CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



189 



you overturn your own plain rule ; you take 

 advantage of a decision of which all I have to 

 say is that I do not envy the making of it ; I 

 wonder at it, rather ; and besides all that, an 

 attempt to debate the fitness of that decision, 

 an attempt to point out its manifest error, an 

 attempt to expose its utter unfitness for appli- 

 cation to the business of this session or of any 

 session of the Senate, according to any par- 

 liamentary rules, was cut off by a motion to 

 lay upon the table." 



Mr. Stockton, of New Jersey, said : " Mr. 

 President, there never has been any rule in the 

 Senate of the United States requiring that an 

 amendment should be germane to the bill. 

 There is no such parliamentary rule, and there 

 is no rule of the Senate, let me remind the 

 Chair, which requires a Senator to be perti- 

 nent and germane. Both of those matters are 

 trusted to the discretion of Senators, and it is 

 presumed they will not exercise that discretion 

 improperly. There is not and never has been, 

 I repeat, a rule in the Senate confining Sen- 

 ators to amendments which are germane, and 

 there is no rule either controlling or limiting 

 debate, so that it is respectful and proper. 

 But, in order to facilitate business at the close 

 of the session, for the benefit of a majority of 

 the Senate, for their convenience, as a public 

 and patriotic duty, the minority of this body 

 voluntarily submitted to have themselves 

 bound. It was provided that debate should 

 be limited to five minutes. But no Senator on 

 this side of the Chamber, and very few Sen- 

 ators on the other, would have voted to limit 

 debate to five minutes. I can speak of Sen- 

 ator after Senator on th'e other side of the 

 Chamber, thin as their seats now are at this 

 time of night, who never would have voted to 

 limit debate to five minutes if you had not 

 introduced this other principle, this saving 

 clause, that nothing should be put upon an ap- 

 propriation bill that was not germane to the 

 bill. You did that deliberately. You ap- 

 pealed to the minority, you appealed to your- 

 selves ; you said : * Never, never will we gag 

 the Senate ; never will we deny you the privi- 

 lege of speaking on any public question, or 

 any legislation making any great change in 

 the laws of this land ; that we do not propose 

 to do ; but, while we ask you to limit debate 

 to five minutes, we say we will not offer an 

 amendment, nor permit one to be offered, that 

 interferes with the general legislation of the 

 country, which is not (to use my short term, 

 for I shall be more definite directly) germane 

 to the bill.' That was the contract stated in 

 the rule, and those were the only terms on 

 which the American Senate, on both sides of 

 the Chamber, ever could have been induced 

 to permit the adoption of that five-minutes 

 rule. 



" Now, sir, let me turn for a moment to the 

 language of that rule:" 



Resolved, That during the present session it shall 

 be in order at any time to move a recess 



" That was one change 



and pending an appropriation bill, to move to con- 

 fine debate on amendments thereto to five minutes 

 by any Senator on the pending motion, and such 

 motions shall be decided without debate. 



" There is another gag. What was the con- 

 sideration ? What was the consideration that 

 would have induced Senators on the other 

 side who have long been members of this body, 

 and who glory in its privileges, which are sel- 

 dom abused, to agree to such a rule ? What 

 was the consideration you offered to us and 

 offered to your own members? To facilitate 

 public business, to help you through, we agreed 

 to the limitation of five minutes, we agreed 

 that the motion could be made without debate, 

 and you said this:" 



And no amendment to any such bill making legis- 

 lative provisions other than such as directly relate 

 to the appropriations contained in the bill shall be 

 received. 



"I used the word 'germane.' Under this 

 rule a matter of legislation has been intro- 

 duced, a proposition which is admitted to be 

 legislation, a proposition which the Chair it- 

 self admits to be legislation, but, as the Chair 

 said, 'legislation which relates to an appropri- 

 ation.' It appropriates nothing, and is de- 

 fended on that ground by its advocates, and it 

 is decided that it is legal because it appropri- 

 ates nothing. If it appropriated any thing it 

 would be a violation of the regular rule, be- 

 cause it would be an amendment appropriating 

 money without the proper notice having been 

 given to the committee. Let me read that 

 rule for a moment ; that is, rule 30 : 



No amendment proposing additional appropria- 

 tions shall be received to any additional appropria- 

 tion bill, unless it be made to carry out the provi- 

 sions of some existing law, or some act or resolution 

 previously passed by the Senate during that session, 

 or moved by direction of a standing or select com- 

 mittee of the Senate, or in pursuance of an estimate 

 from the head of some of the Departments ; and no 

 amendment shall be received whose object is to pro- 

 vide for a private claim, unless it be to carry out the 

 provisions of an existing law or treaty stipulation. 



"Now, I appeal to such Senators as think 

 this matter important enough to listen to the 

 sound of my voice, whether the object was 

 not, and that alone, to prevent the loading 

 down of appropriation bills with matters which 

 ought to be treated as matters of substantive 

 legislation. This amendment, as I was say- 

 ing, could not have been received if it con- 

 tained an appropriation, and so the Chair says 

 it is legitimate, it can come in under this rule 

 because it contains no appropriation. It is 

 legislation, the Chair decides, but it can come 

 in under the other rule because it is ' legisla- 

 tion which relates to an appropriate on _ bill.' 

 That is precisely the ruling of the Chair. I 

 shall not comment upon it. I have too much 

 respect for the Chair and too much respect for 

 the Senate to comment on it. 



"One illustration, and I have done. Sup- 

 pose the President of the United States is au- 

 thorized by this bill, or by some other bill, 



