tion should not, in my judgment, be put upon an equality with a proposition made on the floor that had. never been submitted to the committee.

Mr. SHERLEY. There is something in that; but does not the gentleman realize that the practice of the committees having in charge these various appropriation bills has been to make the point of order universally, without regard to the matter, whether wise or unwise; and is not the gentleman now in a rather peculiar position when he appeals to the House to accept the wisdom of the committee, that never has accepted the wisdom of the Members of the House?

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I can not agree that it has been the practice universally to raise the point of order, but the general practice has arisen because the great body of amendments offered from the floor has not been considered by the committee; and it is a matter of common knowledge that wise and orderly legislation ordinarily can not be prepared here upon the floor of the House, but ought to be prepared in the committee room.

Mr. FITZGERALD. The rules of the House were adopted in a manner that prevented any Member of the House attempting to effectuate a change. As soon as the House was organized a motion was made that the rules be adopted which were in force in a previous Congress, the previous question was demanded and ordered, and no Member of the House practically had any voice whatever in the make-up of the rules under which the House operates.

So that when some Member of the House now insists on exercising the rights that are conferred upon him under those rules, it comes with poor grace from those who have shackled the House with the rules to complain of their enforcement.

It may be and I have no doubt it is the fact that some of the points of order that have been interjected during the course of this bill have prevented reforms and economies, but the House must realize that in giving gentlemen the power to prevent the consideration of legislation the House itself is responsible for that action and not the gentlemen who undertake to exercise their rights.

Even, Mr. Chairman, though a member of the committee reporting the bill should rise to interpose a point of order, gentlemen are inclined to criticise him seriously for that action. I am not at all in sympathy with that prevalent feeling in this House, that committees are so impeccable, that they are so virtuous, that they are so wise, that when they have determined by a majority vote that certain things should be reported to the House it is high treason for any Member to exercise his right under the rules to prevent, if he desires, the consideration of those matters in violation of the rule. [Applause.]

I am not going to criticise my own committee. I believe that the committee has done its full duty in calling the attention of the House to abuses that exist, and I am indifferent to what happens to any provision in this

bill. I will vote for each provision or against it, as my judgment dictates that I should. I am perfectly willing that every other Member of this House shall exercise freely all the rights that he has under the rules in the consideration of this bill, and let each Member do as the committee is compelled to do, assume the responsibility for his own action. When that is done, Mr. Chairman, if it prevents reforms being made on this bill, it may result in vitalizing some of the dead committees of the House. It may result in effecting a reform by accomplishing it through the proper machinery of the House, and there may no longer be the spectacle of seventeen or eighteen committees organized for the purpose of working, but existing merely to give places of refuge to the gentlemen fortunate enough to be appointed as chairmen of these committees.

So I would say to my colleagues on the committee, in the best of good nature, whatever be the course followed by these gentlemen or any other gentlemen, and whatever may be the fate of any provision in the bill, that we rest content in the knowledge that we have performed our duty, and satisfied that everybody else is endeavoring to perform his according to his best judgment and according to his rights.

Mr. SMITH of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that they have gotten into a difficulty here that could be very easily and peacefully and properly settled. Why does not this committee rise and report to the House their inability to handle an appropriation bill, refer it to the Committee on Territories of this House, get a rule passed by the Speaker and pass this bill, and don't let anybody read it? [Laughter.] What is the use of talking about it and wasting time in this way? Two millions of people can be disposed of in twenty minutes' debate, and here you are quibbling over what a clerk gets in some Department. I am ashamed to see my friends forgetting how to attend to public business. [Laughter.] They have got no business to consider this bill, anyway. It has come to a point in the consideration of public business in this House that consideration of a bill is folly. Why, you can not even send it over to the Senate in a shape to suit you. This skeleton is going over there, and the gentlemen who have been trying so hard to maintain the dignity of this body will be crawling on their stomachs to the Senate to get these items put back in the bill. Abuse it with the lips and serve it with your hearts every minute when you want something done. [Applause.] That is what will become of this bill.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to take any of the time of the committee, because I think this bill would have made much more progress if there had been less debate upon the method of procedure of some of the gentlemen in the House. Now, the House is amply able to take care of itself, even without the aid of the Delegate from Arizona [Mr. Smith], and to pass such legislation as the majority of the House shall deem best to have passed and to defeat such legislation as the majority shall deem best to defeat. Of course, it is in the province of any

Member of the House in Committee of the Whole to raise a point of order, and if the point of order is well taken, the chairman will promptly rule. These rules are in the interest of economy, so far as they relate to appropriation bills, in order that the Committee on Appropriations or anyone else shall not come in here and create new offices unless it is considered by the appropriate committee, the committee having that legislation in charge. They are purposely framed so that any Member can defeat any such attempt on the part of the Committee on Appropriations by raising the point of order, and it does not disturb me in the least to see two gentlemen sitting here and raising points of order. It has generally been the custom of the House, Mr. Chairman, in such cases, for a gentleman to reserve the point of order on a provision in the bill which he thought was out of order and which he could not see the merit of until the item was explained, and if it was explained satisfactorily to him, to waive the point of order and let it go in the bill; but gentlemen have the right to insist upon the point of order. Now, I hope they will insist to their hearts' content, and I hope that when similar points of order are raised upon these items which must go out, that the matter will be left speedily to the Chair to rule upon and to rule whether they are in order or not, and with less debate upon each proposition we can get through with the consideration of this bill in the Committee of the Whole, each Member finding out what he thinks ought to be in and what he thinks ought to be out. Afterwards the House can very easily pass the bill, and pass such a bill as the majority of the House is in favor of, and no two Members or any number of Members less than a majority of the House can prevent it; we can do it with fair consideration, and we can send a bill over to the Senate which does not need to be deliberated upon by making a speech, when three or four Members are present, of three or four hours in length; we can have here when necessary the five-minute debate, when the Members can be brought into contact with all the reasons for or against a single item in the bill, and we can proceed in an orderly manner.

Gentlemen declaim against the rules of the House and they want a sort of town meeting, where every one of 386 Members, clamoring for recognition of the Speaker, shall each receive recognition at the same time to make his motion or to make his speech. They want pandemonium. The rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, are not the result of any one man's work. They are the result of the experience of many more years than most of us have ever seen either in the House or out of it. They are the result of the best thought of the best men who have adorned the halls of Congress in the past on both sides of the House. They were made for the protection of the minority as well as for the advantage of the majority in having its will preferably in this House. And no such exhibition as has been made here to-day and no such declarations as we have just heard from the gentleman from Arizona will change the

rules of the House. The rules of the House will remain after we have left it and they will remain substantially as they are to-day, and the House will transact its business under these rules in an orderly and proper manner. I want to say that gentlemen who are opposing this bill will finally see the bill pass in the shape that the majority of the House desire it passed and it will go over to the Senate and they will perform their functions upon it by way of amendment.

SPECIAL RULE ON THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL APPROPRIATION BILL'

[In order to save the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Bill from ruin, the committee appealed to the Committee on Rules which came to the rescue on March 28, by reporting a resolution which marks a great advance in the power of centralized leadership in the House. The special rule, as will be seen, virtually cut off any further right on the part of members to enter objections against the bill under consideration. This action illustrates perfectly how absolutely the procedure of the House is controlled by the Committee on Rules. This special rule and the discussions thereon are of the highest importance to an understanding of our Congressional procedure.]

MR. DALZELL. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following privileged report from the Committee on Rules.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania submits a report from the Committee on Rules, which the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

The Committee on rules, to whom was referred the resolution of the House No. 383, have had the same under consideration and respectfully report in lieu thereof the following:

Resolved, That hereafter, in consideration of the bill (H. R. 16472) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government, and for other purposes, in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, it shall be in order to consider, without intervention of a point of order, any section of the bill as reported, except section 8; and upon motion authorized by the Committee on Appropriations it shall be in order to insert in any part of the bill any provision reported as part of the bill and heretofore ruled out on a point of order.

Mr. DALZELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I ask the previous question. Mr. SULZER. Mr. Speaker, I should like to have some explanation in regard to this rule. It seems to be a very extraordinary departure from the general rules of the House.

Mr. DALZELL. I do not wish to discuss the rule until after the previous question is ordered, because any debate before the ordering of the previous question would cut off all debate thereafter.

1 Congr. Record, March 28, 1906.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania moves the previous question upon agreeing to the resolution.

The question being taken, on a division (demanded by Mr. Dalzell) there were ayes 120, noes 71.

Accordingly the previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is entitled to twenty minutes, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr Williams] to twenty minutes.

Mr. DALZELL.

Mr. Speaker, I shall occupy but a very brief time in explanation of the rule.

The House is familiar with the fact that in the consideration of the legislative appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole a great many paragraphs have been stricken out by reason of an appeal to the rule of the House which prevents legislation on appropriation bills. The trouble has been mainly with respect to the number of employees provided for in the bill and with respect to the salaries of employees. The point of order has been made that employees not provided for by existing law are included in the bill and that salaries not provided for by existing law are included in the bill; and it is fair to say that it seems to me that in all cases the point of order has been well taken.

The difficulty with which the House is confronted arises out of the fact that the law fixing the number of employees and the salaries of employees in the various Departments is in most cases an old law, in some cases as old as thirty years, and, of course, during the passage of those thirty years the service of the Government has largely increased, the necessity for new employees has arisen, and the necessity for changes of salary has arisen. Those changes ought to have been made by general law. The fault lies not wholly with the Committee on Appropriations, but largely with the various committees of the House, who ought to have secured the passage of general laws which would authorize the Committee on Appropriations to insert these provisions in the appropriation bill. A custom, however, has grown up during all these years not to make points of order upon items in the appropriation bill which were recognized by the House as appropriate under the circumstances, and the custom therefore has justified the Committee on Appropriations from year to year in putting into the appropriation bill these increases of salary and these increases of appropriation. As I say, the fault lies with the committees of the House, who ought to have provided general legislation. In illustration of that proposition, let me call your attention to what appears on two pages of the Record. An appropriation in this bill for the employees at New Orleans went out on a point of order because it infringed a provision of existing law on the subject. That provision was over thirty years old; nevertheless, during all these thirty years since its enactment, without any additional legislation, appropriations corresponding to this have been made by the sufferance of the House.