FIFTIETH CONGRESS, 1887-1889. 1209 
to recognition for the purpose of debate, but the Chair actually recog- 
nized the gentleman from South Carolina, and he yielded to the gen- 
tleman from Kentucky five minutes. 
While the Chair thinks now this action was not strictly in accord- 
ance with the practice, the gentleman states that he will not occupy 
more time than would be allowed if the previous question was ordered, 
and the Chair wil] not undertake to reverse the action taken, but the 
Chair desires that the action taken yesterday shall not be a precedent. 
Mr. Ranpau. | am quite content that the proceedings shall go that 
way; but I wanted it just as the Chair has stated, not to go as a prec- 
edent, for I want to illustrate for a moment what the effect would be. 
There are 200 amendments to the sundry civil appropriation bill; and 
if any gentleman on this floor would have the right to make that 
motion of concurrence to each one of these amendments, in case they 
were reported back as disagreements, there would be many hours 
occupied, and it might take thirty days to reach a conclusion. 
The Speaker. The Chair sees the difficulty which might result from 
that practice. The gentleman from South Carolina yields five minutes 
to the gentleman from Kentucky. 
Mr. W. C. P. Brecxinriper, of Kentucky. I simply wanted to 
state in answer to certain statements made by certain gentlemen, and 
more particularly by my friend from Georgia [Mr. Blount], for whom 
I have great respect and whose statement ought not to go unchal- 
lenged, that there has been no haste in the presentation of this matter. 
It was introduced by my senatorial colleague from Kentucky [Mr. 
Beck] at the last session, and was put on the bill by the Senate at that 
session and discussed in this House. It was also introduced by me on 
December 17, and reported by the Committee on Public Buildings and 
Grounds. It has been considered, therefore, at both sessions of this 
Congress, and favorably reported by the proper committee of the 
House. 
There is, therefore, no ground for the statement that it has been 
suddenly and unexpectedly precipitated into this House at the tail end 
of the session. I want to make one more statement. This being the 
District of Columbia and under the power of Congress, the constitu- 
tional power is absolutely clear. The question is a pure question of 
expediency. There can be no lack of precedents when we walk down 
to the museums and the other public institutions here, and it is a clear 
question whether such expenditure of $200,000 is a wise expenditure 
when we are giving millions upon millions for public buildings in 
Washington. Iam not in favor of the national park nor of the pur- 
chase of a large tract of land under the pretense of a zoological park. 
Iappend the report of the Committee on Public Grounds, that the 
record may show the exact object in view. 
