1068 CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. 
further than it has already gone if it can be arrested. IJ do not think 
there is any hope of arresting it, for the tendency for a good many 
years past has been not only to build upa central republic, but to build 
up with it by class legislation an aristocracy. Any person watching 
the operations of the Government can not fail to see that this is the 
drift of the Government, to centralism and to an aristocracy, besides 
general privileged classes. 
Professor Baird was not a very great sufferer. From 1878 to 1887, 
a period of nine years and three months, he was receiving a salary of 
$6,000 a year, aggregating $55,500, that he received during that period 
as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Previous to 1878 he 
received a salary of $2,500 a year as Assistant Secretary. 
If it is thought that his services as Fish Commissioner merit addi- 
tional compensation to that which he received for the services which 
he rendered as Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, I would not 
object to a reasonable appropriation, if it can be lawfully made; but 
when it comes to adding $3,333 extra compensation annually for fifteen 
successive years, making $50,000 more to his compensation, it seems to 
me that it is going too far. That is what it would be; $3,333 a year 
for fifteen years in order to get $50,000 after his having received 
$55,500 during thatsame period. Unless the committee sees proper to 
modify and to reduce this amount to a reasonable compensation I shall 
vote against its adoption; and while I do not wish to raise a question 
of order upon this amendment unless they do so, I shall raise a question 
_ of order under Rule XVI, which provides: 
And no amendments shall be received to any general appropriation bill, the effect 
of which will be to increase an appropriation already contained in the bill, or to 
add anew item of appropriation, unless it be made to carry out the provisions of 
some existing law, or treaty stipulation, or act, or resolution previously passed by 
the Senate during that session, or unless the same be moved by direction of a stand- 
ing or select committee of the Senate, or proposed in pursuance of an estimate of the 
head of some one of the departments. 
This amendment does not come under the authority of either of 
those provisions. I take it that being reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations is not a compliance with the meaning and purpose of 
that part of the rule which says: 
All amendments to general appropriation bills moved by direction of a standing 
or select committee of the Senate, proposing to increase an appropriation already 
contained in the bill, or to add new items of appropriation, shall, at least one day 
before they are considered, be referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and 
when actually proposed to the bill no amendment proposing to increase the amount 
stated in such amendment shall be received. 
This evidently shows that the rule means that some other committee 
shall recommend it to the Committee on Appropriations; but if that 
