Ib.; J., pp. 560, 561.] [SAME DATE.] Numerous other amendments were declared out of order because they were private claims. Some of which were reported from standing committees. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 2537-2539.) Ib.; J., p. 561.] On motion by Mr. Iverson to amend the bill by inserting, [SAME DATE.] Sec. -. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $35,555.42, with interest at the rate of six per cent from the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, be appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to refund to the State of Georgia that sum paid by said State to Peter Trezvant, legal representative of Robert Farquhar, deceased, on account of supplies furnished by said Farquhar, to certain troops of said State during the revolutionary war: Provided, That it shall not appear that said State has already received a credit for the purchase of said supplies in any settlement or appropriation heretofore made by the United States. Mr. Hunter made a question of order whether the amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim; and The President (Mr. Stuart in the chair) decided that it was not in order, and said: "The Chair was about stating his views, and he will do so very briefly. The practice of the Senate has been to regard all claims from States as private claims, and to be acted upon as on the Private Calendar. The rule rejects all private claims except those which fall within these two classes-claims to carry out the provisions of an existing law, and claims to carry out a treaty stipulation. These are admissible upon general appropriation bills, notwithstanding they are private claims. The Chair does not see that the amendment presented falls within either of the exceptions, and therefore thinks it excluded by the rule." From this decision Mr. Iverson appealed. The question being put, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of of the Senate? it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 26, nays 15. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 2538, 2539.) 35th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 456, 457.] MARCH 3, 1859. On motion by Mr. Iverson, to amend the bill by inserting the following as an additional section: Sec. And be it further enacted. That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to pay, out of the judiciary fund heretofore appropriated for the Territory of Utah, such sum as may be found due to Messrs. Gilbert and Gerrish upon draft and certificate of Joseph L. Hayward, late marshal of Utah, not exceeding the sum of $24,658.97, which is the amount found due to said marshal upon the settlement of his accounts, and now standing to his credit in the Treasury, and that the same be charged to said marshal on the books of the Treasury. Mr. Hunter raised a question of order whether the amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim. The President (Mr. Stuart in the chair) decided that it was not in order. From this decision Mr. Iverson appealed and the Chair was sustained-yeas 26, nays 19. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1624, 1625.) 36th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 625, 626.] JUNE 12, 1860. The following amendment having been proposed by Mr. Simmons, from the Committee on Claims: That to provide for the faithful execution of the fourth article of the treaty with Great Britain of the ninth of August, eighteen hundred and forty-two, and to secure the releases mentioned in said treaty, the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed to pay out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Catharine C. Ward, of Roxbury, Massachusetts, and Laura A. Stebbins, of Bangor, Maine, each, the sum of $6,686.50; and to James A. Drew, of Chelsea, Massachusetts, and Rufus Mansur, of Houlton, Maine, each, the sum of $11,401; and to Edmund Munroe, of Boston, Massachusetts, the sum of $15,881.25; and to Benjamin Sewall, of said Boston, the sum of $5,293.75: Provided, That the said Ward, Stebbins, Drew, and Mansur, holding titles to the Eaton grant, etc., A question of order was raised, whether the amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim; and The President (Mr. Fitzpatrick) decided that the amendment was not in order. From this decision Mr. Iverson appealed; and On the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 26, nays 19. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 28592862.) 36th Cong., 2d sess.; J., pp. 285, 286.] FEBRUARY 22, 1861. On the question to agree to the following amendment reported by the Committee on Finance; after line 316, on page 14, insert: To pay to the city of Cleveland, Ohio, the special sewerage tax chargeable upon the customhouse property in that city, and for paving and improving the street in front of said customhouse, and grading, paving, and improving Water Street, in said city, in front of the lighthouse, as per account rendered by the city council of Cleveland, $2,745.75. On motion by Mr. Polk, to amend the reported amendment by inserting at the end thereof the following: For pay for paving the street in front of the customhouse in the city of Saint Louis, $1,500. A question of order was raised under rule 30 that it was a private claim. The president (Mr. Foster in the chair) decided that the amendment was not in order. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1116, 1119.) Ib.; J., p. 287.] [SAME DATE.] On motion by Mr. Bigler, from the Committee on Commerce, to amend the bill by inserting: For payment of balance due contractor for building the customhouse at Belfast and Ellsworth, Maine, $448.79. Mr. Douglas raised a question of order, whether the proposed amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim; and The President (Mr. Foster in the chair) decided that the amendment was not in order. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1122, 1123.) Ib.; J., pp. 293, 294.] FEBRUARY 23, 1861. Mr. Bragg, from the Committee on Public Lands, offered an amendment, proposing to reimburse all registers and receivers of district land offices in the United States who had employed clerks since the passage of the act of August 18, 1856, etc.; and A question of order was raised by Mr. Fessenden, whether the proposed amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim. The President (Mr. Foot in the chair) submitted the question of order to the decision of the Senate: Is the proposed amendment in order under the thirtieth rule? It was determined in the negative. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1136-1138.) Ib.; J., p. 294.] [SAME DATE.] On motion by Mr. Hale, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to amend the bill by inserting the following: Sec. -. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $12,000, deposited by Franklin Haven and his associates with the Post Office Department, required as indemnity for continuance of the Boston post office in its former locality, said post office having since been removed, be refunded to them, deducting therefrom the actual expense of one removal each way, not exceeding $600. A question of order was raised by Mr. Fessenden, whether the proposed amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim. The President (Mr. Foot in the chair) submitted the question of order to the decision of the Senate: Is the proposed amendment in order under the thirtieth rule? It was determined in the negative. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1138.) [SAME DATE.] Mr. Dixon, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, submitted the following amendment: at the end of the bill insert: Sec. -. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $100,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the purpose, be, and is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treas ury not otherwise appropriated, for the payment for marble finished or in preparation for the new customhouse at Charleston, South Carolina, under existing contracts with the Government; and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to pay such sum for such marble, or on account thereof, as shall be proportionate to its full value delivered under said contract. A question of order was raised by Mr. Polk, whether the proposed amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim. The President (Mr. Foster in the chair) submitted the question of order to the decision of the Senate; and, On the question, Is the proposed amendment in order under the thirtieth rule? it was determined in the negative; yeas 14, nays 25. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1141, 1142.) Ib.; J., p. 296.] [SAME DATE.] On motion by Mr. Bigler, from the Committee on Commerce, to insert a new section, proposing to relieve customs collectors from liability for moneys which may have been paid under protest as and for duties, and which have been placed to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States in pursuance of law, and Mr. Hale raised a question of order, whether the amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim. The President (Mr. Foster in the chair) submitted the question to the Senate, and the Senate determined the amendment not to be in order. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1142, 1143.) Ib.; J., p. 296.] [SAME DATE.] Mr. Sebastian, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, offered an amendment, to enable the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to adjust the accounts of Brigham Young, late governor of Utah Territory and ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs, for disbursements alleged to have been made by him on account of the Indian Service in said Territory, etc. Mr. Fessenden raised a question of order that it was in contravention of the thirtieth rule, being a private claim. The President (Mr. Foster in the chair) submitted the question to the Senate, and the Senate, by a vote of 24 to 11, decided the amendment was not in order. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1143, 1144.) Ib.; J., p. 304.] FEBRUARY 25, 1861. On motion by Mr. Dixon, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to amend the bill by inserting: Sec. And be it further enacted, That the sum of $75,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the purpose, be, and is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the payment for marble furnished or in preparation for the new customhouse at Charleston, South Carolina, under existing contract with the Government, and, etc. Mr. Pearce raised a point of order that it was obnoxious to Rule 30, being a private claim. The Senate decided the amendment was not in order by yeas 24 to nays 12. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1169–1171.) Ib.; J., p. 304.] [SAME DATE.] On motion by Mr. Lane, from the Committee on Public Lands, to amend the bill by inserting: And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to adjust and allow the actual expenses incurred by the registers of the land offices at Oregon City and Roseburg, Oregon, for clerical aid in said offices: Provided, The same shall not exceed $6,000, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. A question of order was raised by Mr. Hale, whether the proposed amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim. The President submitted the question of order to the decision of the Senate; and the Senate decided the amendment not in order, by yeas 24, nays 11. (See Cong. Globe, p. 1171.) Ib.; J., p. 305.] [SAME DATE.] On motion by Mr. Bigler, from the Committee on Commerce, to amend the bill by inserting: Sec. -. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to settle and adjust the accounts of the contractors for the erection of the United States marine hospital at New Orleans, Louisiana, and to pay the said conractors, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the amount that may be found to be justly due to them, under and in consequence of said contract. A question of order was raised by Mr. Pearce, whether the proposed amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule. The President submitted the question of order to the decision of the Senate: Is the proposed amendment in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim? It was determined in the negative. (See Cong Globe, pp. 1171, 1172.) Ib.; J., pp. 308, 309.] [SAME DATE.] Mr. Simmons proposed an amendment to pay certain persons named certain sums of money for lands deeded by them in the execution of a treaty with Great Britain. A question of order was raised by Mr. Grimes, whether the proposed amendment was in order under the thirtieth rule. The President (Mr. Polk in the chair) submitted the question of order to the decision of the Senate; and, On the question, Is the proposed amendment in order under the thirtieth rule, being a private claim? it was determined in the negative; yeas 16, nays 23. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1178, 1179.) 42d Cong., 2d sess.; J., p. 992.] JUNE 7, 1872. The sundry civil bill being under consideration, the question was, to agree to the following reported amendment: To enable the Secretary of the Navy to pay the liquidated debt now due the Corliss Steam Engine Company for steam machinery furnished under contract with the Navy Department, $257,688. A point of order was raised, under Rule 30, that the amendment was for a private claim and not in order; and the question being submitted to the Senate, "Is amendment in order?" it was decided in the negative. (See Cong. Globe, pp. 4350-4352.) 50th Cong., 1st sess.; J., p. 1227.] AUGUST 1, 1888. The sundry civil appropriation bill being under consideration, an amendment to pay for the removal and subsistence of those members of the Eastern band of Cherokees who have removed themselves, etc., and a point of order was made that the amendment was a private claim and not in order under fourth clause, Rule 16. The President pro tempore (Mr. Ingalls) sustained the point of order, and the appeal therefrom was laid on the table; yeas 31, nays 8. (See Cong. Record, pp. 7119, 7122.) 54th Cong., 1st sess.; J., pp. 264, 265.] APRIL 25, 1896. On motion by Mr. Bate (on behalf of Mr. Harris) to amend the sundry civil bill by inserting a provision for the payment of certain claims reported by the Court of Claims under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883, Mr. Allison raised a question of order, viz: That the object of the amendment was to provide for the payment of private claims, and therefore it was not in order under fourth clause of Rule 16; and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Chilton) sustained the point of order. (See Cong. Record, pp. 4409-4412, 4415.) H. R. 18282, making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, and for other purposes, being under consideration in the Committee of the Whole, the reported amendment on page 35, after line 2, was read, as follows: Immigration Commission: For the expenses of the commission provided for in section 39 of the act of February 20, 1907, entitled “An act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States," $125,000, to be available until December 5, 1910: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used for field work, nor shall any member of said commission be entitled to or receive any salary as such member after March 1, 1910. And the said commission shall complete its entire work and make its final report and the commission shall cease on the first Monday of December, 1910. Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I see that that provision which is inserted as an amendment in the pending bill appears in the bill as presented to the House of Representatives, where it went out on a point of order. I do not see why the same point of order made in the other House would not be well taken in the Senate, based on the ground that it is an appropriation made for which there is no authority in existing law. I am disposed, at all events, at this time to raise that point of order against the provision just read. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, the point of order made in the other House against this provision as it was reported by the House Committee on Appropriations was, under the House rule, that it was changing existing law, which was unquestionably obnoxious to the House rule. Our rule is as to general legislation. I do not think this is general legislation. It is a mere continuance to supply a deficiency of work which was authorized by previous legislation. Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I make this single observation, that it is rather a splitting of hairs to say that there is a difference between enacting legislation in a given case and making an appropriation in a given case, where there is no provision of law authorizing it or to meet any demand of existing law, and to say that this is not general legislation. If there is no law on the subject, if there is no legal demand, no legal authority for the appropriation, then it is new legislation and, in substance and effect, is general legislation. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gallinger in the chair). Does the Senator from Missouri make the point of order against the amendment? |
