« PreviousContinue »
posed of contiguous territory and containing as nearly as prac. ticable an equal number of inhabitants. The said districts shall be equal to the number of the Representatives to which such State may be entitled in Congress, no one district electing more than one Representative.
In case of an increase in the number of Representatives which may be given to any State under this apportionment such additional Representative or Representatives shall be elected by the State at large, and the other Representatives by the districts now prescribed by law until the legislature of such State in the manner herein prescribed shall redistrict such State, and if there be no increase in the number of Representatives from a State the Representatives thereof shall be elected from the districts now prescribed by law until such State be redistricted as herein prescribed by the legislature of said State.—February 7, 1891; Stat. L., v. 26, p. 735.
The following table shows the apportionment of Representatives to the several States for the Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congresses, respectively:
Fifty Fiftysecond. third.
Fifty. Fiftysecond. third.
9 Nebraska ...........
8 South Dakota....
Toto to ne znanost Done!
The apportionment for the Fifty-fourth Congress is the same as that for the Fifty-third.
APPROPRIATION BILLS. The style and title of all acts making appropriations for the support of the Government shall be as follows:
An act making appropriations (here insert the object] for the year ending June 30 (here insert the calendar year).-R. S., sec. 11. .
All motions or propositions involving a tax or charge upon the people; all proceedings touching appropriations of money, or bills making appropriations of money or property, or requiring such appropriation to be made, or authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or releasing any liability to the United States for money or property, shall be first considered in a Committee of the Whole, and a point of order under this rule shall be good at any time before the consideration of a bill has commenced.—Rule XXIII, clause 3.
An appropriation bill baving been considered in Committee of the Whole and recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations, and being by the latter committee again reported to the House, without additional items of appropriation, is not subject to the point that it should be considered in Committee of the Whole.-Congressional Record, 1, 50, p. 1793.
Bills raising revenue and general appropriation bills have precedence in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. See Rule XXIII, clause 1.
Unfinished business, if any, having been disposed of, motions shall be in order, as follows:
First, That the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to consider, first, bills raising revenue and general appropriation bills, and then other business on its Calendar.—Rule IXIT, first and second paragraphs, clause 6.
In the early Congressional legislation, appropriations for the several branches of the public service were made in an act entitled “ An act making appropriation for the support of the Governinent.” The practice now is, and has been for many years, to make such appropriations in separate general appropriation bills, now thirteen in all.
Six of these, the legislative, executive, and judicial; the fortification, the pension, the sundry civil, the deficiency, and the District of Columbia, are reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The agricultural, by the Committee on Agriculture; the Army and the Military Academy, by the Committee on Military Affairs; the Navy, by the Committee on Naval Affairs; the Indian, by the Committee on Indian Affairs; the post-office, by the Committee on the Post-Office and PostRoads; the consular and diplomatic, by the Committee on For. eign Affairs, under the several provisions of Rule XI.
The river and harbor bill, while not classed as one of the general appropriation bills, has nearly the same privilege as the foregoing. Under clause 51, Rule XI, it may be reported at any time, which right carries with it the right of consideration when reported, and under clause 4, Rule XXIII, it has precedence of all bills except revenue and general appropriation bills.
A provision in the sundry civil appropriation bill, making appropriation for the improvement of rivers and harbors pursuant to contracts authorized by a river and harbor appropriation act, was held to be in order as within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.—Cong. Record, 2, 52, p. 1065. AMENDMENTS TO, AND PROVISIONS IN, CHANGING LAW, RETRENCH
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, unless in continuation of appropriations for such public works and objects as 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 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: Provided, That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the report of the committee or any joint commission authorized by law or the House Members of any such commission, having jurisdiction of the subject matter of such amendment, which amendment, being
germane to the subject matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures.—Rule XXI, clause 2.
The failure of Congress to appropriate money, in the appropriation act for the current fiscal year, for an object authorized by law does not repeal such law; and an amendment providing for such object is in order on an appropriation bill, notwithstanding its omission from the previous appropriation act.-Journal, 2, 45, p. 1005.
An amendment proposed to a Senate amendment increasing the amount carried by the latter is in order, although the Senate amendment provides for a work not previously authorized by law and is a proposition which would have been out of order if originally proposed in the House.-Congressional Record, 1, 18, p. 5146.
An amendment being submitted to the District of Columbia appropriation bill providing for the erection of buildings for a reform school in the District, and the question being submitted to the Committee of the Whole, it was decided that it was not a violation of clause 2, Rule XXI.-Congressional Record, 1, 52, p. 1686.
Question being on the passage of the District of Columbia appropriation bill, a motion to recommit with instructions to reduce the proportion of the fund appropriated from the public treasury from one-half, as provided in the bill, to one-fourth of the entire appropriation is in order; since the effect of the amendment if adopted would reduce the expenditure of public money, although not reducing the amount of the appropriation.—Journal, 1, 52, pp. 86,87.
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 would be to reduce expenditures.-Congressional Record, 1, 52, p. 1792.
An amendment to the pension appropriation bill providing that no fee shall be paid to a member of an examining board for services in which he did not actually participate is not subject to a point of order under this rule, since while changing existing law its effect is to reduce expenditures by decreasing compensation.-Congressional Record, 1, 52, p. 1792.
The following provision in the Army appropriation bill, namely, “That hereafter no money appropriated for army trans
portation shall be used in payment for the transportation of troops and supplies of the Army” over eertain lines of railroad which are indebted to the Goverument, was held subject to the point of order under this rule.-Cong. Record, 1, 52, p. 2282.
The decision in full is as follows:
The point of order made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crain) is against the second proviso on page 16 of the bill, which declares:
“That hereafter no money appropriated for army transportation shall be used in payment of the transportation of troops and supplies of the Army over any of the nonbonded lines owned, controlled, or operated by the Union Pacific Railway Company (including the lines of the Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway Company), or by the Southern Pacific Company over lines embraced in its Pacific system.”
Under the view taken by the Chair the relations between the Government and these railroad companies, as determined by the Supreme Court, or otherwise, can not affect the decision of this point of order.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Holinan) contends that this proposed new legislation is in order in an appropriation bill under the proviso of the second section of Rule XXI, which says:
“It shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the report of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of such amendment, which amendment being germane to the subject-matter of the bill shall retrench expenditures."
The Chair is of opinion that a motion of that kind should come officially from the committee having jurisdiction, and can not be brought before the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union as an integral part of an appropriation bill reported by the regular Committee on Appropriations. * The question then arises, is this proviso in order under the previous
paragraph of section 2, which allows legislation on appropriation bills changing existing law in three cases, first, such as, being germane to the subject-matter of the bill, retrench expenditures by the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States.
It is admitted that this provision does not apply, nor, on the other hand, does this proviso “reduce the compensation of persons paid out of the Treasury of the United States," as contemplated in the second case, but the point is made with considerable force-and upon that point the Chair confesses that his mind is not as clear as he would like it to be-that this is legislation coming under the third exception, in that it reduces the amount of money covered by the bill.
If it is such a provision, it is in order, and it is asserted by the chairman of the committee that that would be the effect of the provision. But the Chair is inclined to the opinion that such effect should not be inferred by way of argument, but should appear from the face of the bill itself. Now the Chair has no doubt that the committee, acting under the rules, in making an appropriation, can so limit that appropriation as to direct who shall