel abuse and
abandonment by Spain in the war of extermination now being conducted
against the Cuban people.
The committee has found no reason for suggesting the modification of
the action of the Senate on that resolution in any part of the history
of the war in Cuba. The necessity for that action has been made more
manifest, since the passage of this resolution by the terrible and
unexampled wrongs to humanity in process of perpetration by Spain
against her former subjects, and now more fully realized in the
extermination of noncombatants by tens of thousands, and their
starvation, by military orders, in groups of hundreds of thousands,
who, lingering, still live.
The Senate has nothing to regret or to modify as to the action that
was taken in the adoption of the resolution now again presented for its
action, and still hopefully invites the concurrence of the House of
Representatives. In all parliamentary usage, and in accord with the
spirit of our institutions, the Houses, in their action upon all
questions presented to them, are entirely free and independent in their
deliberations and votes. It is needless to say that any attempt to
coerce one of the Houses of Congress by the action of the other is
derogatory to the welfare of the country; and it is a high duty of each
House to avoid giving to the other any reasonable ground of complaint
or apprehension of such a purpose.
It is, on the contrary, an imperative duty that such a suspicion
should be made fairly impossible. The Government must be supported, and
the necessary appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service
are of vital importance. Under existing conditions it is not an
unreasonable supposition that it will be in the nature of compulsion or
coercion of the House of Representatives if the Senate should place
upon that bill an amendment in the same terms with the joint resolution
heretofore adopted by the Senate, which is still pending in the House
of Representatives.
It is more clearly a reasonable inference that such would be the
purpose of the Senate, because the same effort was made in the House of
Representatives, on the passage of the consular and diplomatic
appropriation bill, to place this proposed amendment upon that bill,
and the motion was lost through the action of that body.
The desire of the committee that the joint resolution adopted by the
Senate should be adopted by the House of Representatives is earnest and
unanimous, but they do not recommend that any action should be taken in
the Senate that will or can in any way be considered by that honorable
body as an interference with their perfect freedom and independence in
their deliberations upon any measure.\1\
The committee recommends that the proposed amendment be laid upon the
table.\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This question was fully discussed in 1876 (first session Forty-
fourth Congress, Record, pp. 4343, 4345, 4423) when the Senate refused
to permit certain legislation intended to retrench the expenditures of
the Government to be placed on an appropriation bill. In the discussion
at that time reference was made to the precedent of 1856. Also on March
27, 1879 (first session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 77) the
subject was brought up in the Senate by Mr. George F. Hoar, of
Massachusetts.
\2\ On February 9, 1885, the subject of legislation on appropriation
bills was debated at length in the Senate. (Second session Forty-eighth
Congress, Record, pp. 1464-1474.)
The subject of legislation on appropriation bills, especially when
the object thereof is to coerce the other branch of Congress or the
Executive, was elaborately debated in 1879 when the party in control of
the House and Senate strove to obtain an alleged redress of grievances
as to certain Federal laws relating
Sec. 3905
3905. It was very early insisted on as a principle that, where one
House proposes to an appropriation bill an amendment firmly resisted by
the other, the proposing House should recede.
In the early practice of the House conference committees did not make
identical reports to the two Houses, and the reports were not signed.
On February 6, 1818,\1\ the House insisted on their disagreement to
the first amendment of the Senate to the bill ``making appropriations
for the military service of the United States, for the year 1818.'' A
conference was asked with the Senate, and Messrs. William Lowndes, of
South Carolina; Samuel Smith, of Maryland, and Timothy Pitkin, of
Connecticut, were appointed managers on the part of the House. On the
same day the Senate agreed to the conference, and Messrs. George W.
Campbell, of Tennessee; John Williams, of Tennessee, and James Barbour,
of Virginia, were appointed conferees on the part of the Senate.
On February 12 the managers reported in their respective Houses that
the conference, after being continued as long as there was any prospect
of arriving at a favorable result, terminated without the conferees of
the two Houses being able to come to any agreement on the subject
thereof. Both Senate and House conferees made to their respective
Houses long written reports, but these reports were not identical, and
were not signed even by the conferees of the one House.
The House conferees in their report state their ground for
disagreeing to the Senate amendment, which proposed to appropriate for
pay to brevet officers on a basis that the House could not agree to.
The committee of the House of Representatives,
says their report,
consider it necessary to a fair and free legislation, that
appropriations, in regard to the propriety or extent of which the two
Houses find, after deliberation that they still differ, should be
separated from those which both consider necessary to the public
service. If either branch of the Legislature determine that it will
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
to juries, elections, etc., by legislation on the appropriation bills,
which were vetoed. The Congressional Record, first session Forty-sixth
Congress, has these debates, speeches being made by J. R. Tucker (Va.),
p. 238; J. A. Logan (Ill.), p. 435; J. A. Beck (Ky.), p. 471; H. M.
Teller (Colo.), p. 512; J. G. Carlisle (Ky.), p. 527; W. M. Springer
(Ill.), p. 938 (citing precedents); W. D. Kelley (Pa.), p. 527.
Also Hoar's resolution, pp. 64, 162, 372. Also page 266 for reference
to Benton's protest on the California bill.
President Hayes in veto messages discussed subject, pp. 994, 1709.
Henry Clay in 1819 had proposed coercion by rider, second session
Fifteenth Congress, Congressional Annals, p. 471.
The Wilmot proviso was also a rider (1946), Globe, first session
Twenty-ninth Congress, p. 1217.
On August 21, 1856, Mr. Speaker Banks ruled that the provision in the
army appropriation bill just reported from the Ways and Means Committee
providing in relation to the use of troops in the Kansas troubles, was
not a violation of the rule prohibiting change of law on an
appropriation bill, but this ruling was evidently an act of force, at
the end of a long contest. (Second session Thirty-fourth Congress,
Journal, pp. 1555-1557; Globe, p. 6.)
\1\ First session Fifteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 220, 238, 246,
249; Annals, pp. 172, 188, 883, 894.
Sec. 3906
not make the great mass of necessary appropriations while there remains
one unprovided for, which it considers to be proper it throws upon the
other branch the necessity of concurring in an appropriation which it
may believe that neither the law nor the public interest requires, or
of endangering all the appropriations of the Government.
As the conferees of the Senate thought the objections urged by the
House of Representatives to the course pursued by the Senate, that it
made the passage of the large number of appropriations in which both
Houses concur, depend upon that of one in respect to which they
differ--an objection inapplicable to the subject--the committees were
obliged to separate without agreeing on the subject of the Senate's
amendment.
The Senate conferees in their report admitted that generally it would
not be the most correct course to amend a law establishing salaries or
authorizing an expenditure by a provision in a general appropriation
law, though they believed that there was no constitutional or legal
objection to it. They also admitted, as stated by the House conferees,
that it would not be advisable generally to embarrass a measure
embracing the mass of appropriations deemed necessary by insisting on
one of a doubtful nature, but they did not consider that the amendment
under consideration came within the scope of this principle.
On February 13, after considering the report of their conferees the
House voted to adhere to their disagreement to the first amendment of
the Senate.\1\ On February 16 a message from the Senate announced that
they had receded from their amendment. Thereupon the bill was enrolled
and duly signed.
3906. The principle seems to be generally accepted that the House
proposing legislation on a general appropriation bill should recede if
the other House persist in its objection.--On June 10, 1896,\2\ a
condition of prolonged disagreement between the House and Senate was
existing as to certain Senate amendments to the sundry civil
appropriation bill. These amendments were legislative in their nature,
proposing an increase in the limit of cost of certain public buildings
already authorized by prior law.
In the House, when this disagreement was under discussion, Mr. Joseph
G. Cannon, of Illinois, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
and the Member in charge of the bill, said:
Under all parliamentary precedents the body proposing legislation,
when the other body will not assent, recedes; and if the Senate,
proposing legislation in this case, lets this bill fail because the
House will not assent to the legislation, then let the responsibility
be upon the Senate. * * * The man who has read the history of his
country understandingly in the parliamentary contests in 1878, 1879,
and 1880 understands--and this contest began before the breaking out of
the late war--that the rule is unvarying that the body proposing
legislation as a rider upon a money bill must recede if the other body
will not assent.
In the Senate, in the discussion of the same disagreement, Mr. John
Sherman, of Ohio, said:
It has always been, so far as I know, the custom in the Senate, and
also in the House of Representatives as well, where there is a
disagreement between the two Houses threatening to defeat the passage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The practice in this respect should be noted. Had there been an
agreement the papers should have been left with the Senate conferees
(see sections 6571-6585 of Vol. V of this work) as the Senate agreed to
the conference. Thus the first action should have been in the Senate
where the papers might be supposed to be. But there is evidently a
distinction in case a conference breaks up without result, and may not
the asking House with propriety keep the papers? For as they have taken
the last positive action on the papers they may with propriety be
expected to have the opportunity at once to say whether they adhere to
or recede from that action.
\2\ First session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, pp. 6379, 6417,
6422.
Sec. 3907
of an important appropriation bill--and it is the only true rule that
can be applied to such a case--that the House proposing the amendment
which is firmly resisted by the other House ought to recede from the
amendment. No provision ought to be ingrafted in a law by Congress
which has not been assented to by both Houses. Therefore, if there is a
particular proposition--for instance, the erection of a public building
at any place--the Senate proposing the amendment and the House saying
firmly that they will not agree to it, the Senate ought to recede, and
the amendment be stricken out. That is the established rule. The two
Houses of Congress can only legislate upon the firm rule, adopted by
the Houses, that no proposition whatever shall be forced upon the House
by the Senate or upon the Senate by the House.
In the British Parliament the House of Commons will not allow the
House of Lords to propose amendments upon the question of appropriating
money. That is the right of the Commons, the representatives of the
people there, and the House of Lords have never been allowed in any
case to say whether or not an appropriation should be made for any
purpose whatever. Whatever appropriations may be proposed by the House
of Commons go to the House of Lords, and are accepted as a matter of
course; but here such is not the case. We have equal power with the
House of Representatives; we have the power to propose amendments to
their bills; we have the power to originate appropriation bills, for
they are not in any constitutional sense bills for raising revenue.
They are simply bills appropriating money supposed to be in the
Treasury.
I remember one striking case where the two Houses were at outs with
each other and there was a condition somewhat similar to that which now
exists, only at that time public feeling was much more heated than it
is now. In 1860 the House of Representatives undertook to reduce as
much as possible the appropriations for the support of the Government.
Then the war, with the difficulties that came after, was foreseen and
everybody was very anxious to prevent any large appropriations of
public money, the House of Representatives especially taking the lead.
During that session when an appropriation bill came to the Senate the
Senate attached an appropriation for the expenditure of half a million
dollars for a public building at New Orleans and a half million dollars
for a public building at Charleston.
When the bill was returned to the other House with the amendment, the
House struck out the amendment and insisted upon its action. When a
gentleman who I might say is known to you all, by reputation at least,
who was then a Senator from Georgia and was a very positive man, met
the committee of conference and said to them distinctly that unless the
appropriation was made for these two public buildings in the South the
appropriation bill could not pass at all, that was promptly resented by
the House of Representatives; and upon the meeting of the conferees
again the Senate of its own accord receded and took the position, upon
the ground that I have stated, that it had no right to force the House
to agree to that to which the House was opposed. That was put upon
broad national grounds. That is this case. Wherever the Senate of the
United States undertakes to force upon the House of Representatives an
appropriation it goes beyond the limits of its power. It may insist; it
may hold on and continue debating until probably the House will be
wearied; but, after all, if the House of Representatives says ``No''
definitely, the appropriation ought not to be made; and it is equally
true that if the House should insist upon an appropriation to which the
Senate is opposed, and the Senate says, ``We will not agree to that; we
are opposed to it; it is wrong,'' or ``It should not be appropriated at
this time,'' as a matter of course the House would have to recede.
It is only by the adoption by the two Houses of such a rule that we
can get along at all with our appropriations. We may insist and insist,
but when the time comes when we must choose between the passage or the
defeat of an appropriation bill, then, as a matter of course, the House
proposing the disputed proposition must withdraw it.
The Senate, however, voted to insist on its amendments, and the
House, by a vote of yeas 100, nays, 88, voted to recede from its
disagreement and concur in the amendments.
3907. On June 29, 1898,\1\ a condition of disagreement was in
existence between the House and Senate over certain amendments of the
Senate to the sundry civil appropriation bill. These amendments
proposed the construction of several public buildings and a soldiers'
home at Hot Springs, S. Dak.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 6490-6492.
Sec. 3908
After several futile conferences the House voted, ayes 117, noes, 0,
to insist further on its disagreement to the Senate amendments, and did
not ask another conference.
On June 30 \1\ the message stating the action of the House was
considered at length in the Senate. Mr. Arthur P. Gorman, of Maryland,
criticized the system of partial instead of complete conference
reports, and then urged that the House's demand that the Senate recede
from its position was not respectful to the Senate.
On the other hand, Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, said:
Contrary to the custom in Great Britain at the time when we
established our Constitution, these appropriation bills are made up of
a number of different items absolutely independent of one another. The
House having originated the bill, if the Senate has a different opinion
in regard to the amount or in regard to the method of accomplishing the
purpose of any one item, the two Houses stand, and ought to stand, on
an equality, and there is no more reason why we should yield our
judgment to them than that they should yield their judgment to us. But
when an entirely new, distinct subject of legislation, as is the case
here, is inserted in one of these bills, either originally or by way of
amendment, if either House do not assent to it the other ought, of
course, to yield. Otherwise you have legislation by one House and not
by two.
We have nothing to do with the reasonableness or the unreasonableness
of the opinion of the House of Representatives. That is their affair.
They are responsible only to themselves and their constituents. If they
do not approve it, we have no business to press it by saying that the
legislation which both Houses agree is necessary for the country shall
fail. That is coercion; that is logrolling; that is utterly
indefensible as a matter of principle.
So, after we have in conference brought again and again to the
attention of the House of Representatives our reasons, if they fail to
convince that body, we ought to yield to the point; and in the same way
with regard to items put in by the House of Representatives and sent
here, if they fail to convince this body, they ought to yield the
point, whether they originate them or whether we originate them.
The Constitution requires two bodies--not one body--selected in
different ways and representing different constituencies, to assent to
all legislation. That is for the protection of the people. So, whatever
we may think of the wisdom or the unwisdom of the opinion of the House
of Representatives, unless we can change that opinion, we have no right
to put constraint upon that body by saying that the public interests
shall suffer in some way if you do not yield your conscientious
convictions.
The Senate voted to recede from its amendments.
3908. On June 27, 1906,\2\ in the Senate, a discussion arose as to
the respective duties of House and Senate as to receding from
legislative amendments to appropriation bills.
Mr. James A. Hemenway, of Indiana, said:
I desire to put this question to the Senator from Maine [Mr. Hale],
who has had long experience on conference committees: Is it not the
rule of conferences that where legislation is placed upon an
appropriation bill the body seeking to legislate must recede if the
other body dissent? There is no place upon an appropriation bill, as a
rule, for legislation. We talk about things getting through the
Congress of the United States without notice. They get through
sometimes by putting them into a bill of perhaps 300-odd pages, and
driving them through. I am not in sympathy with the idea that
legislation can be placed upon an appropriation bill as this
legislation was, whether it be good or bad, without discussion.
Mr. Eugene Hale, of Maine, said:
Mr. President, as I have been appealed to by the Senator from Indiana
[Mr. Hemenway] to state what is my experience, I will state that when
either House puts in an appropriation bill legislation it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record, pp. 6536-6544.
\2\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 9378.
Sec. 3909
can not force the other House to agree, but it must in the end recede
if the proposition is one that the other House will not at all agree
to. In this case it seems to me, from the very clear and guarded
statement of the Senator from Vermont, that it is not a question of the
House resisting absolutely and declaring that nothing shall go on the
bill, but it is a question of agreeing between the two bodies as to
what legislation shall be adopted different from what the Senate has
put on. I do not think we take any profit by further inflaming the
situation. To test the sense of the Senate that for the present this
matter shall stand, I move that the Senate adjourn.
3909. A proposition germane but involving legislation has sometimes
been admitted as an amendment to a Senate amendment to an appropriation
bill and sometimes ruled out.--On January 9, 1855,\1\ the House was
considering the following Senate amendment to the pension appropriation
bill:
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the widows of the officers,
noncommissioned officers, marines, or mariners, who served in the Navy
of the United States during the Revolutionary war, and who were married
since the 1st day of January, 1800, shall be entitled to pensions in
the same manner, and to the same extent, as the widows of the officers
and soldiers of the Army of the Revolution, under the second section of
the act of February 3, 1853; and the pensions granted by this act and
those under the said second section of the act of February 3, 1853,
shall commence on the 4th day of March, 1848.
To this Mr. Reuben E. Fenton, of New York, offered the following
amendment:
And be it further enacted, That any woman who was the wife or widow
of an officer, noncommissioned officer, musician, private, seaman, or
marine, who served in the Army or Navy of the United States in the
Revolutionary war or any subsequent war, or has since died in the land
or naval service of the United States, shall also be entitled to the
benefits of the pension laws, or of this act, but no woman shall
receive a pension for any time during which her husband received one.
Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, made the point of order that this
amendment proposed a change of existing law.
The Speaker \2\ held:
The rule to which the gentleman refers is couched in the following
language:
``No appropriation shall be reported in such general appropriation
bills, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not
previously authorized by law.''
That rule would certainly control in an original bill, and in an
amendment proposed to an original bill of this body; but the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York being consistent with the
amendment of the Senate, the Chair considers it to be in order,
governed as he must be by the action of the Senate in relation to the
amendment passed by that body.
3910. On March 2, 1855,\3\ during consideration of the Senate
amendments to the post-office appropriation bill in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, an amendment providing for the
payment of a private claim was offered to a Senate amendment.
Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, raised a question of order.
The Chairman \4\ said:
The Chair states that the amendment of the Senate would not have been
in order under the rules of the House as an original proposition. If
such a proposition had been offered, the present occupant of the chair
would have ruled it to be out of order. Now, the same rules apply in
reference to amendments to the Senate amendments that would apply when
the bill was originally before the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 218.
\2\ Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Thirty-third Congress, Globe, p. 1077.
\4\ James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Chairman.
Sec. 3911
And, therefore, although the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky
as far as language is concerned is germane to the Senate amendment, yet
the Chair decides that it is a private claim, that it proposes to
change the existing law, and that, according to the eighty-first rule
of the House, it is not in order.
An appeal being taken, the decision was sustained, ayes 94, noes 30.
3911. On April 30, 1864,\1\ the House was considering a Senate
amendment to the army appropriation bill providing for the rate of
emolument of colored troops in the service of the United States, and
allowing the payment of bounties to them at the discretion of the
President.
Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, proposed to amend the Senate
amendment by adding thereto a provision raising the pay of the white
soldiers in the service of the United States.
Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, having raised a point of order
that the amendment proposed a change of existing law, Mr. Holman urged
that the Senate amendment changed existing law, and that a modification
of it was in order.
The Speaker \2\ decided that the proposed modification was not in
order, on the ground that it changed an existing law, which by the
rules of the House was prohibited in an amendment to an appropriation
bill, and was not germane to the Senate amendment.
Mr. Holman having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table, yeas
95, nays 25.
3912. 0n June 4, 1900,\3\ the House had agreed to a partial
conference report on the sundry civil appropriation bill and was
considering the amendment making appropriation for the work of the
Mississippi River Commission.
Mr. Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, moved to recede and concur, with an
amendment directing the Commission to prepare and report a
comprehensive plan of improvement of Mississippi River.
Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the amendment proposed new legislation and was not germane.
The Speaker \4\ said:
The point of order is overruled. If the point were to be sustained,
it would entirely disarm the House from the treatment of amendments of
the Senate. The Senate amendment has reference to the Mississippi River
and its improvements and the Mississippi River Commission, and the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Burton] treats of the
same matter. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Burton] to recede and concur, with an amendment.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 598; Globe, p.
1998.
\2\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 6565-6568;
Journal, pp. 669, 670.
\4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\5\ On December 4, 1873, Mr. James A. Garfield, of Ohio, proposed the
following rule, which was referred to the Committee on Rules:
Resolved, That the rules be so amended as to provide that when a
House bill returns to the House with Senate amendments points of order
may be made in the House against any such amendments whenever the same
are not germane to the subject-matter of the bill or when such
amendment contains an appropriation not authorized by law. (First
session Forty-third Congress, Journal, p. 56; Record, p. 69.)
On January 24, 1883, in the Senate, Mr. Benjamin Harrison, of
Indiana, proposed in the Senate a joint rule to prevent legislation on
appropriation bills. (Second session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p.
1525.)
Sec. 3913
3913. Where a Senate amendment proposes on a general appropriation
bill an expenditure not authorized by law or legislation, it is in
order in the House to perfect it by germane amendments.--On June 14,
1884,\1\ the House was considering Senate amendments to the post-office
appropriation bill, among which was the following: ``For special
facilities in trunk lines, $185,000.''
It was moved to recede and concur in this amendment, with an
amendment making the sum $250,000.
Mr. William S. Holman, of Indiana, made the point of order that this
amendment was not in order.
The Speaker \2\ held:
While the Chair supposes there is no permanent provision of law
authorizing this expenditure, still the proposition to expend a certain
amount of money for that purpose is now properly before the House, and
the Chair thinks that the proposition, being properly before the House,
is amendable, without regard to the rule applying to an original
amendment proposed in the House. In other words, as an illustration, if
the Committee on Appropriations should report a bill containing within
it a provision not directly authorized by law, amendments proposed to
such a provision should not be ruled out upon the point of order,
because the subject upon which they are predicated, being virtually
before the House, is a legitimate subject of amendment, either by
increasing or diminishing the amount of the appropriation. The Chair
therefore overrules the point of order.
3914. On February 28, 1889,\3\ in connection with a conference report
on the District of Columbia appropriation bill, the House was
considering an amendment of the Senate relating to the Zoological Park.
An amendment having been offered to this Senate amendment, Mr. John J.
Hemphill, of South Carolina, proposed as an amendment in the second
degree a provision appropriating $1,000,000 for a national park in the
District, adjacent property holders to be charged for betterments.
Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order against
the amendment of Mr. Hemphill.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The gentleman from Pennsylvania makes a point of order against this
amendment. The Chair thinks that while no point of order can be made in
the House against any provision inserted in a conference report, except
upon the ground that it changes or strikes out some provision
previously agreed to by both Houses, yet when the House itself comes to
adopt amendments to Senate amendments the amendments offered here must
be germane and are governed by the rules which govern the ordinary
proceedings of the House in the consideration of appropriation bills. *
* * This is a proposition to agree to a Senate amendment with an
amendment which the Chair thinks is not germane to the Senate
amendment. * * * Anything relating to the Zoological Park, which is the
subject of the Senate amendment, would be in order if germane to the
provisions of that amendment, which the Chair has not yet read.
Thereupon Mr. Hemphill proposed to amend his amendment by inserting
the words ``zoological park'' instead of ``national park.''
Mr. James Buchanan, of New Jersey, made the point of order that the
amendment changed existing law, and Mr. Randall suggested that the
amendment would not have been in order if offered to the bill before it
went to the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 5146; Journal, p.
1450.
\2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Fiftieth Congress, Journal, p. 667; Record, p.
2454.
Sec. 3915
The Speaker said:
That is the very point which the Chair is examining, for the Chair
thinks, as he has already stated, that if the committee of conference
should embrace in its report to the House an agreement upon some
proposition which would not have been in order in the House originally
a point of order could not be made against it; but when it is proposed
that the House shall concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment,
the latter must be of such a character that it would have been in order
if the original proposition were before the House. Upon this ground the
Chair thinks that the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina is not in order; * * * and it is not in order simply as an
amendment to the Senate amendment, because it proposes to change
existing law in regard to the payment for this property. The law now
provides that the expenditures in connection with the District shall be
borne one-half by the United States and one-half by the District of
Columbia.
3915. On March 2, 1885,\1\ the House was considering certain Senate
amendments to the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation
bill, one of which was as follows:
For clerks to Senators who are not chairmen of committees, at $6 per
day, $39,432.
Mr. J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, moved to concur in this Senate
amendment with an amendment which would make it read as follows:
For clerks to Senators and Representatives who are not chairmen of
committees, at the rate of $100 per month during the session, $209,300.
Mr. William M. Springer, of Illinois, made the point of order that
the proposed amendment of Mr. Keifer was a change of existing law and
did not retrench expenditures.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The question was presented at the last session of Congress and the
Chair made a ruling upon it then, but has never been entirely satisfied
that it was altogether correct. The Chair will cause the Journal entry
to be read:
``The House then proceeded as the regular order of business (as a
privileged question) to the consideration of the bill of the House (H.
R. 5459) making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office
Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885, and for other
purposes, and amendments of the Senate thereto, pending when the House
took a recess on yesterday, the pending question being on the following
amendment of the Senate, namely: `Page 74, after line 27, insert: ``For
necessary and special facilities on trunk lines, one hundred and
eighty-five.'' ' Pending which Mr. Horr moved that the House recede
from its disagreement to the said amendment and agree to the same with
the following amendment:
`` `Strike out the words ``one hundred and eighty-five'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``two hundred and fifty.' ''
``Pending which Mr. Holman made the point of order that the said
amendment, under clause 3 of Rule XXI, was not in order, for the reason
that said appropriation was for a purpose not authorized or specified
by law or for work already in progress.''
``The Speaker overruled the said point of order on the ground that
the appropriation to which the amendment was offered was properly
before the House and was amendable without regard to the rule
applicable to an original amendment proposed in the House.''
It will be observed that the question presented in that case was on
an amendment which proposed simply to increase the amount appropriated
by the Senate amendment for the same purpose provided for in the Senate
amendment. The gentleman from Ohio now submits a proposition which is
to make an appropriation for a different purpose from that provided for
in the Senate amendment. * * *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 2421, 2422.
\2\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 3916
The Speaker went on to say that the amendment was, however, germane,
and that the Chair had held during the last session that when a Senate
amendment providing for an appropriation not authorized by existing law
came to the House it was in order for the House to amend it by adding
other appropriations relevant to it, although not authorized by
existing law, because otherwise the House would have no power to amend
a Senate amendment which proposed to appropriate money for purposes not
previously authorized by law.\1\
3916. On June 17, 1898,\2\ the House having under consideration a
Senate amendment (No. 74) to the District of Columbia appropriation
bill relating to electric lighting in the District, Mr. Mahlon Pitney,
of New Jersey, moved to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with
an amendment relating to a conduit system for electric-light wires.
Mr. William H. King, of Utah, having made a point of order, the
Speaker pro tempore \3\ held:
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pitney] moves to recede from the
House disagreement to the amendment No. 74 and to agree with an
amendment. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. King] makes the point of order
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is new
legislation. The Chair is very clearly of opinion that the point of
order is not well taken. It is conceded that the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey is germane to the Senate amendment, and
the point that it is new legislation can not be raised at this stage of
the proceeding, inasmuch as the new legislation originated in the
Senate. If that was not the rule, it would be in the power of the
Senate at any time to originate new legislation and deprive the House
of any judgment with reference to it. If new legislation originates in
the Senate, the House has the right to agree or disagree or to agree
with an amendment, and the point of order is therefore overruled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On March 3, 1887 (second session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p.
2736), Mr. Speaker Carlisle made a similar decision.
\2\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 6098.
\3\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Speaker pro tempore.