FIFTY-FIRST CONGRESS, 1889-1891. 1395 
well to consider the circumstances under which the act authorizing 
the park was passed. If I am not incorrectly advised, the act estab- 
lishing it originated in the Senate in the form of an amendment to the 
District of Columbia appropriation bill—presumably reflecting the 
views of eitizens and others here who were urging the establishment 
of the park. 
The original proposition authorizing it provided that one-half of 
the sum appropriated, which was $200,000, should be paid by the 
District of Columbia; and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hemphill], then chairman of the Committee on the District of Colum- 
bia, stated on this floor, as an argument and inducement for the House 
to pass the bill, that one-half of the entire expenditure was to be paid 
by the District. And yet, Mr. Speaker, although the date of the 
approval of that act was March 2, 1889, now but a little more than 
thirteen months subsequent to its approval, a proposition originates 
in the Senate that the Government shall bear the entire burden of this 
enterprise. 
Mr. Speaker, I did not support the original proposition; I voted 
against it; but as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I 
- consented to this appropriation, conceiving it to be my duty (the law 
having established the park) to provide for its maintenance and sup- 
port. But, sir, | must confess’ my surprise at the position taken by 
seme members in the course of this debate. Why, sir, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Butterworth], as I understand, puts this proposition 
for the maintenance of a zoological park virtually ‘‘on all fours” with 
a proposition to erect a Government building. 
Why, Mr. Speaker, a Government building is essential to the dis- 
charge of the functions of Government, whereas for the one hundred 
years of our constitutional existence this Government has been main- 
tained (passing meanwhile through a great civil war) without the aid 
of any zoological park. 
The gentleman from Massachusetts, in the same line of observation, 
spoke of a new policy as having been inaugurated in regard to this 
District subsequent to 1861. I do not desire, Mr. Speaker, to trench 
upon any partisan ground; but I wish to correct that statement of the 
gentleman. I have before me an exhibit of the expenditures made by 
the Government for the District of Columbia from 1800 to 1871. I 
find that in 1800 these expenditures for streets, alleys, and other 
improvements amounted to $10,000, and in 1871—ten years after the 
date named by the gentleman from Massachusetts—the expenditures 
were still $10,000. I further find that in 1860 the expenditures were 
$13,518.87—$3,518.87 more than they were in 1871. 
The record of appropriations, therefore, acquits this side of the 
House of the charge of a want of proper regard for the capital city of 
our country during the long period that the Democratic party con- 
trolled the Government prio1 to 1861 
