LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL 
 
 APPROPRIATION RILL. 
 
 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES UPON THIS QUESTION. 
 
 SPEECHES ' 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. LOT M. MORRILL AMD HON. 0. P..MORTON 
 
 IN THE U. S. SENATE, JULY 7, 1870. 
 
 Mr. MORRILL. I vjae to present a report of 
 the Uoinnmtee of Conference on the disagreeing 
 rotes of the two Houses on the legislative, exec¬ 
 utive and judicial appropriation bill. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read the report, as follows: 
 
 The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing 
 votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the 
 Senate to the bill (H. It. No. 2571) making appro¬ 
 bations for the legislative, executive ami Judicial 
 epartments of the Government for the fiscal year 
 ending Jnne 30, 1377, and for other purposes, having 
 met, after full and free conference have beenunabl8 
 to agree. 
 
 LOT M. MO KRILL, 
 
 WM. WIN DOM, 
 
 R. E. WITHERS, 
 Managers on the pari of the Senate. 
 
 8AML. J. RANDALL, 
 
 OTHO R. SINGLETON, 
 CHARLES FOSTER, 
 Managers on the part of the Mouse. 
 
 Mr. MORRILL. I will simply send to the Chair 
 and ask that the proposition of the conferees on 
 the part of the Senate to the conferees on the 
 part of the House of Representatives may be read 
 at the Clerk’s desk, and I ask the attention of 
 the Senate to the proposition. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 The Committee ef Conference on the part of the 
 Senate submit that as anything like a Just and intel¬ 
 ligent adjustment of the salaries of the employees, 
 clerks, heads of bureaus, chiefs of divisions and of 
 the subdivisions of the Executive Departments, a 
 service at once extended and diversified, must nec¬ 
 essarily Involve a critical and laborious examina¬ 
 tion into its details and duties, an undertaking quite 
 impracticable in the last days of a session of Con¬ 
 gress, and unwise to attempt in connection with an 
 appropriation bill, the committee therefore propose, 
 as a concession, inordertomeetthevlewsofthe House 
 on the subject of appropriations for the salaries, 
 that the Senate will recede from lt3 amendments lo 
 the bill of the House in this respect, and remit the 
 question of the revision and adjustment of the same 
 to a joint committee of four, two of whom shall he 
 appointed by the presiding officer of each House, 
 whose duty It shall be to revise and adjust the sala¬ 
 ries, having due regard to a just publiceconomy and 
 the efficiency of the service, and make report of 
 their doing therein on the first day of the next ses¬ 
 sion of Congress: And provided. That any change 
 made in said salaries by Congress upon said report 
 shall take effect from the 1st day of July, 1876, and all 
 persons who 6hall be affected thereby and who shall 
 continue in the servico shall be deemed to have ac¬ 
 cepted the terms hereof and acquiesced therein. 
 
 Rut the Senate cannot, having rffi^ard to its con¬ 
 stitutional rights and duties as a co-ordinate branch 
 of the legislative department of the Government, 
 assent to the changes In the existing law that It be¬ 
 lieves to be pernicious as the'price of securing ap¬ 
 propriations necessary to carry on the operations of 
 the Government under the laws as they now exist. 
 And upon the same principle the Senate does not de¬ 
 mand that the House of Representatives shall vote 
 to appropriate any money, even to meet the legal 
 obligations of the United States, that the House may 
 feel it to be its duty to refuse; thus leaving to each 
 House absolute independence in respect of acceding 
 or not acceding to new provisions of law that it be¬ 
 lieves to be unwise. 
 
 And the committee further submit that the Senate 
 will recede from its amendments to the Mouse 
 
 amendments on the reduction of the civil list in the 
 Executive Departments of clerks and employees, 
 and agree to any amendments which shall reduce 
 the number one^half that proposed by the bill of the 
 House, observing in such reduction the exercise of 
 such discrimination as to the needs of the service in 
 the several subdivisions thereof as a careful exami¬ 
 nation of the same may indicate. 
 
 Mr. MORRILL. Air. President, I move that 
 the Senate further insist upon its amendments 
 and agree to the further conference asked by the 
 House of Representatives, and if it is the desire 
 of the Senate I will make some observations in 
 regard to the attitude of the two Houses upon this 
 great bill touching the entire civil service of the 
 country and the circumstances surrounding it. 
 
 I begin by saying that the Oommittee on Ap¬ 
 propriations of the Senate from the outset have 
 been disposed, in great sincerity and candor and 
 with alacrity, t* meet every honest disposition on 
 the part of the House ot Representatives for re¬ 
 trenchment of the public expenditures, as I am 
 sure every member of that committee will bear 
 me out in saying, and as I’certainly in turn will 
 say of every member of that committee on the 
 other side of the Chamber, and I am sure that 
 those who have observed the temper of the Senate 
 will agree that no other feeling or disposition has 
 at any time been manifested except to"meet every 
 just demand for retrenchment which is consistent 
 with the public service. 
 
 Now let us see what the precise points of the 
 difference between the two Houses are upon this 
 question. The House of Representatives sent this 
 particular bill to the Senate, covering the entire 
 civil service of the Executive Departments, with 
 certain amendments: first, an amendment touch¬ 
 ing the compensation of this service and a change 
 in the law in that respect, and, secondly, a very 
 large numerical reduction of the civil list. Those 
 were the twa fundamental propositions. The bill 
 came from the House of Representatives at the 
 end of six months to be considered by the Senate. 
 To investigate a question so broad as anything 
 like an Intelligent and just consideration of the 
 salaries would Involve very great labor, very 
 careful and exact consideration and detail, and a 
 great deal of time. Now, consider that at the end 
 of these six months the Senate was expected to 
 consider and pass, or pass without consideration, 
 the principal appropriation bills for carrying on 
 the Government. That is the predicament in 
 which the Senate found itself at the end of six 
 months of the session of Congress. 
 
 What was to be done on the first proposition by 
 your committee? By the exercise or,the only 
 function it is presumed to have, and the only real 
 function it really has, it was to consider, first, 
 what the service was, as established by law, and 
 to provide for it; and if we had had any other 
 function, that was the only practicable one at the 
 late hour at which ti.is bill came to us. * * * 
 
 I am stating the diifimlty your Oommittee on 
 Appropriations found in the beginning. It was to 
 enter upon the task of arranging the salaries of 
 the entire civil service in the Executive Depart¬ 
 ments of the (lovernment, and that, in the last 
 month, it was to be hoped., of the session. If there 
 
N 
 
 2 
 
 were no question of law or parliamentary usage 
 to control a matter of that sort, is it not obvious 
 that such a task as that could not be undert aken? 
 But your committee had no option about it. It 
 had no right whatever to consider a question of a 
 change of salaries. Its duty, and its whole duty, 
 having charge of making appropriations for the 
 service of the Government, was done when it had 
 ascertained what the service was and the amount 
 of appropriations demanded for it in order to 
 comply with the requirements of law. That was 
 the sum total, the beginning and the end of its 
 whole duty, and anything else than that was a 
 usurpation of the legislative functions of this 
 body. Therefore the committee had nothing to 
 do but to place that compensation where the law 
 had placed it. and report the bill back to the 
 Senate. I believe the Senate divided upon that 
 whole subject but once, upon one single proposi¬ 
 tion, thereby approving, as the committee had a 
 right to believe and did believe, the proposition 
 that it was not the function of an Appropriation 
 Committee to change the law, but to appropriate 
 in obedience to it was the obvious duty of the 
 committee. 
 
 W8 are met in conference upon the ground that 
 the House of Representatives does not agree to 
 the proposition of the Senate to place these sala¬ 
 ries in harmony with the obligations of the law 
 and the public service as established by law, but 
 it will put its judgment and hat against the Sen¬ 
 ate and against the law; it is insisted that it pos¬ 
 sesses that omnipotence which is peculiar to the 
 House of Commons, and which practically consti¬ 
 tutes the House of Commons the Parliament, and 
 makes the Senate “ the effete .Lords of Great 
 Britain.” That is where we are. An appropria¬ 
 tion committee has come to mean the will oi one 
 branch of Congress and but one, and on a question 
 of that sort there is no co-ordinate branch; and 
 that is the attitude in which the Senate is placed, 
 and upon such ground as that conference is im¬ 
 practicable conference is impossible because 
 there is and there can be but one party to such a 
 question. 
 
 Now, in order to get rid of this complication, let 
 us see what the committee on the part of the Sen¬ 
 ate proposed. The House on the first conference, 
 as I said on a former occasion, refused to concur 
 with the Senate in placing the compensation in 
 harmony with the law. They wouid appropriate 
 no more. Very well. It must be seen that in or¬ 
 der to get a conclusion there must be concessions 
 on one side or the other. .The Senate could not 
 recede from its amendments and take the action 
 of the House of Representatives changing by ab¬ 
 solute iaw the entire salaries in the whole civil 
 service in the Executive Departments. The Sen¬ 
 ate could not do that; especially the Senate could 
 not do that if demanded as the price of any ap¬ 
 propriation at all. To do that was to concede 
 that we were no longer a co-ordinate branch of 
 the legislative department of the Government. 
 It was abdication, as my honorable friend sitting 
 near me [Mr. Sherman] says, absolute abdica¬ 
 tion. Well, if adhered to -it is revolution. As 
 ionv as the House of Representatives simply in¬ 
 sists we are to confer; but when the Rouse of 
 Representatives gets so far that it adheres, it is 
 revolution. That is what it is, absolute revolu¬ 
 tion. It is a defiance of the law, and that is revo¬ 
 lution in this country. I maintain that in the 
 Senate, in the House of Representatives, or out of 
 it, the rule of right for our action here or else¬ 
 where is the law, and it is equally obligatory on 
 all; and whoever rebels against it is revolution¬ 
 ary. 
 
 What then did we propose? The House will 
 appropriate no more than a certain portion for this 
 compensation. We said, “We will take it, gen¬ 
 tlemen.” “Well, but there will be a claim for 
 the balance.” “Certainly there will.” “Well, 
 we shall be open to suit.” Certainly you will, 
 because this civil service is no myt h. It is a real¬ 
 ity; it Is an entity. While it performs its duties 
 it has its claims upon the Government as sacred 
 as any right. It has a right to the compensa¬ 
 tions that are fixed by law until they are chauged 
 by the concurrent action of the two branches of 
 Congress, with this assent of the .President; and 
 either branch that undertakes to innovate upon 
 that basts gives the civil service tv remedy against, 
 
 f 
 
 the Treasury of the United States. Now, how 
 should such a complication as that be cut ? The 
 House would not yield, would not appropriate 
 any more money; the Senate would not yield to 
 the House to change the salaries. What, then, 
 should be done ? 
 
 The Seriate conferees, in order to make a con¬ 
 cession which would relieve the House from the 
 appropriation of any more money, and in order to 
 relieve the Senate from the embarrassment in 
 which the House amendment changing the sala¬ 
 ries had placed it, and maintain its own charac¬ 
 ter and its own independence as a co-ordinate 
 branch of the Government, said, “We will do 
 this: we will take what you appropriate; but on 
 the question what the salaries shall be for this 
 particular year and for all the future, so far as 
 we are concerned, we will remit that question to 
 a committee of four appointed by the presiding 
 officers of the respective branches, who shall re¬ 
 vise and adjust the whole question of compensa¬ 
 tion covered by this bill; and, Congress enacting 
 it, that shall no tne compensation for this year.” 
 Is that fair? Is that a reasonable proposition? 
 Can any Senator rise here and tell this* commit¬ 
 tee if he can, pray instruct them, or some other 
 committee, what is to be done in this difficulty 
 consistent with the integrity of both branches of 
 Congress, consistent with the views of economy 
 which they present to us on the part of the House, 
 and also consistent with our own prerogative or 
 our own character as a co-ordinate branch of the 
 Congress of the United States? 
 
 You will see, Mr. President, that instead of un¬ 
 dertaking to arrange the salaries ourselves, which 
 is an impossibility, If we were to try It at thi3 
 period of the session, instead of taking these sal¬ 
 aries from the House of Representatives and 
 changing the law, we say to them, “Let the 
 whGle subject be revised, and whatever ahall be 
 the judgment of Congress upon that revision, the 
 report being made on the first day of the next 
 session, that shall be the law and that shall' be 
 the compensation.” Provision is made in this 
 proposition to the end that all persons in the 
 civil service shall take notice of the fact that we 
 are revising the salaries, and if they continue in 
 office up to the time when the change is made the 
 changed compensation shall be that which they 
 shall receive. 
 
 If more can be done consistent with the integ¬ 
 rity of this body, let some man here proclaim it. 
 So far as I am concerned, with every disposition 
 to make houorable and just concessions to the 
 House of Representatives, and only anxious to 
 uard against the perils of an assumption which 
 enies to the Senate of the United States the 
 rights of a co-ordinate branch of the Government 
 on questions of this sort, 1 have done the utmost 
 in my power to conciliate and to concede every¬ 
 thing tnat would bring us to a conclusion. 
 
 So much for the first part. The next proposi¬ 
 tion was the reduction of the numerical force. 
 The House of Representatives propose to reduce 
 that force twelve hundred. I appeal to my asso¬ 
 ciates on the committee if they do not believe we 
 all acted In perfect, good faith and with a desire 
 to meet the House of Representatives at the very 
 lowest figure consistent with the public service. 
 The committee came to the conclusion that some¬ 
 thing like a third of the proposed reduction was 
 all that the public service would bear without 
 being crippled. I desire that the Senate should 
 understand how we got at that. It was by no 
 guess. In the first place this committee has some 
 experience on this subject. Year after year since 
 the war was over, since it became necessary to 
 curtail the ‘expenditures of the Government, it 
 has been our annual, obvious, and exigent neces¬ 
 sity to examine into this service in detail. We 
 think we know something about it; but we are 
 not apt scholars, perhaps. However, with that 
 knowledge which we have, we made application 
 to the beads of the Departments and Bureaus 
 having this great duty in charge, requiring them 
 to institute a careful Inspection into the whole 
 service and to report to the committee the lowest 
 figure to which that service could he reduced with 
 a view of meeting the House of Representatives 
 as far as was practicable, consistent with the pub¬ 
 lic welfare. 
 
 Thereby we reached the conclusion previously 
 
y A 
 
 3 
 
 n 
 
 ! 
 
 3 
 
 Jr 
 
 % 
 
 / 
 
 stated. But hero is the disagreement. The bills 
 must be passed in some way ny some mutual con¬ 
 cession. The House of Representatives stands 
 on a reduction of twelve hundred, which is one 
 fourth of the entire service, and the Senate on its 
 judgment, backed by the authorities at the head 
 of this service, stands on one fourth of that. What 
 is to be done? This last preposition meets the 
 House of Representatives half way. Why? It is 
 better that the public service should sutler some¬ 
 what than to encounter the perils which will come 
 from a disagreement on this subject; and there¬ 
 fore, although it is the judgment of your confer¬ 
 ees that this concession will to some extent injure 
 the public service, will involve a good deal of dif¬ 
 ficulty first and last, yet on the whole it is best to 
 make’ that concession, distributing it. carefully 
 over the various departments, and take the conse’- 
 quences, whatever they are. How is that received? 
 Absolutely rejected. The Senate will judge what 
 is to be done after that.- 
 
 Now, just a word about, the difficulties in which 
 we are. It is said that we are dividing on a small 
 matter. Well, Mr. President. If you look at this 
 question of salaries as applicable to the clerks—-I 
 am not now speaking about the compensation of 
 tho Members of Congress; but. taking this rule 
 as it applies to the clerks, it is so small that it 
 seems to me standing by itself, it would be so im¬ 
 material—the mere dust in tho balance—that you 
 could hardly suppose the Congress of the United 
 States would accord it a moment’s consideration, 
 as surely they would not. Now, what is the trou¬ 
 ble? How much do Senators suppose is in contro¬ 
 versy on that simple question of salaries touching 
 the clerks? I see it is stated in the Record this 
 morning that it all amounts to only $250,030, or 
 less than $300,000. That shows how trivial a thing 
 it. is in the way of economy to touch those salaries; 
 and that show's how right we were in our belief 
 that the reduction of salaries fixed in 1854, when 
 the purchasing power of the dollar was twice what 
 it is now, particularly as applied to this city, Is 
 not the real point, and that this effort is not in the 
 interest of a just economy. I do not mean to im¬ 
 peach the motives of the House of Representa¬ 
 tives. I have said heretofore and J. repeat now 
 that they think this can be done. I give them all 
 credit; but I do not believe it ought to be done, 
 nor do I believe it can be proved to anybody that 
 a crusade upon salaries fixed in 1864 under those 
 circumstances and never touched by the party in 
 power down to this day is a ma tter of public ne¬ 
 cessity, or that there is any public justice in the 
 attempt to raid upon the cierks in these depart¬ 
 ments for any such purpose. It is too Insignificant 
 altogether for the consideration of statesmen. 
 
 Now let us see the order of events by which it 
 comes to pass. The first event of which this is the 
 outgrowth was the attempt of a committee to 
 gather unto itself all the power of legislation upon 
 an appropriation bill. There is where it began; 
 and only in this light can you see the significance 
 of what has been attempted, and only in this light 
 can you see the Importance ©f performing our 
 duty to this Senate to-day and to the country to¬ 
 day on the whole question ©f the salaries. 
 
 I)o not understand that I am here to invoke the 
 Senate of the United States to stand firm as to 
 the change of a salary of a clerk from $1,400 to 
 $1,360. That is not a subject of very great gravity 
 in my mind, but the principle that Hes behind it, 
 the authority that demands the right to do it as 
 against the Senate, covers the whole field of leg¬ 
 islation and. annihiJatestbe Senate of the United 
 States in principle. That Is what it is. Now let 
 us follow this out a little and we shall see the 
 consequence of this change which we resist, of 
 this undertaking to tell the Senate of the United 
 States how much shall be appropriated and what 
 laws shall be changed. Uet us see what has been 
 done on the line of the change of the public ser¬ 
 vice through a Committee of Appropriations sim¬ 
 ply, whose funotions are rather administrative 
 than legislative. This Is not the only instance. 
 Other things in their order came up on other 
 bills. 
 
 On the bill appropriating for the Army is a re¬ 
 organization of the whole Army of the United 
 States, a thing so delicate, a thing so compli¬ 
 cated, a thing so critical in all its relations, as 
 was well explained by my honorable friend from 
 
 Illinois, the chairman of the Military Committee, 
 [Mr. Ho»an,1 that it would take months of the 
 time of those best acquainted with the subject to 
 comprehend it; and yet the whole thing is pro¬ 
 posed to be done upon an appropriation bill. And, 
 Mr. President, just in harmony with the purpose— 
 just in harmony with the act—for I will not talk 
 of motives or purposes—what do you find? It is 
 proclaimed that the army is altogether out of 
 place in our system. Yes, sir; that has gone to 
 the country absolutely that the Army of the 
 United States is utterly out of place in our sys¬ 
 tem, and one honorable gentleman has said here 
 or somewhere else that he believes it is not only 
 useless but on the whole it is pernicious In this 
 country; that all we needed, he believed, was 
 about three regiments of cavalry, and those snou Id 
 be under the direction of the' Interior Depart¬ 
 ment, to guard the frontiers against the Indians. 
 See what a predicament we should he in. Abolish 
 all the Army except three regiments and cover 
 them into the Interior Department; and then 
 abolish the Indian Bureau and cover that into 
 the Army! That is the condition In which these 
 bills come to us. 
 
 Then, following out the same policy, you had a 
 reorganization of the Navy to some extent, and 
 then you had an abolition, absolute and unquali¬ 
 fied, of the Indian Bureau, and then you had a 
 repeal of th« enforcement act. Think of that! 
 You had a repeal on an appropriation bill 
 of the enforcement act and of the election 
 laws, and in consequence of that, of course you 
 had a large reduction of the expenditures neces¬ 
 sary for the maintenance of those acts. 
 
 Then again, as if the extravagance of the Gov¬ 
 ernment was so extreme that no branch of the 
 public service could be omitted, you had an en¬ 
 tire revision of the diplomatic and consular rela¬ 
 tions of this country. The salaries of this service 
 were established In 1856, resting upon the basis of 
 1856. Now the expenses of living are increased 
 very largely over the expenses of living at that 
 day in all quarters of the world, and everybody 
 who knows much about our foreign affairs knows 
 that we pay our diplomats much less than any 
 nation at all comparable with us as a power. 
 That must all be revised and reduced, as if we 
 stood in the presence of some overpowering 
 exigency! 
 
 Mr. President, I have said all I care to say 
 j about, the pernicious policy of /undertaking to 
 j gather into an appropriation hill the legislative 
 i functions of Congress and to insist upon enforcing 
 i that upon the Senate of the United States. I 
 know, as everybody knows here, that we hake 
 been accustomed from time to time, on the one 
 side and on the other, to propose alterations in the 
 statutes of the country upon appropriation bills. 
 That bag been done, and that will be done, but 
 it always implies of course the consent of both 
 sides. Where an amendment of a statute is pro¬ 
 posed by one side and the other side dissents, the 
 party proposing is the Innovating party, and so 
 far as 1 know In the whole history of" the country 
 the Innovating party always retires. If the Sen¬ 
 ate, for instance, proposes a material change In 
 the law upon an appropriation bill or upon any 
 other bill, but particularly upon an appropriation 
 bill, which the House of Representatives does not 
 see fit to accede to, it is the bound en duty of the 
 Senate tp retire from it. The law still remains, 
 and is the law of the land, here as everywhere 
 else. That is all I meant to say, and that is all I 
 did say. 
 
 I hope, therefore, nay honorable friend from 
 Ohio will not think it is quite right for him to say 
 that I have arraigned the House of Representa¬ 
 tive* as a revolutionary body. Nothing was further 
 from my purpose, and nothing was further from 
 anything I said.. I repeat, Mr. President, that 
 we are not quarreling or dividing (dividing is a 
 better word, I withdraw the other) upon the ques¬ 
 tion of the salaries of fourth-class clerks, fifth- 
 class clerks, sixth-class clerks, or what not. We 
 are dividing upon the general power undertaken 
 to he exercised against the Senate to require it to 
 receive whatever appropriation the House of Rep¬ 
 resentatives sees fit to send to it, accompanied by 
 whatever change of the law it sees fit also to send. 
 
 Mr. President, I said that I believed the Com¬ 
 mittee on Appropriations on the part of the Sen- 
 
ate had from the beginning been. disposed to meet 
 the House of Representatives in a spirit of candor 
 and fairness, appreciating their motives and will¬ 
 ing to cut down the public service to the lowest 
 point practicable. That is my belief, and 1 think 
 the unanimous feeling of the Committee on Ap¬ 
 propriations. 
 
 I now purpose to tell the Senate exactly what 
 we have done and what has been realized, what 
 the House of Representatives has done for the 
 public service in the way of reduction and what 
 the amount ol reductions on the part of the Sen¬ 
 ate has been, and how the public service is left 
 by its action. 
 
 I hope the Senate will give me their attention 
 on this subject, because 1 think they will be sur¬ 
 prised to see how near the House of Representa¬ 
 tives and the Senate really stand upon the ques¬ 
 tion of the appropriations for this year. There is 
 an impression ki the country, as there is here and 
 in the House of Representatives, that the Senate 
 has stood obstructing the reductions of expendi¬ 
 tures. 
 
 The House of Representatives say to the coun¬ 
 try that we are supporting a very redundant ser¬ 
 vice ; that it is plethoric, that it needs to be 
 curbed, to be pruned. In many respects that is 
 true; hut I think I am authorized to say that a 
 wrong impression has prevailed about this ser¬ 
 vice, and it is time the Senate of the United 
 States addressed itself to a considers tion of the 
 subject. In the last three years we have reduced 
 this very service about which so much complaint 
 is made $33,000,000. 
 
 Whoever supposes that tho Senate ef the United 
 States has been redundant upon this question of 
 appropriations, year in and year out, has a total 
 misapprehension oi the labors and the perform¬ 
 ance of the Senate ©f the United States. 
 
 In the first place, and I mention it not particu¬ 
 larly to criticise, it is said that the House of Rep¬ 
 resentatives have reduced by their bills over the 
 appropriations of last year $89,000,000. I will have 
 very little to say about that, except that appar¬ 
 ently it would seem to be true; that is to say, as¬ 
 suming that the amount of the appropriations 
 last year was in round numbers $177,000,000, as it 
 was. My understanding of It, which 1 get from a 
 careful examination of the bills, is that the bills 
 as they passed the Senate reduced the appropri¬ 
 ations over those of last year $22,000,000. The 
 difference, then, between us would seem to be that 
 between $22,000,000 and $39,000^000. I do not speak 
 with entire accuracy, but 1 speak with approxi¬ 
 mate accuracy. How, how shall we account for 
 that difference? 
 
 In order to see whether that reduction of $39,000,- 
 000 is really what it seems to be, it is necessary 
 that there should bo some analysis of the appro¬ 
 priations on the part oi the House. In the appro¬ 
 priation bills of last year there was a deficiency 
 of $4,000,000, and in making this estimate of $39,- 
 000,000 the House inadvertently reckoned that in 
 as a reduction of the expenses of this year. Of 
 course,-That should not be counted in. That would 
 reduce their expenditure to $35,000,000. Then 
 they have re-appropriated balances, a thing quite 
 unprecedented as a general appropriation; that is 
 to say, starting upon a career of economy, start¬ 
 ing upon the idea of making a large reduction of 
 the public expenditures apparent to the public, 
 they count in, In the first* place, the deficiency 
 bill of last year, which does not belong to this 
 year at all because it is not a reduction anywhere; 
 then they re-appropriate balances, and they do 
 not count those as an appropriation at all: that is 
 to say, balances due from this service of the last 
 fiscal’ year. Instead of making a direct appro¬ 
 priation out of the Treasury they re-appropriate 
 that balance. 
 
 Mr. WEST. Without mentioning the amount. 
 
 l\Ir. MORRILL, of Maine. Without mention¬ 
 ing the amount. Tnat does not go in the appro¬ 
 priation, and their appropriation seems to be less 
 by so much as are those unexpended balances of 
 the last year. 1 have not gone into those. I do not 
 know but that some of my colleagues on the com¬ 
 mittee have; I have not. 1 have seen it esti¬ 
 mated elsewhere to have been five millions in all. 
 The whole ol the re-appropriation is put at five 
 millions. If you deduct that, then what? That 
 brings it down to $30,000,000; that is to say, they 
 
 bar# reduced tho appropriations tklg year from 
 those of last year $30,060,000. Then where do we 
 stand? The Senate have conceded to the House 
 of Representatives within $5,000,000. That is not 
 bad. I am inclined to think 1 shall surprise many 
 of my honorable friends here when 1 state this 
 fact. I am now undertaking to justify the action 
 of the Senate and tho Senate committee. 1 will 
 show you by and by that In some respects we have 
 done this very reluctantly. 1 think it has been 
 overdone; but it has been done in the spirit of 
 concession to the House of Representatives. 1 
 think the House ol Representatives have exacted 
 more than they were authorized to exact of us in 
 just public economy. 
 
 My judgment is that It will be found when the 
 year expires that by reason of these reductions 
 very large deficiencies will be required, and that 
 is the way they will be made up. We shall get 
 through this year; we shall get over this particu¬ 
 lar occasion, and when we come to reflective days 
 in the future we shall see that we have struck 
 the service down below its demands, and shall be 
 obliged to make appropriations for deficiencies to 
 no inconsiderable extent. 
 
 Now let us see how the House of Representa¬ 
 tives manage to reduce the expenditures—rather 
 the appropriations. That must be interesting to 
 us all. How do they make the appropriations of 
 this year fall so much below the appropriations 
 of last year? I have already remarked that in 
 the first pi&ce they got rid of the Indian Bureau; 
 in the second place they went at the foreign ser¬ 
 vice; in the third place*they went at the Army— 
 they did not want any Army; and in several other 
 particulars they Interfered with the publio ser¬ 
 vice. But ooming down now to that service which 
 is not fixed and certain by law. there is where the 
 innovation begins; and what did they do? 1 will 
 show you how they managed to reduce In the sun¬ 
 dry olvil bill. The sundry civil bill of last year 
 was $29,469,855. The House [ appropriated 
 $15,256,731.32 in this year’s bill. The sundry civil 
 bill is well understood by the Senate to mean that 
 which covers all the outlying service in great 
 variety, and the House ol Representatives reduced 
 that $i4,000.000. How were they able to do that? 
 Did they nave an intelligent appreciation, a 
 solicitous regard for the service? 
 
 Lot us see how they accomplished it. I will 
 give you some of the items. It will be too tedious 
 lor you to listen to a detail of the whole, but 1 
 will give you some as a sample. There are two 
 ways of reducing expenses. Everybody under¬ 
 stands that. If your Housekeeping has become 
 very expensive this year you will sell off your car¬ 
 riages, you will dismiss your servants, you will 
 break up a variety of things so as to curtail ex¬ 
 penses. Now the House of Representatives 
 adopted two methods: first, to curtail the salaries 
 in the way of compensation; secondly, to dispense 
 with certain branches of the public service. The 
 first item we come to, to account lor this reduc¬ 
 tion in the sundry civil bill, is in regard to navy 
 yards. We appropriate annually for the support 
 ol the navy yards from one million to a million 
 and a half of dollars ordinarily; latterly, a little 
 less, about a million or a million and a quarter. 
 
 Mr. THURMAN. Are those appropriations 
 made In the sundry civil bill? 
 
 Mr. MORRILL., of Maine. Yes, sir; in the sun¬ 
 dry civil bill. 
 
 Mr, THURMAN. Is that tho proper place for 
 
 them ? 
 
 Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Yes, sir; all that 
 outlying service goes into the sundry civil hill: it 
 is usual there, and there It was not found this 
 year, but was put in by the Senate. That service 
 covers all expenditures for all the navy yards. I 
 do not mean the appropriations for improvements, 
 but for the civil force for the maintenance of the 
 organization of the navy yards. What did they 
 do with that? Left it out altogether. 
 
 Oome to another item, tho question of fortifica¬ 
 tions. The estimate for fortifications this year 
 was $3,315,000. What did they do with that? Ap¬ 
 propriated $315,000;. and what about the $3,000,000 
 omitted? What do we do? We accepted their 
 action. Why? It was discretionary with the 
 House of Representatives whether they would do 
 it or not, and it was obvious enough that they did 
 not intend to do such a thing as that; and that is 
 
a question over which, either fersiKch of Congress 
 has control, particularly these outlying matters. 
 Will not the Senate perceive how easy it is to re¬ 
 trench, to reform and to reduce if you neglect the 
 publio service altogether in whole or In part? 
 That is the way to account for it. 
 
 Now, what is to he said about that? It is a pub¬ 
 lic service omitted, is i^wot? When does it come 
 back to us? Next year,'of course. It is a service 
 omitted; I speak'of the fortifications. As to these 
 navy-yards, does anybody suppose that they are 
 to exist without an appropriation? 
 
 Mr. SHERMAN. Is there no appropriation fer 
 repairs or painting, or anything of that kind? 
 
 Mr. S AEG ENT. Not a dollar. 
 
 Mr. MORRILL, ef Maine. Then, Mr. Presi¬ 
 dent, another item is the judicial expenses of the 
 Government, amounting to a little over $3,000,000 
 now. They have been increased of late years. 
 The judicial expenses of the Government have 
 been increased from various considerations. 1 
 will not stop to state them. They were appropri¬ 
 ated for last year at something' like three mil¬ 
 lions, perhaps a little over. Thereduction on that 
 was $834,250. Why? They do not want so much 
 judicial proceedings this year. That is obvious, 
 and 1 think 1 am authorized to make the remark 
 irorn the fact that they repealed certain laws 
 which involved large expenditures in the way of 
 judicial proceedings; and that may be consistent. 
 So you may go on and enumerate. If you are 
 disposed to give up the public service, there is no 
 end to your retrenchment. But the question for 
 the Senate of the United States is, What does 
 the public service demand? That is the question 
 that comes home to every one of us, and that ig 
 the paramount question wherever it arises. 
 
 Further on we come to the Court of Claims. 
 Has the Court of Claims any claims on Congress? 
 We established the Court of Claims; we invite 
 suitors there; we inspire the confidence that they 
 will have justice done them there; and the legiti¬ 
 mate inference would be that we would pay the 
 judgments if they are against us. Weli, they are 
 estimated to have rendered judgments to the 
 amount of $2,000,000 against the United States, 
 but not a farthing is appropriated in the bill, not 
 a penny. What becomes oi the Court of Claims 
 or what becomes of the judgments of suitors? 
 Their payment awaits what? It aw r aits the good 
 favor of the House of Representatives to appro¬ 
 priate money to pay the judgments which the 
 suitors having been invited into the court have 
 obtained against the Government of the United 
 States. That is $2,000,000 more. I believe in al¬ 
 most every instance those judgments have passed 
 through the Supreme Court of the United "States 
 and have the sanction of it. Now, it is an easy 
 thing to save money in that way. Any man 
 almost in his private affairs can be very saving if 
 he will pocket other people’s money and then 
 refuse to pay his debts and ne can get immunity 
 from it. That is one way to reduce expenditures 
 —an easy way! 
 
 Then again there is the item of public buildings, 
 and a saving of $i,987,160 is made over last year 
 for public buildings. Well, I agree that that is a 
 field where there is the exercise of a discretion 
 undoubtedly, and undoubtedly this is one of the 
 ears when a sound discretion should be exercised; 
 ut my own belief about it is, considering these 
 public buildings as a necessity, and considering 
 the money spent ip them an investment which is 
 not lost, that we have out .them down unreasona¬ 
 bly. Yet the House’thought otherwise, and the 
 Senate consented. I believe we objected in one 
 or two cases; St. Louis was one; we generally con¬ 
 curred with the House. What has been saved? 
 It is said, and the idea is given out, of large sav¬ 
 ing in public expenditures. Are we not going to 
 finish these buildings? Of course, we are. If we 
 do not finish them this year, is it money absolutely 
 saved? That depends upon whether you can sell 
 the buildings for what they cost, and want to sell 
 them; hut if they are to stand there to waste, it is 
 not money saved, it is not a just economy and a 
 just administration of public affairs at all. I am 
 accounting, remember now, Mr. President, for 
 the reductions this year from the expenditures 
 and appropriations last year. 
 
 Now I come to the Bureau of Engraving and 
 Printing, $800,000. That is saved by the ordinary 
 
 operations ®f th© publ!® nmvle*. W* a#t £«- 
 ing ae much printing, and 1 hope we shall do less. 
 The good day indicated by the resumption act, by 
 the abolition of note printing and the introduc¬ 
 tion of silver, enables us to do that. It will ena¬ 
 ble us to do many more things, and when it is 
 consummated our finances will be in a much bet¬ 
 ter condition than they are at present. 
 
 Another item is as to the surveys of the public 
 lands. Usually we appropriate something likea 
 million or a little more than a million dollars to 
 survey the public lands. Our domain is immense, 
 as you know. It has been considered a good policy 
 to survey the public lands. Heretofore I believe 
 without exception, during the whole series of 
 years that I know anything about the Senate, we 
 have thought it one of the proper things to be 
 done to open the public domain, to survey the 
 public domain, and last year we appropriated 
 about $1,000,000 for that purpose. This year it is 
 thought good economy to save $630,000 on that, 
 and so for that particular item there is that much 
 less than was appropriated last year. 
 
 But I shall weary the patience of th© Senate, I 
 am sure, if I goon with these items. 1 give you 
 these samples. This is the way these appropria¬ 
 tions have been reduced. In many instances 1 ap¬ 
 prove them; in many instances, 1 am sorry to say, 
 I do not to the extent proposed; but where the 
 service has been flexible, where the House of 
 Representatives has a right to exercise judgment, 
 in regard to that, in every instance, the Commit¬ 
 tee on Appropriations on the part of the Senate 
 have made ample concessions; and we are not 
 dividing on any of them. 
 
 Now let me refer to one other Item which is of 
 a class omitted entirely from the public service, 
 and'goes into this estimate. We appropriated 
 last year $1,060,800 toward the government of the 
 District of Columbia. I would not like to enter 
 upon that subject; but that we have some obliga¬ 
 tions to the District of Columbia I think is ap¬ 
 parent from the fact that it is the capital of the 
 nation; we have public buildings and grounds 
 here, we own in the way of valuation at least one 
 half of all the property here, and In the end we 
 shall have much more than one half of all that is 
 or ever will be here. We have an interest in it. 
 That we have no obligations toward it, for myself, 
 Ihave never supposed. I have believed that we 
 have obligations to it. There is an administra¬ 
 tion here, civil and political, and we owe some¬ 
 thing to it. The appropriations for it last year 
 were $1,060,003, not a penny this. What is to be 
 done? 1 appeal to the Senate now whether that 
 is a right thing to do in regard to the District of 
 Columbia. I appeal to the Senate whether they 
 believe there is a condition of things in this coun¬ 
 try which justifies the Congress of the United 
 States in neglecting altogether any contribution 
 to the government of the District of Columbia. 
 That is the way to save money apparently; that 
 is the w r ay to keep down an appropriation bill; 
 and does anybody suppose that the District of 
 Columbia will have no claim on us in the future? 
 Is there any Senator here who expects to be here 
 next December who does not expect to hear the 
 clamor come up from the District of Columbia for 
 help? Does anybody here believe that there is 
 any saving in leaving it out now? For myself I 
 do'not believe it. The Senate did non-coneur in 
 this matter so far as to appropriate $500,000, the 
 fate of which 1 have not learned; but I have said 
 sufficient upon that branch of the subjeot. 
 
 1 wish now to say one thing more as to what 
 the Senate has done approximately, and I shall 
 relieve the patience of the Senate. I think it 
 necessary that 1 should inform the Senate, 
 because we are supposed to have been a little 
 disposed to hold hack from what the House of 
 Representatives has done in a spirit of economy. 
 
 I have already stated that the sundry civil ap¬ 
 propriation bill last year was $29,000,000 in round 
 numbers. The House made it $15,000,000 this year 
 in round numbers, and the Senate made it $19,000,- 
 000. The Senate you will see appropriates $10,- 
 000,000 less than it did last year. On what ground 
 do they do that? It will he said at once, “on the 
 ground that you are not so expensive this year;” 
 and therefore it becomes neoessary for us to con¬ 
 sider the elements that go into this reduction of 
 
tk« Senate bilt f r*m $29J,$W,(K# te & 
 
 reduction of $io,ooe,ooo. 
 
 Without specifying details, seeing the purpose 
 of the House of Representatives * to make the 
 greatest possible economy in their judgment, and 
 being disposed to meet the House of Representa¬ 
 tives" upon that basis, which I have already con¬ 
 sidered somewhat at lengt h in stating their side of 
 it, we have reduced the public service beyond what 
 we believe it ought to be. That is the wav to account 
 for it-, and that is the way it stands. I will enu¬ 
 merate some of the branches of the service where 
 we have made concessions which will ha ve to be 
 made good by an appropriation by a. deficiency 
 lull next year as certain as the service exists. 
 
 The revenue-cutter service has been reduced 
 $250,000. 1 do not think it ought to be reduced a 
 dollar. It is that sort of service that has a per¬ 
 fect establishment. You cannot reduce it without 
 injuring its efficiency. But we yielded to that. 
 
 Take the judicial expenses of the Government, 
 $83S.OOO reduction. Upon any basis that we know 
 anything about, upon the representation of the 
 Department of Justice, the appropriation is too 
 low; but between this ana December what they 
 have got is enough, and when December comes 
 the Department of Justice will raise its voice to 
 justice for its needs, and a deficiency bill will sup¬ 
 ply what we now leave out. 
 
 Now as to the public buildings; we put them in 
 last year and would have been glad to put them 
 in this year; but out of deference to the House we 
 agreed to leave them out. 
 
 Then you come to the Washington Aqueduct, 
 -•790,000; and then to the District of Columbia, 
 $1,060,000, to which I have already referred: we 
 leave that out except as to $500,000, the fate of 
 which, I say, we do not know. 
 
 In this way it will be seen that I explain on, be¬ 
 half of the Committee on Appropriations or the 
 •'ena te how it is that we consent to reduce the 
 appropriations in the sundry civil bill from $29,- 
 000,000 to $19,000,000, and are still perfectly con¬ 
 sistent with the idea that the public service is not 
 what it is supposed to have been. 
 
 One other observation and I shall have done, 
 it is said that what we have witnessed since this 
 Congress began is all in the interest of an exigent 
 public necessity; that the deficiency of our reve¬ 
 nue estimates demands all that is being done and 
 much more besides. I think it was enunciated 
 (>n the floor of the Senate in that kind of emphasis 
 which I was complained of exercising by my hon¬ 
 orable friend from Ohio, [Mr. Thurman,]—I 
 would remind him that he sometimes gets cm-' 
 piiatic—that it was obvious that we must retrench, 
 or tax, or borrow to preserve the public credit. 
 It was a phrase so compact and so easy of trans¬ 
 portation that it went everywhere; and particu¬ 
 larly as it went from the lips of my honorable 
 Inend at the time it did, it made an impression 
 all over the country that we were absolutely in a 
 dilemma where we must either tax or borrow 
 
 | money, or must do some extraordinary thing in 
 j regard to expenditures. Of course i make no ob¬ 
 jection to the emphasis of my honorable friend, 
 but to the general statement I do. 
 
 Now vrbat is the fact? Tbe late Secretary of 
 the Treasury in his report told us that the re¬ 
 ceipts for the next year would be equal to all tbe 
 obligations of the Government, including the 
 sinking fund. I know, in answer to that, it will 
 be said that since that time there has been a fall¬ 
 ing oflin the customs revenue. That is true; but 
 bow much? Not. above $6,000,000. And do those 
 who reckon in that way know that the balances 
 saved from the appropriations of the last year 
 nearly meet the deficiencies up to this time? That 
 is never taken into account; nobody has even ob¬ 
 served that soTar as I know. Ah, it may be said 
 that we appropriated extravagantly last year. 
 No, not at all. Under the present accountability 
 of the Departments it has become the policy of 
 Congress, and no sounder policy ever did exist, to 
 say to these Departments, “You shall not spend 
 one dollar for anything except for that lor which 
 it was specifically appropriated.” Therefore, it 
 will be seen that It has become the necessity of 
 Congress to appropriate amply for the service, 
 and the balance goes into the’public Treasury’ 
 That accounts for the latitude in some of the 
 branches where appropriations have been made. 
 But what has been the result? The accounta¬ 
 bility under the act of 1870 has become so strict 
 and so exacting that whoever is disposed to read 
 the estimates, the appropriations, and tbe ex¬ 
 penditures of the Government, can tell what they 
 are for each year with as much certainty as he 
 can tell the state of his own private account, 
 unless there is fraud and forgery in the exhibit. 
 Now what I mean to say is that the expenditures 
 of this year fall short of last year over $6,000,000. 
 
 As to next year, the latest estimate that I 
 know anything of from tbe Treasury is: From 
 customs, $150,000,000; from internal revenue, $122,- 
 000,000; from miscellaneous sources, $19,000,900; 
 making $291,000,000 in all. If those receipts are 
 to be realized, and they stand as against $303,- 
 000,000 last year, then the revenues of this Gov¬ 
 ernment are ample for all its purposes. Of 
 course, it does not lie in human wisdom to say 
 with entire accuracy whether that will be so or 
 not. General causes operate upon our customs 
 receipts and upon our internal revenue; but the 
 probability, from the best, information the De¬ 
 partment has upon the subject, is that our rev¬ 
 enues from all sources will amount to $291,000,- 
 000, which will be, according to the appropria¬ 
 tions of this year, ample to meet all the obliga¬ 
 tions of the Government, including the sinking 
 fund. 
 
 And, now, Mr. President, I have done. Thank¬ 
 ing the Senate for their great consideration and 
 patience, apologizing u> them for the severe in¬ 
 fliction I fearl have put upon them, and knowing 
 that I am not likely to repeat it, I take my leave 
 of the subject and the Senate. 
 
 I 
 
•XHok APioscmracmMSiD skad.look. 
 
 SPEECH OF HON. O. t>. MOETON. 
 
 JXTXi -ST 7, 1378. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, the principle 
 involved In the discussion this morning’ and in the 
 apprehended dead-lock between the two bodies is 
 one of the utmost importance to the independence 
 and character of this body, and it is one which, if 
 carried out, involves the existence of any form of 
 government, t wo Houses Instead of one consti¬ 
 tuting its legislative department. Has the House 
 of Representatives a right to say to the Senate, 
 “We will refuse to make appropriations which 
 the general laws of the land require unless you 
 will consent to the alteration of those laws; we 
 will refuse to make an appropriation unless you 
 consent that some law, which is obnoxious to one 
 party or to the House, shall be changed or re¬ 
 pealed?” That proposition involves the principle 
 of nullification, pure and simple; it involves the 
 precise position taken by the State of South Caro¬ 
 lina in 1831 and 1832. South Carolina then said to 
 the Government of the United States: “Thetaritf 
 law is unconstitutional, and it is obnoxious; unless 
 ou repeal that law we will nullify it.”' Now, 
 as the House of Representatives on the one 
 hand, or the Senate on the other, a right to say 
 to the other House, “A general law is obnoxious 
 or it is unconstitutional in our view; unless you 
 consent to repeal or to modify that law we will 
 nullify it by withholding all the appropriations 
 necessary, to carry into operation the existing 
 law?” Whenever either House takes that posi¬ 
 tion, it is nulithcation; it is revolution, and you 
 can make nothing else out of it. 
 
 Mr. BOGY. That is to say, you mean that the 
 Senate nullities the action of the House. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. No, sir; X say if either Horse 
 puts itself into' that position, that is nullih v. Jon. 
 For example, here is a general law on the subject 
 of the tariff! Suppose the Senate should say to 
 the House—to avoid giving odense I will put it 
 In that form—suppose the Senate says to the 
 House, “This tariff law is wrong,” and, when the 
 appropriation bill comes, attaches an amendment 
 to it repealing certain sections of the tariff law, 
 the House does not agree to that amendment, 
 therefore the Senate says, “If you do not consent 
 to this modification of the tariff law we will with¬ 
 hold all appropriations for custom-houses, for the 
 collection of the revenue: we will nullify the 
 whole law on the subject of collecting duties upon 
 imports.” If the Senate puts itself in that posi¬ 
 tion, the Senate is a revolutionary and a nullify¬ 
 ing body, and cannot justify its action for one 
 moment; or if the House puts itself in that posi¬ 
 tion, it assumes the attitude of a revolutionary or 
 nullifying body. 
 
 Take, for example, the Army bill. Suppose 
 the House attaches to the Army bill a provision 
 repealing an election law% a law providing for'the 
 purity of elections; the Senate will not consent to 
 the repeal oi the election law; the House says, 
 therefore, “We will make no appropriations for 
 the Army.” It says to us, “Repeal the election 
 law or we will strike down the Army.” That is 
 no legitimate argument. Neither House has a 
 ri^ht to do anything oi that kind; that is the end 
 of a government by two Houses instead of one. 
 We should then be driven to go back to the old 
 Roman Senate, or to the French system, and have 
 but one House instead of having two. If the 
 House says: “You like the election law so well 
 you will not repeal it, we will destroy the Army; 
 take your choice; take your choice between giv¬ 
 ing up the election law or giving up the Army 
 entirely;” the House has no right to say that to 
 us; it is the end of governinontif itdoes. Whether 
 the election law is right or not is a question 
 which the House has a right to present as a sepa¬ 
 rate proposition; it is a fair matter of discussion 
 between the two Houses. -If we cannot agree to 
 repeal or amend it, the law must stand. But 
 when the House comes in and says, “Repeal that 
 or we will destroy the Army,” that it is Illegiti¬ 
 mate, it is revolutionary. It is the old argument, 
 “Your money or your life.” 
 
 So iu regard to the Treasury Department. The 
 House says, “The Treasury Department is one- 
 half too large; it has too many employees; now. 
 agree to reduce them one-half or ws wiil destroy] 
 tf~\* s« m.U rwtoo to 
 
 any appropriations at all for the Department,' 
 Has the House a right to do that ? As to whether 
 ?v5 e ^; era ^ a,,r P rov *ding for the organisation of 
 the Treasury Department ought to be amende.; 
 is a lair question for debate; but if it is not 
 amended, it must stand; and until it is changed it. 
 is the duty of both. Houses to appropriate ac¬ 
 cording to the requirement® of that law. But 
 suppose the House says, “The Treasury Depart 
 rnent is too large; it is too costly; reduce it one- 
 half, or we will destroy it.” Is that legitimate; 
 is that constitutional? Oaa you carry on thi-i 
 Government upon that principle at all? Cer- 
 t&inlv not. 
 
 Taae the case of the Army. Suppose It is ?>ru 
 posed to reduce the Army on® half. We do m,< 
 agree to that. The House says, “Then we will ■ 
 destroy the Army altogether; take one half or 
 take none; you must either take half a loaf of 
 bread or take none.” Suppose they should say 1“ 
 regard to the Navy, “The Navy is too large by 
 one half; reduce it one half, or you shall have no 
 Navy at all; we will make no appropriation for a 
 single ship; we will tie them up at the docks to 
 rot, or we will anchor them out in the stream anti 
 let them sink gradually.” I therefore appeal to* 
 the Senate upon the principle involved here. I 
 say that sort of threat, “Yield to our views about 
 the election law, yield to our views about the size 
 of the Army, yield to our views about the cost oi 
 tne Treasury Department, yieid to our views upon 
 this subject and that, or if you do not do it we will 
 destroy the Government,” that argument is Hie. 
 gitimate, it is unconstitutional. 
 
 If there is a proposition on an appropriation bill 
 to change a general law,if both Houses do not con¬ 
 cur in it, then tne House proposing it should 
 yield. In other words, they have no right under 
 the Constitution and under their oaths to with¬ 
 hold the necessary appropriations because the 
 change of a law outside of these appropriations is 
 not conceded. We are now brought face to faco 
 with that principle. If it is proper for the House 
 to say to as “Reduce your Army one half or wo 
 will destroy it,” they then put us in that trying- 
 position, and vre shonid be required to argue with 
 ourselves, “Well, must we yield up our convic¬ 
 tions in order to save a part of the Army?” Has 
 one House the right to put the other in that posi¬ 
 tion ? Suppose the House says to us, “Yield up 
 your convictions about the election law,” an out- 
 aide thing altogether, affecting other matters; 
 “yield that up or we will take sway from you tko 
 Army, we will make no appropriations for it at 
 all, and of course it must fail to pieces.” (Jan the 
 House say that inside of constitutional govern¬ 
 ment ? I say not. Beware, then, of the prece¬ 
 dent you set in this matter. If one House can 
 nullify a law because the other House does not 
 consent to amend it, it is the end of a government 
 with two Houses. We should then come back to 
 one House only, where there can be no conflict oi 
 that kind. 
 
 It is, then, Mr. president, a sharp issue, and 
 there is no dodging it. The simple question is, 
 whether we shall be driven to a change oi gen¬ 
 eral legislation by the threat of destroying tha 
 Government, or of stopping the wheels of Gov¬ 
 ernment, or of stopping a particular depart¬ 
 ment in the Government.'' That is the whole ques¬ 
 tion. They can argue with us on general princi¬ 
 ples, persuade us that the thing is wrongj that it 
 ought to be changed; but to say to u.g, “If you do 
 not agree to what we want, then we will destroy 
 the whole thing,” is no argument addressed to 
 our reason. It Is simpiy an argument addressee! 
 to our fears. We are, then, put in the position oi 
 saying we would rather yield on this subject than 
 have the Government stop; we would rather sur¬ 
 render our judgment than to lose the Army or 
 lose the Navy, or stop the wheels of the Treasury 
 or any other department of the Government, it 
 does seem to me that no Senator can consent for 
 one moment to the recognition of that principle. 
 Wnenever the argument of destruction is ad¬ 
 dressed to us we should resist it, and we should 
 say to those who oflor that argument and take 
 mat position, “Take the consequences of your 
 revolutionary md unconstitutional