and who shall not be its beneficiaries; that in making appropriations for the transportation of the Army for the next fiscal year it can fail or refuse to make appropriations for its transportation over the particular lines mentioned in the bill; just as it might fail or refuse, in its judgment, to make appropriations for the transportation of the artillery, or of the cavalry, or of the infantry branch of the service.

But on examining the proviso in the bill the Chair finds that it is something more than a limitation upon the appropriation made in this appropriation bill, for it proposes to make a permanent law, the language of the proviso being:

"Provided, That hereafter no money appropriated for army transportation shall be used in payment of transportation of troops and supplies." And because it proposes a permanent provision of law, and not a limitation upon a present appropriation, the Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of order.—Congressional Record, 1, 52, p. 2282.

An amendment providing that no money appropriated in the pending bill should be applied in a certain lawful way, e. J., the transportation of troops on certain railroads, was held in order, as being merely a limitation of expenditure, and indeed. not a change of existing law.-Congressional Record, 1, 52, p. 2282.

A provision in the Navy appropriation bill for additional ships was held to be in order, as being in continuation of a public object already in progress, namely, the maintenance of the Navy.

*

If the object is a public object and it is already in progress then there need not be any previous legislation authorizing it. The Chair believes that the construction of a navy is a public object or a public work *. It may be said also that the proposed amendment providing money for the construction of vessels does not change existing law and is not prohibited by law. Mr. McCreary, chairman. Congressional Record, 2, 49, Feb. 26, 1887.

Similar decisions were rendered by Mr. Cox, chairman, and Mr. Butterworth, chairman, in the Fiftieth and Fifty-first Congresses, respectively.

The point of order, being made against a provision for a new ship in the Navy appropriation bill, was overruled by Mr. Shively, chairman, in deference to the precedents, although he inclined to dissent from the reasoning of the previous decisions.

In the Military Academy appropriation bill a provision for "fireproof building on site of public grounds at West Point"

is within the purview of the rule. The construction of a building is an incident to the maintenance of the Academy itself, the object being already in progress, the main object contemplated not only by the bill but by the very institution of the Academy itself.-Mr. Cox, chairman. Congressional Record, 2, 50, p. 717.

It was held, on the other hand, that an appropriation for a light station and for the construction of a new steam tender, the same not having been previously specifically authorized by law, was subject to the point of order under a similar rule.— Mr. Reagan, chairman. Congressional Record, 1, 49, p. 5978.

A commission, acting under authority of Congress, having selected a site for a dry dock and navy-yard, but the work not having been authorized or actually in progress, a provision for the erection of such dry dock, etc., was held to be in conflict with the rule, and stricken from the bill on a point of order. The intent of the rule, is to exclude from general appropriation bills such subject-matters as involve new and original subjects of discussion and new objects of appropriation.-Congressional Record, 1, 52, p. 3261.

An appropriation for a light-house having been made in an appropriation bill in a previous year and remaining wholly unexpended, an amendment to the current sundry civil appropriation bill reappropriating the unexpended fund and providing that an additional appropriation be made for such light-house is new legislation and subject to the point of order under this rule.-Congressional Record, 1, 52, p. 4228.

A provision in the sundry civil appropriation bill "that all articles imported for the use of the Light-House Establishment shall be admitted without the payment of duty" is subject to the point of order that it changes law and is not within the exceptions mentioned in the rule.-Congressional Record, 1, 2, p. 4232.

An amendment to an appropriation bill fixing a minimum compensation to an officer of the Government is subject to the point of order that it changes existing law without reducing expenditures.-Record, 1, 52, p. 4337.

An item in the sundry civil appropriation bill providing for the cleaning and reissue of minor coins was held to be authorized by existing law by virtue of an item in a previous appro

priation act authorizing the cleaning and reissue of minor coins now in, or which may hereafter be received," etc.-Record, 1,52, p. 4384. An item in the same bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury "to recoin any and all the uncurrent minor coins now in the Treasury" was held to be a change of existing law and in conflict with the rule, although a provision identical in terms was contained in appropriation acts for the current and preceding years.—Record, 1, 52, pp. 4384, 4385. Upon appeal the foregoing decision was sustained.

The insertion of an item for the recoinage of abraded'uncurrent fractional silver coin was held to be not in conflict with the rule, a similar item having existed in the appropriation acts for the current and prior years; this appropriation being construed as for "an object already in progress."-Record, 1, 52, p. 4385.

An amendment proposed to an item for the recoinage of uncurrent fractional silver, which amendment struck out the amount appropriated and added a provision for the coinage of all the bullion in the Treasury into standard silver dollars, the cost of such coinage and recoinage to be paid out of the Government's seigniorage, was held not to be in order under the rule; first, because not germane to the subject-matter of the bill (the sundry civil); second, because it did not appear that any retrenchment of expenditure would result, the seigniorage be ing the property of the Government as other funds in the Treasury.-Record, 1, 52, p. 4459. On appeal, this decision was sustained by a vote of 120 to 75.

An item in, or an amendment. to, an appropriation bill providing for an expenditure not previously authorized by law is construed to be a "change of existing law."-Record, 1, 52, pp. 4381, 1668, 4671, 1675, 4726, 4727.

To an item appropriating "for free delivery service, $10,450,000," an amendment was submitted striking out that sum and inserting "$10,449,000 to be disbursed in such manner," etc. (the manner prescribed being a new provision of law). It was held that the amendment was germane; that while it changed existing law, it reduced the amount appropriated by the bill, and was therefore in order.-Record, 1, 52, pp. 4909, 4911. Upon appeal, this decision was, after full debate, sustained by the Committee of the Whole.-Record, 1, 52, p. 4920.

(It will be noted that the point of order was made against the amendment as a whole. The propositions contained in the amendment were divisible, viz: (1) the substitution of $49,000 for $59,000; and (2), the provision "to be disbursed in such manner," etc. The second branch of the amendment did not of itself result in a reduction of the amount carried by the bill, and had a division of the question been demanded and a point of order made against the latter branch, the provision changing the law as to the manner of disbursement would no doubt have been held out of order.

There appears some ambiguity in this clause of Rule XXI: "Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order, except," etc.; one construction being that "provision in" related to the amendment as well as to the bill; the other, that the sense of the clause is in effect "that no provision.in such bill and no amendment to such bill shall be in order except," etc., thus confining the reference of the phrase "provision in " to the word "bill." The latter construction is strengthened by the consideration that for the most part amendments consist of single indivisible propositions.

The term "provision" as used in the rule may, indeed, itself be considered as capable of comprehending two or more,independent propositions. One of these may be subject to a point of order, while the provision as a whole may come within the exception. When the several propositions objected to, either in the bill or in the amendment, are manifestly distinct, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole sometimes takes notice of the fact without a special demand for a division of the question, or a designation of the particular proposition objected to as out of order; but it is safer in all cases to designate the particular proposition against which the point of order is made.) To an item of appropriation for inland transportation of mails by star routes, an amendment was offered requiring the Postmaster-General to provide routes and make contracts in certain cases, with the further provision, "and the amount of appropriation herein for star rontes is hereby reduced to $500.” A point of order made against the first or legislative part of the amendment was sustained, which decision was, on appeal, affirmed by the committee.-Record, 1, 52, pp. 4959–1961.

To a clause appropriating for transportation of foreign mails, an amendment providing that no further contract shall be entered into by the Postmaster-General under the act known as the "subsidy act" was held not in order because not directly retrenching expenditure in the manner prescribed in the rule.Record, 1, 52, p. 5005.

To an item of appropriation for transportation of foreign mails, an amendment providing that "no money hereby appropriated," etc., shall be expended in carrying out contracts hereafter made under the act known as the "subsidy act," was held to be in order under the rule.-Record, 1, 52, pp. 5003, 5004. To a clause appropriating for the foreign mail service, an amendment reducing the appropriation, and in addition repealing the act known as the "subsidy act," was held not in order because the repealing of this act was not germane to the appropriation bill; and that to be in order both branches of the amendment must be germane to the bill.-Record, 1, 52, pp. 5005, 5038.

A provision in the agricultural appropriation bill transferring the supervision of the importation of animals, from the Treasury to the Department of Agriculture, is out of order, being a provision changing law and not retrenching expenditure.-Record, 1, 52, p. 5167.

An amendment reducing the amount appropriated for railroad transportation of mails, coupled with a proviso directing the Postmaster-General to reduce, 10 per cent, the annual compensation for transportation of mails on railroads, was held to be in order as within the exceptions to the rule.-Record, 1, 52, pp. 4971-4974.

An amendment to an appropriation bill, providing that, in the purchase of materials for public purposes, preference should be given to domestic products, was held out of order as being a change of law and not a mere limitation of the expenditure of the fund appropriated.-Cong. Record, 2, 52, p. 1020.

An amendment was proposed, reducing by one the number of clerks in a bureau provided for in the bill, coupled with a distinct provision repealing part of an act, the effect of which repeal would dispense with the one clerk in such bureau. Held: That so much of the amendment as provided for the