EXTRACTS 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 H E M ^ E K S 
 
 WILLIAM W. GROUT, 
 
 OF VEKMONTT, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 DISTRICT APPROPRIATION BILL. 
 
 TAKEN FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF JANUARY 31 TO 
 FEBRUARY 6, INCLUSIVE, AND APRIL 0,1898. 
 
 W-A^SHINTG-TON'. 
 
 1896. 
 
On the District Appropriation Bill. 
 
 K E M A K K S 
 
 or 
 
 WI L LI A M W. GROUT, 
 
 OF VERMONT, 
 
 In the House of Kepkesentatives, 
 
 Friday, January SI, 1806. 
 
 The House, in Cojnmittee of the Whole on the state of the Union, having 
 under consideration the bill (H.R.5310) making appropriations to provide 
 for the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal 
 year ending June :10, 18U7. and for other purposes— 
 
 Mr. GROUT said: 
 
 Mr. Si'Kaker: I move that the House resolve itself into Com¬ 
 mittee of the Whole House on the state of theUnionforthe purpose 
 of considering the District of Columbia appropriation bill. 
 
 The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the 
 Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. Payne in the chair. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
 the first reading of the bill may be dispensed with. 
 
 There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairman, in explanation of this bill I .shall 
 take but a very few minutes. It is principally a story of figures, 
 and they are summarized in the closing paragraphs of the report. 
 I will present them briefly. The total amount recommended to 
 be appropriated for the general expenses of the District for the 
 fecal year ending June 30,1897, in the bill submitted, exclusive of 
 the water department, is $.'5,225,365.97. Of this sum the General 
 Government is required to pay $2,612,682.98, and the District 
 $2,265,991. The former amount is $2,655 less than the estimates 
 submitted. 
 
 The amount appropriated for the general expenses of the Dis¬ 
 trict of Columbia for the current fiscal year, that is, of 1896, in¬ 
 cluding $15,940 in the sundry civil and urgent deficiency acts, is 
 $5,5.59.263.97. being $333,898 more than is recommended in the ac¬ 
 companying bill for 1897; and the whole amount recommended in 
 the accompanying bill, including sums for the water department— 
 on a basis that will be explained in a moment—is $343,422.86 less 
 than was appropriated for the current fiscal year. Now, theainount 
 recommended for the water department, the object of which is to 
 develop the water revenues, is $192,594.42; and the amount appro¬ 
 priated for the water department for the current year is $202,119.28, 
 being a reduction of nine thousand and some odd hundred dollars. 
 
 It is estimated that the water revenues for the fiscal year 1897 
 ■mil amount to $307,000, but it is pro'vided in the accompanying 
 bill, as it was provided in the acts for the four preceding fisciu 
 
3 
 
 years, that any surplus of these revenues over the appropriations 
 specifically made tlu'refrom shall he applied to the work of ex¬ 
 tending the higli-service system of wat('r distrihution. for which 
 there is an appro])riation in the hill. Now, this imin'ovement. it 
 is estimated by the engineer officers of the District, would cost, 
 when completed, $000,000. 
 
 The surplus water revenues devoted to this object, on account of 
 exiienditures made and obligations incurred since the said author¬ 
 ity was granted, amount at this time to $0i5r).()i.5.72. 
 
 The total general revenues of the District of Columbia for the 
 fiscal year 1897, it is estimated by the Commissioners, will amount, 
 exclusive of any estimated surplus of the revenues of prior years, 
 to $3,225,081.56, or a siirplus of $547,538.58 after meeting the ap¬ 
 propriations proposed by the accompanying bill, together with the 
 obligations (estimated at $64,860) imposed upon the District by 
 the act of March 2, 1889, establishing the National Zoological 
 Park, and for one-half of the expenses of the court of appeals and 
 8upr(,‘me court of the District. This surplus, to the extent of 
 $300,000, will be applied, under the operation of section 3 of the 
 District of Columbia appropriation act for the fiscal year 1893 and 
 a provision of the accompanying bill, to the satisfaction of the in¬ 
 debtedness of the District to the United States on account of the 
 cost of the increa.sed water supply of the city of Washington 
 under acts apjiroved July 15, 1882, and March 3, 1891, which of 
 course relates to what is known as the Lydecker tunnel. 
 
 These figures, Mr. Chairman, present in a summary way the 
 scope of this bill, so far as the Treasury is concerned, and so far 
 as the nece.ssities of the District are concerned, which, of course, 
 are the two great matters to be considered in every apiiropriation 
 bill. 
 
 The amount appropriated by this bill is less, you will notice, 
 than the estimates, and less than many of the friends of public 
 improvements in the city of Washington hoped it would be; but, 
 after all, it is not so bad when compared with former bills, for, 
 while it falls short of the estimates by some $300,000, it exceeds 
 the bill making appropriations for the current year, as it went to 
 the Senate from the last Hoitsc, by some $26,000. 
 
 With these general remarks I am disposed, if there be no desire 
 for general debate, to suggest that we proceed at once to consider 
 the bill by paragraphs. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Is there any new legifslation in the bill; 
 and if so, what? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, if gentlemen will refer to the report they will 
 find a full answer to this question. Every new provision which 
 may be the subject of criticism will be found referred to in the 
 report, and gentleman will, of course, have the opportunity to raise 
 points of order upon any provision when it is reached. 
 
 Mr. DINGLEY. These matters are referred to in the report 
 under the head of “ Limitations”? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Yes, sir. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I said a few” moments ago that I was ready to 
 consider the bill by paragraphs without further debate, but I find 
 it can not be done so quickly as I had hoped. 
 
 Mr. DOCKERY. Will the gentleman allow me to suggest that 
 it would contribute very much to the orderly consideration of this 
 2342 
 
4 
 
 bill if these several propositions be debated when they are reached 
 in their order? I presume the f;entleraan in charge of the bill will 
 be disposed to give ample time for the consideration and discussion 
 
 of each item. . , r i i t 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Certainly: I have so expressed myself. In regard 
 t(> this matter of electric ligliting. which seems to have riveted spe¬ 
 cial attention, and upon which tlii.<.sharpdeljatehasalready broken 
 out. I will say for m vself that I am not going to enter into the discus¬ 
 sion at present, but will say one word further by way of gen¬ 
 eral explanation of the bill. 
 
 That is, that while the Commi.s.sioners recommended the increase 
 of a large number of salaries, extending to a number of persons in 
 the District emplov, including, if you idease, the whole of the fire 
 department of the District, the bill does not contain a single inde¬ 
 pendent increase of salary. Now, for those who are disappointed 
 in this matter, and their name is legion in the District, let me say 
 that the cnmmitt(?e felt, at a time when the Treasury was empty, 
 when times were hard, when confessedly the cost of living is low, 
 not high, thereby enabling salaries heretofore fixed to amply meet 
 demands under the pre.sent order of things, and the fact that so 
 many are out of employment, wuthout salaries of any kind, and 
 are seeking employment: the fact, also, that while the laborer in 
 many instances has had his wages reduced from the necessities of 
 time’s, and the salaries already being received by these people be¬ 
 ing rcfisonable, that these, with many other considerations, would 
 justify the committee in refusing all applications for increases of 
 salary, althougli. let me say. Mr. Chairman, some of them were 
 meriiorious. There are some unfair discriminations as to salaries 
 as they now stand, but we felt that we could not enter upon the re¬ 
 adjustment of them at the present time, and therefore deferred it, 
 as the diplomats say, till a more auspicious occasion: in short, till 
 such time as business shall revive, prosperity shall return, and, 
 under more wise economic laws, money shall again flow into the 
 Treasury. 
 
 I may say in this connection that there is one clerk added to the 
 collector’s office at $1,000 per annum, in which there was over¬ 
 whelming proof of an insufficient supply of necessary help. There 
 were a couple of elevator operators and a fireman made necessary 
 because of the fact that the District Commissioners were occupy¬ 
 ing a very much larger building than heretofore, which gives 
 ample accommodations for most of the various offices of the Dis¬ 
 trict, and we made this increase at this cost as well as the increase 
 siK^ken of by the gentleman from Kansas in the number of i)olice- 
 men. This is the only increase of force provided for in the bill. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman,! think, as suggested by the gentleman 
 from Missouri [Mr. Dockery], that if we go to the consideration 
 of the bill by paragraphs we shall get along really faster, more 
 understandingly, and ^vith satisfaction to everyone. Of course, 
 if anyone chooses to address the committee now in a general 
 way—in general debate—let him make it known, and I shall make 
 no objection. 
 
 ******* 
 
 The reading of the bill by paragraphs was begun— 
 
 Mr. DE ARMOND. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment 
 which I send to the desk. 
 
 2S43 
 
5 
 
 The amendment was read, as follows: 
 
 Amend by striking out lines 3, 4,5, 6,7,8. and 9. page 1 of the bill, and insert* 
 ing the following in lieu thereof: "'riiatthe following sums named, respect¬ 
 ively, are hereby approjiriated out of the revenues of the District of Colum¬ 
 bia for the purposes following, being for the expenses of the government of 
 the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 39, 189(, namely." 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a point of order 
 against that amendment. 
 
 Mr. DE ARMOND. Pending the point of order, Mr. Chairman, 
 I desire to be heard for a moment. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Upon the point of order? 
 
 Mr. DE ARMOND. I ask the gentleman to reserve the point of 
 order while I say a few words on the amendment. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Very well; if the gentleman desires to be heard 
 I will reserve the point of order. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I suppose now the point of order will be dis¬ 
 posed of. 
 
 Mr. DE ARMOND. What is the point of order? I did not un¬ 
 derstand it. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. That it changes existing law, and it is all stated 
 in a nut shell in Rule XXI, paragraph 2, the last clause, which says: 
 
 Nor shall any provision changing existing law be in order in a general ap¬ 
 propriation bill or any amendment thereto. 
 
 And the organic act, section 16, says: 
 
 To the extent to which Congress shall api)rove such estimates, Cougi-ess 
 shall appropriate to the amount of 50 per cent thereof. 
 
 This amendment of the gentleman changes, therefore, the exist¬ 
 ing law, and the provision under the former rule that it reduced 
 exiienditures does not apply under the present rule. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. If the Chair is ready to rule, I do not desire to say 
 anything further. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from 
 Missouri. 
 
 Mr. DE ARMOND. I beg to ask the gentleman from Vermont if 
 he has the law before him, the law of 1878; and I will a,sk him 
 whether the provision is not with reference to the “government” 
 of the District of Columbia? The bill itself covers items that are 
 totally distinct from government expenses? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. To what items does the gentleman allude? 
 
 Mr. DE ARMOND. I allude to such things as schools, for in¬ 
 stance, chaiitable institutions, streets, sidew'allts, etc., expenses 
 incurred in other localities and borne in other localities by indi- 
 ^idual8 owning the abutting property. The point I sulmiit is that 
 as to all these things they are not properly included within items 
 of governmental expense or for the government of the District of 
 Columbia. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Now. Mr. Chairman, in reply to that I will say 
 that the law’- requires that estimates be submitted covering every 
 exp?nse of the District. 
 
 The CH \IRMAN. The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
 Vermont that the Chair is ready to rule. The Chair sustains the 
 point of order. * * * 
 
 234 ;} 
 
G 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS. 
 
 For work on streets and avenues named in Appendix X, Book of Estimates, 
 1897, $100.1)110, to be expended in the discretion of the Commissioners upon 
 streets and avenues specified in the schedules named in said appendix and In 
 the agifreipite for each schedule as stated herein, namely: 
 
 Georgetown schedule. $9,000. 
 
 Northwest section schedule, $00,000. 
 
 Southwest section si-hedule. $1.5,000. 
 
 Southea.st section schedule, 
 
 Northeast section schedule, $33,000. 
 
 Mr. BAKER of New Hampshire. I would like to ask the gen¬ 
 tleman in charge of this bill whether these items have not been 
 materially reduced below the ordinary appropriations for these 
 purposes? 
 
 Mr. G-ROUT. They have been reduced in the aggregate $44,500 
 below the appropriation for the current year, and the reduced 
 amount is distributed pro rata among the different sections of the 
 city as specified in the hill. 
 
 Mr. BAKER of New Hampshire. But the amounts for these 
 several sections are not equal to the amounts appropriated under 
 the same heads in the last bill? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. No; the aggregate is $44,500 less than the appro 
 priation for like purposes in the current law. 
 
 • «*••«* 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 Construction of county roads: For construction of county roads and sub- 
 url>an streets, as follows: 
 
 For grading and regulating Sherman avenue, Roanoke and Irving streets, 
 continuing improvement, $10,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
 available for removing buildings, terracing banks, and replacing fences of 
 Gai-field Hospital grounds and other i)remisos abutting on Sherman avenue 
 between Grant and Princeton streets: Provided, That the owners thereof 
 dedicate to the District of Columbia the ground for widening Sherman ave¬ 
 nue in conformity with the adopted and recorded plans of highway extensions. 
 
 Mr. BAKER of New Hampshire. I should like to have the gen¬ 
 tleman from Vermont [Mr, Grout] explain this provision in re¬ 
 gard to the Garfield Hospital grounds. I should like to hear 
 something in reference to the relation of those grounds to the 
 streets here referred to, and how the grounds will be left when 
 the ])roposed improvement has been made. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I do not know that I can ^ve any further ex¬ 
 planation than is afforded by the language of the bill itself. It 
 says; 
 
 This appropriation shall be available for removing buildings, terracing 
 banks, and replacing fences of Garfield Hospital grounds and other premises 
 abutting on Sherman avenue, between Grant and Princeton streets: Pro¬ 
 vided^ etc. 
 
 Mr. BAKER of New Hampshire. I have been informed that 
 this grading and regulating of Sherman avenue, Roanoke and 
 Irving streets, makes a deep cut into the jp-ounds of the Garfield 
 Hospital property, leaving those grounds in some cases 10, 15, or 
 20 feet above grade. The question in my mind is whether that is 
 an appropriate thing to be done at all. I should like to know 
 whether the committee has looked into that part of this appro¬ 
 priation and ascertained its probable effect. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. The attention of the committee was not called 
 to that particular view of the case. This provision has been rec¬ 
 ommended by the Commi.ssioners. and very likely, as there is 
 mention made here of “terracing banks” and the like, it may 
 carry the streets below the grade, making these terraces necessary; 
 
 3343 
 
but when the improvement is completed it is supposed (although 
 there was no investigation before the committee on that point) 
 that it will leave the situation in equally good shape, or that some 
 other counterbalancing advant;ige will be obtained. We did not 
 investigate this question particularly. 
 
 «*«•••• 
 
 Mr. GROUT. The gentleman will observe the proviso to the 
 paragraph: 
 
 Provided, That the owners thereof dedicate to the District of Columbia the 
 ground for widening Sherman avenue in conformity with the adopted and 
 recorded plans of highway extension. 
 
 Now, it is supposed to be a most desirable thing for the public 
 that this avenue should be widened; and as it was submitted to 
 ns without objection from any one, and as it met the ajiproval of the 
 Commissioners, I will say it was probably thought that if the own¬ 
 ers would contribute the ground for widening the street the Gov¬ 
 ernment could afford to do the balance, and that the result when 
 the work was accomplished would be all the better for everybody 
 concerned. 
 
 Mr. WASHINGTON. Will not the resulting benefits to the 
 abutting property from the widening of thi.s street be sufficient 
 compensation to the owners for giving up their land? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. That I can not say; that matter was not inquired 
 into, because no issue was made. We took the provision upon 
 the recommendation of the Commissioners; and as nobody objected, 
 we supposed it to be correct. It certainly looked reasonable. 
 ***«•*« 
 
 Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment which I 
 send to the desk. 
 
 The amendment was read, as follows; 
 
 In line 10, page 16, strike out the word-s “ Provided further. That the entire 
 service of gaslighting authorized under this appropriation shall be lot, after 
 due advertisement, to the lowest ro.sponsiblo bidder therefor." 
 
 Mr. WILLIAM A. STONE. Will the gentleman from Penn¬ 
 sylvania please explain the object of his amendment? 
 
 Mr. MAHON. The proviso which I propose to strike out 
 amounts to nothing, after the ruling of the Chair, because there 
 is only one gas company here, and there is no one to compete. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAM A. STONE. Thatis, the amendmentreportedby 
 the committee having gone out on the point of order, there is con¬ 
 fessedly only one gas company here that has power to enter upon 
 the streets of the city, and therefore, to undertake to advertise for 
 bids woiild be a mere farce. That is the gentleman’s idea, as I 
 understand him? 
 
 Mr. MAHON. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. The gentleman [Mr. William A. Stone] says that 
 “ confessedly” there is no other company except the one in exist¬ 
 ence that has the right to lay down pipes. I would like to know 
 who has confessed it. 
 
 A Member. He has. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Yes; that may be so. The gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania maj' confess it, but no one else has. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAM A. STONE. Do you claim- 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairman- 
 
 Mr. WILLIAM A. STONE. I have the floor, I believe. 
 
8 
 
 Mr. GROUT. If you have, all right, but I believe I have the 
 
 CHAIRMAN The gentleman from Vermont has the floor. 
 \rr (4R()L'f If the gentleman had remembered the ground 
 which I took on the point of order a moment ago, he would hardly 
 have said it was -confe-ssed-’ that there was no power left to take 
 n^thrstreets and lay down new mams. I expressly stated that 
 i^nCy ?pinion as a Iwyer-I have not practiced lately, but I 
 thought I did know something about law before I got into the 
 midst of these demoralizing scenes [laughter]—I stated that in my 
 Siinion the power was in the Commissioners without this pro- 
 ?Sionin the pending bill to grant that permit and I think so still 
 It is statedW the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mahon] 
 offering this amendment that there is no other company to com¬ 
 pete, and the other gentleman from Pennsylvmiia [Mr. Willl^ 
 A Stone] echoes tliat statement; while, on the other hand the 
 chairman of the Committee on the Districtof Columbia says there 
 is a new gas company about to be chartered, perhaps by a bill 
 which will be presented here to-morrow. Very well; whether a 
 new company be formed or not. this jiroviso in the bill does no 
 harm. It really does good. 1 can understand very well why gen¬ 
 tlemen are so restive when this gas problem is struck 
 Mr. WILLIAM A. STONE. What is the reason? . ^ 
 
 Mr GROUT If gentlemen will make a coinpanson of the fig¬ 
 ures pre.sented‘in this bill wth the figures in the existing law, 
 they will see that we have made here a very gi eat reduction in 
 the price of the gas which is to be furnished to the public—a very 
 great rediiction-and that accounts for all this bustle when a prop- 
 Ssition like this is made. The gas company is hurt. I can not 
 myself believe that it is out of pure devotion to the spirit of the 
 law or from a wonderful admiration and deference for the rules 
 of the House in their spirit as well as letter that gentlemen are 
 prompted to raise points of order on the provision which has now 
 gone out, and then to discourse lesirnedly with reference to the 
 impossibility of executing this provision. If they will look at the 
 figures reported in this bill, they will see it is provided that a lamp 
 which before cost $20.50 shall now be furnished for $16, and that 
 it shall be burned eight hundred and some odd hours per year more 
 than under existing law. That is what this provision amounts to 
 when you figure it out; and who will say that this does not account 
 for the great care here displayed lest the rules of the House or the 
 law in some way be violated? . 
 
 Mr. BABCOCK. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him 
 whether any question has been raised in this discussion as to the 
 price of gas? I do not understand that that question has been 
 Pd>is6(l« 
 
 Mr. GROUT. We have not heard much about that. 
 
 Mr. BABCOCK. I understood from the gentleman from Ver¬ 
 mont [Mr. Grout] that that question had been before the House. 
 I do not undt*r.stand that it has. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. It is before the House in this paragraph now 
 under consideration. 
 
 Mr. BABCIJCK. The prices, as reported by the Committee on 
 Appropriation.^, have met, I think, the approval of every member 
 of the House, but when the committee went further and at¬ 
 tempted to enact new legislation, that was a ground of objection. 
 
Mr. GROUT. I can not yield for a speech. I yielded luei ^ly 
 for a question. 
 
 Mr. W ASHINGTON. Was it not stated bj’ the chairman of the 
 committee that the District Commissioners had already attempted 
 to reduce the price of gas furnished by the present company, but 
 that the company had refused to comply with the demand of the 
 Commissioners? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I do not recall any such statement. If it has 
 been made, gentlemen will remember it. 
 
 Mr. WASHINGTON. It was made some time ago. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. To go back to the proposition I was upon; we 
 provide a new schedule, which is no longer the “moon ” schedule, 
 but from forty-five minutes after dark to forty-five minutes before 
 daylight, atid at the same time make this reduction from $20.50 
 per lamp to $16 per lamp. I find that those gentlemen who make 
 objection here are now residy to concede the provision as to price, 
 but they evidently want to avoid the feature of competition. Sir, 
 this bill has not yet been acted on by the Senate and returned from 
 that body. In what shape it may come back here as to the price 
 of gas no one knows. 
 
 But supposing this competition clause be removed, there are 
 suits now pending in which it is contended that where a limit is 
 fixed the meaning is that the wliole amount fixed by the limit, 
 and nothing less, shall be paid. Some lawyer has been so wise as 
 to plant a suit upon that basis. Now, I believe that as the result 
 of the competition hero proposed, instead of getting these lamps 
 for $16 apiece we are likely to get them for .$10 ajuece. They can 
 be furnished at $10 apiece and money made u])on them. Gen¬ 
 tlemen say there is no company to compete. But surely if the 
 company which my friend, the chairman of the District Commit¬ 
 tee, i)romises will soon be brought into being is not stillborn wo 
 shall then have competition. 
 
 It has been suggested that the municipality should o%\ti the gas 
 plant and the electric plant, and that might be a wise thing to do. 
 Let me state what has been the experience in the city of Philaxlel- 
 phia. There the city owns the gas works; and the streets and 
 public buildings are lighted, and gas furnished to the citizens at 
 $1 a thousand. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAM A. STONE. I am not opposed to the retention 
 of this provision in the bill. I simply asaed my colleague [Mr. 
 Maho^ his purpose in offering it. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I supposed the gentleman was urging reasons 
 why the pro^ision shoiild be stricken out. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAM A. STONE. Nothing of the kind. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. If nobody objects, let us take a vote on the propo¬ 
 sition. 
 
 Pending the motion of Mr. Mahon, the committee rose and the 
 House adjourned. 
 
 *»«*««* 
 
 Saturday, February 1, 1896. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairman, I expect all are ready to vote on 
 this amendment, but I want just a word before that vote is taken. 
 On yesterday the mover of the amendment to strike out this pro¬ 
 viso. the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MahonJ , while ho 
 disclaimed all intention of aspersing the Committee on Appropria- 
 
 2&i2 
 
10 
 
 tions, spoke of this provision as what would be termed up in the 
 Pennsylvania leKi'^lature a "snake. " 
 
 I tried yesterday afternoon. Mr. Chairman, to get the floor for 
 the purpose of paying my respects to this “ snake,’’ but tlie debate 
 waxed so hot an<l"furious that I could not do so without displacing 
 other gentlemen who wished to be heard, and debate was carried 
 on to the very time of adjotirnment. I then thought it was per¬ 
 haps better I did not obtain the floor, because it occurred to me 
 that during the night the gentleman from Pennsylvania might 
 think better of this uncanny allusion to the committee and strike 
 it from tiie i)ublic Riccokd; in short, I hoped that in the darkness 
 and stillness of the night this serpent might crawl away out of 
 sight and hearing and leave no trail behind him; but this morning 
 I find the rei)tile in the Record, and not only that, but he is in the 
 morning papers also. 
 
 Now, for just a moment. I want to see what kind of a “snake” 
 this is, because it .seems that not every quality about the ser¬ 
 pent is harmful to man. We are told that those who looked 
 upon the serpent of brass in the wilderness lived and did not die. 
 This “serpent" that the committee have brought in here—for 
 that is what the gentleman calls it—when you take into account 
 the increased service and the reduced price, presents a proposition 
 to light the city of Wiishington for the coming year for just about 
 one-half what we are i)aying now. That is the committee’s “ ser¬ 
 pent." and as Moses lihed up the serpent in the wilderness, so our 
 committee are willing to stand in the attitude of lifting up this 
 serpent (so called by the gentleman) before this House and the 
 American people; and I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
 [Mr. Mahon] to look upon it and be cured of just one-half the cost 
 of lighting this city of Washington for the ensuing year, so far as 
 the proportionate share of his constituents is concerned, and the 
 people of the District may look upon it as curing them also of 
 one-half of their expense of lighting the city. 
 
 That, Mr. Chairman, is the Kind of serpent that our committee 
 has brought in here. If the statement of the gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania had not gone into the Record this morning I should 
 not have alluded to it; but it is there, and I hope this Committee 
 of the Whole will not lose sight of the fact which I have stated, 
 but about which gentlemen who have opposed this measure have 
 said nothing. Another qualitv may be attributed to this serpent: 
 It seems to have charmed all these gentlemen into silence, so far 
 as opposition to the price is concerned. Here they are as gentle as 
 sucking doves, and to what can it be attributed, unless it be to the 
 mysterious influence of this reptile brought in here by the Com¬ 
 mittee on Appropriations? [Laughter.] 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Mahon was rejected. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. CHARLES W. STONE. I offer the amendment which I send 
 to the desk. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 After line 7, page 26. Insert: 
 
 " For the purpose or purchasing a sufficient number of United States flags 
 to place one on every schoolhouse in the District of Columbia on school days 
 and during school hours, the sum of *1,(K10, to be expended by the school trus¬ 
 tees of the District, and to be immediately available.” • • • 
 
 2342 
 
11 
 
 Mr. G-ROUT. Mr. Cliairman, just one word. I can not object 
 to tliis appropriation. It has occiirred to me that it perhaps might 
 be somewhat less, for many of these schools have flags already, 
 and tlie flags do not cost more than four or five dollaivs apiece, as 
 I am informed. Probably not more than half the buildings are 
 unpro's’ided, and it might be done, perhaps, for half the money. 
 We do not want to appropriate anything unnecessarily. 
 
 I can not object to this because in my own State, to which the 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania has alhided, many of the towns 
 supply the schools with flags, and they have set apart the day pre¬ 
 ceding Memorial Day as Flag Day for the scholars in tlie puldic 
 schools, and have recognized the idea that the public schools, which 
 are the nurseries of freedom, should have over them the national 
 flag. The public school is not a jirivate institution, nor does it be¬ 
 long alone to a town, county, or State, but it really belongs to the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. Do you believe these flags over the school- 
 hmi.ses and educational institutions of our country are conducive 
 to a patriotic spirit? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I do, most emphatically. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. Why was it, then, that the gentleman from 
 Alabama [Mr. Wheelek], who was educated under the flag at 
 West PoiTit. went into the rebellion in 18(51? 
 
 Mr. WHEELER. Becaiise his patriotic devotion to his own 
 people sent liim there. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Ah, but he has come back to the flag, and sees 
 Old Glory to-day as never before, and we forgive him all and take 
 him back. 
 
 Mr. Stone’s amendment was adopted. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Monday, February S, 1896. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I move that the House resolve itself into Com¬ 
 mittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the con¬ 
 sideration of general appropriation bills. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the 
 Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. Payne in the chair. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the pending amend¬ 
 ment. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 On page 38, strike out all of lines 8 and 9. 
 
 Mr. HAINER of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, the motion which I 
 made on Saturday evening, and upon which I shall insist, is to 
 strike out lines 8 and 9 on page 38 of the pending bill. These lines 
 read as follows: 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairmati. it will not, I think, be violative 
 of the confidence of the Committee on Approjiriations to say that 
 on the subject of these private charities, many of which, as we 
 have learned, are sectarian, the members of the committee were 
 not entirely agreed. This has already been made apparent by the 
 motion and by the remarks of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
 Hainer] who is a member of the committee. 
 
12 
 
 This question was, of course, fully considered in the committee, 
 and when, on the final vote, I found myself in the minority and it 
 was proposed to authorize me to report this bill to the House, I 
 suggested that it might perhaps be better to select some one to 
 bring in the bill who could support every provision in it, stating 
 that, for mvself, my position in the committee would be my posi¬ 
 tion in the kouse. That suggestion, however, was not accepted, 
 and I brought this bill in here upon the order of the committee, 
 with all points as to individual conviction and individual action 
 distinctly reserved. 
 
 Now, in behalf of the committee, let me say they gave this ques¬ 
 tion long and patient consideration in a session which ran well 
 into the night, and a majority thought it best—although I feel 
 justified in saying that not a single member of the majority was 
 entirely satisfied—the majority thought it best to bring the bill 
 into the House with the provisions which are found in it. the same 
 provisions that have been found in the District appropriation bill 
 for years past, except that there is an addition of four new insti¬ 
 tutions calling for an additional appropriation, in the aggregate, 
 of i^,000. Those four additional appropriations will be found on 
 page 39 of the bill. 
 
 The majority of the committee, I say, thought it best to report 
 the bill in this form, and under ordinary circumstances I would 
 have subordinated my judgment to the judgment of the commit¬ 
 tee, because I can not say that it w'as wholly without reason. 
 There were many good reasons for it, some ot which have been 
 stated by the gentleman from Illinois, the cliairman of the com¬ 
 mittee [Mr. Cannon]; reasons growing out of the peculiar nature 
 of the charities in tnis District, which are anomalous and quite 
 unlike those in other large cities. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, I felt then and I feel novr that this question 
 involves more than mere detail in administration, more than the 
 necessities or convenience of the local situation. My objection to 
 appropriating public money for these private institutions may be 
 briefly stated under two heads. First, as they are purely private 
 institutions, the Government has no power—maik what I si^}’— 
 the Government hasno power to visit, inspect, and supervise them 
 or their expenditure of this money, none whatever. I am not un¬ 
 mindful of the act creating the office of superintendent of chari¬ 
 ties for the District, or of the fact that Congress has undertaken to 
 confer on that officer the right to visit these institutions, to audit 
 their accounts, and so on; but these institutions are corporations, 
 every one of them. 
 
 It is true they permit the superintendent of charities to go and 
 inspect them and to report upon them, but he can not do it as a 
 matter of legal right. It is .simply permissive. On that point I 
 refer, gentlemen, to the famous Dartmouth College decision in 
 whicli this principle was established under the advocacy of the 
 great Webster. I say, upon authority of that decision these insti¬ 
 tutions are not subject to public visitation and inspection. It is 
 a matter of sufferance. Let some question arise in St. Ann’s In¬ 
 fant Asylum, for instance—there is such an institution—or, say, 
 in the St. John’s Orphanage—for that is the one that is now be¬ 
 fore us for consideration—some scandal, or some question involv¬ 
 ing points of moral or religious instruction- 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 2312 
 
13 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I should like five minutes more. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman. I hope my colleague will be 
 allowed the additional time he desires. 
 
 There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Suppose, I say, that some question should ari.se 
 in one of these institutions on some point of moral or religious in¬ 
 struction in some time of great public excitement, which the in- 
 stituticn did not want looked into, they would have a right to close 
 their doors in the face of the superintendent of charities and of 
 every other comer, and to .say to them. “Gentlemen, betake your¬ 
 selves into the street.” That would be their legal right. There 
 is no (iuestion whatever about it. Mark you, I am speaking only 
 of their legal right, for, as a matter of fact, they permit inspec¬ 
 tion now. 
 
 Then there is also the question of accounting, which has been re¬ 
 ferred to and elaborately explained by my friend from Illinois, the 
 chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Now, let us see 
 about that. In this appropriation, which is for “maintenance,” 
 it would undoubtedly be the duty of the accounting officers to have 
 some account submitted which would show that the money here 
 appropriated was expended for maintenance. Tlie gentleman told 
 us that he had vouchers here and forms on which the reports of 
 these institutions were made. I have gone through the li.st, and 
 the only one I find containing any items, all the others being blank 
 pieces of paper, is the one that I hold in my hand, and the items are: 
 “ Rent, salarie-^. all other items of maintenance, including repairs,” 
 “Permanent improvements, including purcha.^^e of real e.state. in¬ 
 terest, principal of debt.” These are all the items. Now, what 
 do we learn from this report about the expenditure of the money 
 which we appropriate here? 
 
 Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Not a thing. 
 
 Mr. .grout. Not a thing, as the gentleman on mv right re¬ 
 marks. These reports do not disclose how much of this money 
 goes for the purchase of testaments in Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew, 
 or how much may perchance go for the purchase of beads and 
 crucifixes—because those are articles used in these institutioms— 
 not, perhaps, in the one we are now speaking of particularly, St. 
 John’s Orphanage, but certainly in those belonging to the Roman 
 Church. These reports, I say, give us no information as to how 
 this money is expended in detail, 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. GROUT, Now, I ask, Mr. Chairman, if this is a proper 
 and suitable appropriation for us to make. Has it upon it proper 
 limitations? Is it a business-like affair? I say no. In passing, I 
 have alluded to the sectarian character of these institutions, and 
 herein lies the second reason why I can not vote for this appro- 
 priaticm. I wish to say I am not a member of the American— 
 
 “ Pati’iotic,” a friend near me suggests—or “ Protective” or “Prot¬ 
 estant” Association, whatever the name may be. In fact. I know 
 so little about the organization that I do not know the exact word 
 that the “ P ” stands for. It may stand for every one of the words 
 I have mentioned. All of them are good words. I am not a mem¬ 
 ber of this American organization, but I am an American, and I 
 am also a citizen of the State of Vermont. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 2342 
 
14 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I trust I may have additional time. I find I 
 can not present this matter as soon as I had hoped. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. I ask that the gentleman from Vermont 
 have sufficient time to finish his remarks. 
 
 There was no objection. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairman, I say I am a citizen of the State 
 of Vermont, whose people in 1777—mark that early day—in 1777, 
 at a time when most of the colonies were still existing under their 
 charters from the Crown, and at a time, too, when in every one 
 of the New England colonies except Rhode Island there was such 
 a close union between church and state as to make it uncertain 
 whether the church was the state or the state was the church— 
 I say at that early time, and in the midst of the ideas prevailing 
 more than a hundred years ago, the people of Vermont wrote in 
 their constitution right underneath that famous provision pro¬ 
 hibiting, absolutely, human slavery, which, by the way, was the 
 first constitutional prohibition of slavery in the history of the 
 world—I say they wrote an absolute prohibition of the union of 
 church and state and declared for a complete and perfect separa¬ 
 tion of them as the surest means of preserving the liberty of both. 
 
 That provision is in the constitution to-day; and from the day 
 of its adoption until now not a dollar of public money in that 
 State has ever been appropriated to any sectarian use, or, to 
 speak more liberally, in behalf of any religious enterprise what¬ 
 ever. And, gentlemen, 1 am ready to predict that the day is far 
 distant—indeed, I assert that the day will never come—when 
 among those green hills any different principle will prevail. 
 
 Several Mk.\ibers. That is right. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Why, sir, a proposition in the Veraiont legisla¬ 
 ture for an appropriation of money from the public treasury to a 
 church or a subordinate organization of a church or any religious 
 organization whatever, in aid of its charities or its educational 
 work, would be looked upon by the people of Vermont witli equal 
 astonisliment and alarm, as subversive of one of the most impor¬ 
 tant of the fundamental principles on which the State was built. 
 But this is the precise proposition contained in this appropriation. 
 ;Mr. Chairman, I can not vote for this appropriation and be true to 
 the noble history and the grand traditions of the independent little 
 State from which I come—the very birthplace and the home of the 
 free church and the free school. I can not vote for it without 
 contravening the express letter of its constitution as well as the 
 spirit of the Constitution of the United States, which forbids all 
 legislation “respecting an establishment of religion.” I shall ac¬ 
 cordingly vote to strike it from the bill. 
 
 Now, this St. John's Oridianage Association is a magnificent 
 charity. Let no one hesitate to believe that it is doing glorious 
 work among the children of the District of Columbia, as un¬ 
 doubtedly, in their respective lines, these other institutions named 
 a little further along in the bill are also doing. The St. Ann’s 
 Asylum, these industrial schools, and all these other charities are 
 performing a noble work. God bless them! Their existence, Mr. 
 Chairman, does not depend upon these appropriations. When it 
 is claimed that it does, the charitable and philanthropic purposes 
 of the people of the District of Columbia and of this whole coun¬ 
 try are, in my opinion, poorly understood. 
 
 I have spoken of two l^ds of institutions the appropriations for 
 2312 
 
15 
 
 which are. to my mind, objectionable. First, private institutions, 
 over which the Government has no control—institutions clearly 
 private. These are 19 in number, including those of a sectarian 
 character. There are, as I am informed (and 1 believe my infor¬ 
 mation is correct), 6 of the 19 of a sectarian character, beginning 
 with the Church Orphanage Association, which we are now con¬ 
 sidering. and including St. Ann’s Infant Asylum, the Association 
 for Works of Mercy, the House of the Good Shepherd, St. Rose's 
 Industrial School, and St. Joseph’s Asylum—Gin all. 
 
 For the reasons already given, Mr. Chairman, under no cir¬ 
 cumstances can I vote for these sectarian appropriations. I must 
 stand upon the doctrine taught me among the hills of Vermont, 
 and must protest against them always. 
 
 As to the other private appropriations for the remaining thirteen 
 institutions, I think, after a careful study of the subject, that I 
 can suggest a practical method of solution. Confessedly they are 
 nonsectarian in their character, and they embrace all shades of 
 religious belief and are not open to the objecticnis which have been 
 urged against those to which I have referred, and I offer as a part 
 of my remarks, which in due time I will offer as a concluding 
 paragraph to the bill, that which I send to the Chair, and will 
 briefly explain it after it has been read by the Clerk. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 That no part of any money appropriated by this act for charities or char¬ 
 itable institutions shall be paid to any institution named in this act until the 
 charter or artic-les of in<'orporation thereof shall be so amended as to accord 
 to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, or to their de.signated 
 agents, authority to visit and inspect such institutions, and to control and 
 supervise the expenditure therein of all public funds paid out of appropria¬ 
 tions made liy Congress. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairman, that amendment really explains 
 itself. My programme is tliis: Strike out every one of these sec¬ 
 tarian institutions, and do it squarely on the ground that we can 
 not consistently appropriate money to such establishments, then 
 agree to the foregoing amendment which 1 will in due time pro¬ 
 pose, 
 
 ******* 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 For the German Orphan Asylum, maintenance, $1,800. 
 
 Mr. HAINER of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
 out the paragraph just read. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. On what ground does the gentleman move to 
 strike out this paragraph? 
 
 Mr. HAINER of Nebraska. I make the motion by way of an 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. But why? This is not one of the sectarian insti¬ 
 tutions. 
 
 Mr. HAINER of Nebraska, It is, for all practical purposes, a 
 sectarian institution. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. It is not in the least so; everybody says it is not. 
 As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment offered 
 to perfect the bill in accordance with the ideas of the gentleman 
 from Nebraska. My idea is that we should leave in the bill this 
 institution and every other one that is not sectarian, I want all 
 the sectarian institutions to go out, and then, when that is done, 
 the House can choose between the idea of the gentleman from 
 2342 
 
16 
 
 Nebraska and mine. I think mine is a sensible, practical solution 
 of this (question. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Can I ask the gentleman a question before 
 he takes his seat? 
 
 Mr. CROUT. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I understand the gentleman from Vermont 
 to state that his objection is that these institutions are sectarian? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. That is the objection to those that I would strike 
 out absolutely. The amendment I propose to offer will reconcile 
 me to the others if it should be adopted. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I wish to ask you this question in that con¬ 
 nection: Is there any sound political principle underlying the 
 idea—-in which I fully agree and sympaUiize—that no public fund 
 ought to be given to sectarian institutions except this, that sec¬ 
 tarian institutions are always private institutions and not public 
 institutions and the principle underlying is that public funds 
 ought not to be devoted to any other than public purposes? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a much broader 
 principle; because any institution that is sectarian is not only 
 private, but it is sure to inculcate the principal dogmas or points 
 of religious l)elief which it entertains, and I say that the public 
 money should not be appropriated for that purpose. Funds for 
 that purpose should be raised Iw voluntary contributions alone, 
 and never by process of law. That is my answer to the gentle¬ 
 man's (juestion. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I wi.sh to ask the gentleman this question: 
 Do you think, it being granted that a given institution is a pri¬ 
 vate institution, and that it does not exist for public purposes, 
 that that institution is any better than it would be to have some 
 religion of some sort or even a medley of religions? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Not at all. but that is aside from the question. A 
 charitable institution in this country -unthout any religion would 
 indeed be a rarity. Religion is one of the great bulwarks of this 
 free country, and really so because our religion is free. The Ameri¬ 
 can people as a people are religious and devotional. They believe 
 in a Supreme Being. They may differ on points of belief; they 
 do; and they quarrel over those points sometimes in a most un¬ 
 gracious way. 
 
 If the gentleman's question calls for my reason for discriminat¬ 
 ing against a charity under the exclusive control of a single church, 
 I answer it is because in that case the church left to itself would 
 be sure, so zealous is every Christian organization to strengthen 
 its numbers, to employ proselyting influences with those under its 
 control; whereas if the charity were founded on humanitarian 
 lines rather than religious, and under control of different creeds, 
 the different dogmas would neutralize each other, sectarianism 
 would become siTent, and the only thought would be how to help 
 humanity; and in this work the different creeds would rival eacn 
 other. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 
 ******* 
 Tuesday, February 1896. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve it¬ 
 self into Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the 
 pending aiipropriation bill. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 •-atj 
 
17 
 
 The House acconliiiKly resolved itself into Committee of the 
 Whole. Mr. Payne in the chair. * * * 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I will rise to oppose the pending proposition, 
 and jaeld my time to the gentleman from Vermont. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. 
 
 This Committee of the Whole is, I feel, under a misapprehen¬ 
 sion and somewhat in a state of confusion as to these amendments, 
 and may not do exactly what it wants to do. Let us, in a prac¬ 
 tical way, find out what we want to do. Let me say to gentle¬ 
 men of the committee, if you want to strike out all the institu¬ 
 tions that are strictly sectarian, which have been designated in 
 number as six, then vote to strike them out. You have done so 
 with one already—the St. John's Orphanage. You have also 
 struck out an institution which is nonsectarian—the German 
 Orphan Asylum. This Mr. Wolf, from whom I have just read, 
 who is a Jew, and was formerly president of the German Orphan 
 Asylum, now either its treasurer or secretary, I have forgotten 
 which, says: 
 
 Every 8<if('guard is thrown around the children of the Gorman Oi-phan 
 Asylum, which institution is strictly nonsoctarian, having all shades of reli¬ 
 gious opinion represented on the board. 
 
 Now, if you want merely to strike out sectarian institutions, do 
 so on motions which will be submitted; if no one else submits 
 them, I u-ill do so. Mr. Chairman, I think I know what they are. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. 1 should like to understand the position 
 of the gentleman on the motion now pending. Does he object to 
 striking out the institution to which the motion applies? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I do, most certainly. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. And the gentleman does not object to the 
 others? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. As to certain others I do. I would have the 
 German Onihan Asylum restored to the bill. It is wholly unsec- 
 tarian. Then, as to the other tliirteen charities which are private 
 institutions, if you are willing to appropriate public money to 
 them provided they open their doors by a change of their articles 
 of association or their charters so that the public can as a matter of 
 right enter and inspect the institutions and supervise the exiiendi- 
 tures—I refer to institutions which are confessedly nonsectarian; 
 that is, not made up of persons of any particular form of religious 
 belief—then leave them in the bill, including the German Asylum, 
 which can be left in the bill in the House by refusing to agVee to 
 the amendment of the committee. 
 
 If, on the other hand, you want to confuse the question as much 
 as possible—if you want to make a great noise and really accom¬ 
 plish nothing—vote for the Hainer amendment. It will leave the 
 whole business in a magnificent muddle, which will be discreditable 
 to the intelligence of the House. If also you should not want to 
 strike out these sectarian charities, then vote not to do so and 
 leave them in the bill. In this way the whole matter can be prac¬ 
 tically and fairly dispo-sed of. 
 
 Mr. LACEY. I should like to ask my friend whether or not in 
 principle this German Orphan Asylum and the Colored Home are 
 not substantially in the same category with the Smithsonian 
 Institution? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Practically they are, especially the Colored Home, 
 because it has been the special care of the Government from the 
 first. It could not have had an existence except by act of Con- 
 2342—2 
 
18 
 
 gress. It can not subsist for a day without the help of the Govern¬ 
 ment. It has no contributions from wealthy friends elsewhere. 
 From the verv nature of the case it can not have. It is practi¬ 
 cally on the basis that the gentleman suggests, although technically 
 still" a private institution. I must confess that for one I would 
 bring it under this amendment which I propose; which is. that 
 before it can touch a dollar of the money appropriated in this bill 
 they shall open its doors to inspection; there shall be no technical 
 barrier to nill Government supervision of every feature of the 
 administration and every item of expenditure. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 ««••«« ft 
 
 The question being taken, on a division (demanded by Mr. Hainer 
 of Nebraska) there were—ayes 51. noes 74. 
 
 Mr. HAINER of Nebraska demanded tellers, but subsequently 
 withdrew the demand. 
 
 Accordingly, the amendment of Mr. Hainer of Nebraska was 
 rejected. 
 
 ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 
 
 The Clerk, proceeding with the reading of the bill, read as fol¬ 
 lows: 
 
 For St. Ann's Infant Asylum, maintenance, $.'5,400. 
 
 Mr. HAINER of Nebraska. I move to strike out the item just 
 read. 
 
 ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairman. I -will occupy the time of the 
 committee but a moment. I shall not stop to answer the argu¬ 
 ment of the gentleman last upon the floor [Mr. Powers] as to 
 the propriety of saddling this whole cost upon the people of the 
 District of Columbia, f would say that such a motion here 'would 
 be out of order, but if the gentleman is sincere in his belief that 
 this relation, which the people of the "ndiole country sustain to the 
 
 { )eople of the District, does not justify the present system, then 
 et him bring in a bill to reform the present system and we will 
 discuss that question when it comes up. 
 
 I want to say that I am a little astonished at the statement of 
 my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Cannon] , that this 
 institution is not sectarian, and that this is not a sectarian appro¬ 
 priation. It was quite fully shown by the gentleman from Ne¬ 
 braska [Mr. Hainer] that it is in charge of the Sisters of Char¬ 
 ity of the Order of St. Vincent de Paul. 
 
 I find from the report on the page following that read from by 
 the gentleman from Nebraska that St. Ann's Infant Asylum keep 
 these cliildren until they are 7 years of age, and then I find, when 
 we turn to St. Rose Industrial School, that the girls at 14 come 
 from the Order of St. Vincent to the St. Rose Industrial Sc^hool, 
 an institution to wliich you will have your attention called in a 
 moment, and that they there remain until their education is com¬ 
 pleted. 
 
 Now, you have here the course of a complete educational sys¬ 
 tem for the support of two links, of which, viz. St. Ann’s and the 
 St. Rose School, for which appropriations are asked from this Con¬ 
 gress. The Order of St. Vincent does not apply for aid. 
 
 It seems to be the intermediate link in this chain of instruction, 
 and the whole business seems to be under the order of St. Vincent 
 de Paul. 
 
 2342 
 
19 
 
 But it is perfectly clear that if these appropriations be made 
 for these two institutions, that the itublic money will be used for 
 the beginning and the rounding out of the physical, moral, and 
 religious training of these young ladies up to the time when they 
 are ready to go forth in the battle of life, or them.selves become 
 Sisters of Charity. If tliis would not be the use of money for sec¬ 
 tarian, educational purposes, I do not know what would be. 
 
 As to the iippeal of the gentleman from Il inois (Mr. Caxxon] 
 to the sympathies of members, lest, if this appropriation should 
 fail, these children would be uncared for, let me say, borrow no 
 trouble. 
 
 There are already in the District of Columbia many institutions 
 of a similar character not asking aid. St. Ann’s Infant Asylum 
 will go on with its work just the same though this appropriation 
 should be withheld. If you wll turn to page 47 of the report of 
 the superintendent of charities you will find a list of all the char¬ 
 itable institutions of the city—51 in all—and you will find in that 
 list 32 in number which are not asking for Congressional aid, and, 
 1 presume, all doing good work. Had I the time I would read the 
 list. It is full of instruction. Of these institutions that are ask¬ 
 ing aid, 19 in all, 6 of which are clearly, as has been already shown, 
 strictly sectarian, these institutions, every one of them, would 
 continue their work, though possibly on a more limited scale. 
 
 Mr. HERMANN. Will the gentleman permit me to a.sk him 
 if it is not a fact that within the last few years there has been a 
 very great augmentation so far as our beneficiary acts are con¬ 
 cerned as to these objects, and if this Congress .should now con¬ 
 tinue to encourage it will not there be an additional increase in 
 the future? 
 
 Mr. GrROUT. That is the fact; and if you will recall wdiat I 
 stated on the floor yesterday you will have in mind the aug¬ 
 mentation of it as show'll in this bill. There are four new' chari¬ 
 ties 11 ut in here which, by the way, are meritorious and to which 
 I make no objection. Now, I am w'illing, and indeed, Mr. Chair¬ 
 man. I think it good policy, provided that an amendment be 
 adopted such as was read yesterday in the body of my remarks, 
 bringing these institutions under public supervision, to appro¬ 
 priate for them. I believe we are not going amiss in ajipropriating 
 for them where they are un-sectarian. I believe that if the $70,000 
 or $80,000 that goes for this purpose to-day, to help out the char¬ 
 itable and philanthropic purposes of the people of the District 
 through the medium of these charities, were withdrawn, and the 
 Government were to take entire charge of these needy classes, it 
 w'ould cost not $70,000 or $80,000, but $700,000 or $800,000, but the 
 other is a diiferent question. 
 
 jNIr. Chairman, we are brought face to face with the proposition 
 to appropriate the public money for the use of these private, secta¬ 
 rian institutions w'here complete intellectual, moral, and religious 
 training of the inmates is all the time in sectarian hands, and I 
 must draw the line here. I do not care whether the institution 
 be Catholic or Protestant. The same principle applies. We ap¬ 
 plied it yesterday to a Protestant school, and let us w’ithout flinch¬ 
 ing apply it to-day to this Catholic school, and then in the very 
 next itein to another Protestant institution. There is. in fact, no 
 other safe course for the American people. 
 
 If free government is to be preserved to the future dw'ellers upon 
 this continent, and at the same time free religion is to make bright 
 2342 
 
20 
 
 their hopes of the life beyond, that government and that religion 
 must be kept absolutely separate. The moment you join the two 
 that moment the freedom of both is gone. From that very mo¬ 
 ment each will strive to tyrannize over the other—the church over 
 the state and the state over the church, and both together will 
 be sure to tvrannize over man. 
 
 The religious sentiment is strongest of any in the human breast. 
 The affections perhaps come next; but never have we heard of 
 but one war on account of love, the one in which figured Helen 
 and Priam and ancient Troy. But the page of history is red with 
 the blood of religious wars. Let us, then, in administering the 
 affairs of state, let religion entirely alone; and let us at the same 
 time insist that religion shall not meddle with the state. Let us 
 hold inviolate all public funds for public use only, including pub¬ 
 lic schools. This, faithfully and resolutely done at all times and 
 on all occasions, may save us from the burning question as to the 
 rights of parochial schools, which to-day agitates our neighbor on 
 the north, and over which a whole province is well-nigh in revolt. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 «««•««• 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Let us have a vote, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The question being taken on the amendment, the Chairman de¬ 
 clared that the noes seemed to have it. 
 
 Mr. HAIXER of Nebraska. I ask for a division. 
 
 The committee divided; and there were—ayes 93, noes 25; so the 
 amendment was agreed to. 
 
 ******* 
 
 The Clerk read as follows; 
 
 For Young Women’s Christian Home, $1,000. 
 
 Mr. Hainer moved to strike out this line. 
 
 «««««•• 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Let me appeal to the gentleman from Nebraska 
 not to insist on the motion, but to withdraw it. I can not see 
 what possible good it will do, according to his own statement. 
 
 Mr. HAINER of Nebraska. Well, let us have a vote on it. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Very well, then, let us vote it down. 
 
 The question was taken; and the motion to strike out was re¬ 
 jected. 
 
 ******* 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 For Hope and Help Mission, maintenance, $1,000. 
 
 Mr. HAINER of Nebraska. I move to amend by striking out 
 this paragraph. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I hope it will not be stricken out. The gentle¬ 
 man from Nebraska [Mr. Hainer] says that it is a private insti¬ 
 tution. So it is. Btit we have retained other private institutions, 
 with the understanding, I suppose, that when we are through 
 with these different items an amendment will be offered, in sub¬ 
 stance that which I read in my remarks of yesterday, which pro¬ 
 vides that the appropriations shall not be made available until 
 these institutions open their doors to public inspection by chang¬ 
 ing their articles of association, incorporation, or charter, as the 
 case may be. When that is done, as I said once before this after¬ 
 noon, there can be no objection to appropriating the money to 
 these private institutions. 
 
 ZU2 
 
I also suggest that it will be economical to take care of the poor 
 in that way, and the seventy or eighty thousand dollars which 
 
 g oes to these private institutions would, if the same number of 
 eneficiaries were ttiken care of by the Government, cost probably 
 seven or eight hundred thousand dollars. 
 
 Mr. CRAIN. Does the gentleman thijik that this is any more 
 deserving than those which have been stricken out? 
 
 Mr. GRt^UT. Not probably on charitable grounds alone, but 
 it is not a sectarian institution. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. What is it, then? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. The gentleman from Illinois asks what it is. It 
 is a nonsectarian institution, because, on his o\vn statement, the 
 Christian women from the different churches in this city are in¬ 
 terested in it and carry it forward. What I understand to be 
 a sectiirian institution, and what I think the gentleman ought to 
 understand it to be, is an institution which is exclusively under 
 the control of some one of the religious sects. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Does it help it any—and I am in harmony 
 with my friend- 
 
 Mr. GROUT. No; I am afraid you are not in harmony with me. 
 You do not act like it. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Well, I am glad that the gentleman has come 
 to my way of thinking. 
 
 But let me ask him, does it help it any for a half dozen churches 
 to have charge of the institution instead of one? And let me ask 
 him further, if this is not a reli^ous institution, what is it? Will 
 he say that it is not a religious institution when I read this: 
 
 Wo can testify that at least fourteen women ami {drls have been clearly con¬ 
 verted and fully redeemed from leading sinful lives during the past six 
 months. 
 
 And then, in connection wdth that, when I read the names of 
 the different churches, the meml)ers of which constitute the cor¬ 
 poration, does the gentleman not think that it is a religious insti¬ 
 tution under those circumstances? 
 
 Now, I am with the appropriation, but if it is not a religious in¬ 
 stitution, then what is it? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Very well; I am glad the gentleman is throu.^h 
 with his question at last. It is principally argument and but lit¬ 
 tle question. He asked me a question and was not enough under 
 control of himself to allow me to answer. I say there is this dif¬ 
 ference where several religious organizations are interested in 
 these matters, because there they neutralize each other, and these 
 mrls that are converted—as the gentleman seems to have forgotten 
 he read a second time—may have gone to the several churclies. 
 
 Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, wth reference to the question 
 of sectarianism, the managers of this institution—being some of 
 them Presbyterians, some Episcopalians, and some Baptists, and 
 yet all Protestants—in the distinction l^tween Catholicism and 
 Protestantism, are not sectarian. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I do not understand that the word ‘ ‘ Protestant ” 
 indicates a sect. I do not so understand at all. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. May I ask the gentleman a question? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Not now. There is the Protestant Church—if I 
 must discuss theological distinctions—and there is the Catholic 
 Church. In the latter there are the Jesuits. There is the Order 
 of St. Vincent de Paul that we have heard about to-day, and the 
 order also of the Benedictine, Franciscan, and Carmelite Monks, 
 2342 
 
anfl other orders of friars and monks and nuns almost without 
 number; but these different orders can hardly be called sects, for 
 they all acknowledge the supreme spiritual and temporal power 
 of the Pope. , 
 
 Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Old Catholics and Roman Catho¬ 
 lics. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Old Catholics and Roman Catholics. The word 
 “Protestant” does not indicate a sect. Under that general head 
 come in many, many sects, as everyone knows—I can not stop to 
 enumerate them. That answers the gentleman's question. I hope 
 the amendment will be voted down. 
 
 ******* 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered 
 by the gentleman from Nebraska. 
 
 The question being taken, the Chairman announced that the 
 ayes seemed to have it. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Division. 
 
 The committee divided; and there were—ayes 39, noes 48. 
 Accordingly, the amendment was rejected. 
 
 ******* 
 
 The Clerk read the amendment of Mr. Grout, as follows: 
 
 In.sert on page 40, after lino 2, the following: 
 
 “ That no iiart of any money appropriated oy this act for charities or char¬ 
 itable institutions shall be paid to anv institution named in this act until the 
 chart(*r or artii-les of incorporation thereof shall be so amended as to accord 
 to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, or to their designated 
 agent.s. authority to visit and inspect such institutions, and to control and 
 supervise the t'xiienditure therein of all public funds paid out of appropria¬ 
 tions made by Congress.” 
 
 Mr. BARTLETT of New York. Mr. Chairman, I make the 
 point of order that that amendment changes existing law. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I do not think it necessary to say anything on 
 the point of order, Mr. Chairman. This is simply a limitation on 
 the appropriation, and it has always been held that a mere limita¬ 
 tion is always in order. It does not contravene existing law. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair ’vvould be glad to have the gen¬ 
 tleman from New York inform him what existing law this amend¬ 
 ment would cliange. 
 
 Mr. BARTLETT of New York. I understand that there is no 
 existing law giving this power of visitation. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But this amendment simply provides that 
 “no part of any money appropriated by this act for charities or 
 charitable institutions shall be paid to any institution named in 
 this act until the charter or articles of incorporation thereof shall 
 be so amended,” and so on. It does not purport to amend any 
 charter, but simply provides that the money here appropriated 
 shall not be paid to any institution until its charter is amended as 
 specified here. The amendment is simply a limitation upon the 
 appropriation. The Chair overrules the point of order. 
 
 The amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I move that the committee rise an d report the 
 bill to the House with a favorable recommendation. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gen¬ 
 tleman from Vermont that the committee now’ rise and report the 
 the bill with amendments to the House. 
 
 The motion w’as agreed to. 
 
 The SPEAKER accordingly resumed the chair; and Mr. Payne 
 2342 
 
23 
 
 reported that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
 the Union, having had under consideration the District of Colum¬ 
 bia appropriation bill, had directed him to rei)ort the same to the 
 House wuth sundry amendments, and, as so amended, that it do 
 pass. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, a separate vote is desired on the 
 amendment striking out the German Orphan Asylum, on page 38, 
 and upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska 
 [Mr. Haixer]. 
 
 The SPEAKER. A separate vote is asked on the two amend¬ 
 ments which the gentleman has indicated. 
 
 ******* 
 
 The SPEAKER. The question now is on agreeing to the amend¬ 
 ments, except those on which a separate vote was asked for. 
 
 Pending this motion, the House adjourned. 
 
 Wednesday Fchiniary 6, 1896. 
 
 The bill was further considered in the House and finally recom- 
 mitt('d to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
 reexamine and report a new paragraph of so much of the bill as 
 appears under the subhead of “ For charities.” 
 
 Thursday, April 9,1896. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I report back from the Committee 
 on Appropriations and call up for consideration the bill making 
 appropriations for the District of Columbia. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Vermont reports from 
 the Committee on Appropriations the bill making appropriations 
 for the District of Columbia, which was recommitted to the com¬ 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. McMILLIN. I reserve points of order upon the bill, if 
 there should be any doubt. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, the report tells the whole story with 
 reference to the bill. It tells just what is stricken out and just 
 what is inserted: and if the Clerk will read the report to the 
 House, it will explain fully just what the committee have done to 
 the bill. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman can have the report read as a 
 part of his remarks. 
 
 Mr. DINGLEY. The bill has been considered in Committee of 
 the Whole and reported from that committee to the House. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I will say, for the information of 
 the Chair and of the House, that the bill as reported back by the 
 committee carries precisely the same sum of money that it carried 
 as it was reported from the Committee of the Whole to the House. 
 It is simply in a little different form; that is all the change that is 
 made in the bill; and that change consists in this, that all the 
 private institutions are stricken from the bill and a lump sum is 
 placed at the disposal of the District Commissioners for the chari¬ 
 table work heretofore done by these institutions, to be expended 
 under the following limitations: 
 
 Provided, That no part of the money herein appropriated shall be paid for 
 the purpose of maintaining or aiding, by payment for services or expenses, 
 or otherwise, any church or religious denomination, or any institution or 
 society which is under sectarian or ecclesiastical control. 
 
 *««*«*« 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I ask now that the gentleman from New York 
 [Mr. BaktlettJ use his time. 
 
 2m 
 
24 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Bart¬ 
 lett] is entitled to two minutes. 
 
 Mr. BARTLETT of New York. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, 
 if this debate has served no other ])urpose- 
 
 Mr. McRAE. I had proposed this amendment which I read. I 
 suppo.se it will be con.sidered pending. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I yielded to the gentleman for remarks, not for 
 an amendment. Of cour.se it is subject to objection. 
 
 Mr. BARTLETT of New York. Mr. Speaker, if this debate 
 has served no other purpose, it has at least demonstrated the lack 
 of wisdom and politigal judgment on the part of the majority of 
 the Committee on Appropriations in bringing in an amendment 
 such as that now under consideration. I do not believe that the 
 majority of the gentlemen on the other side of this House believe 
 that the injection of this religious question into the discussions of 
 tins House is a wise political move. I do not believe that they 
 w’ould favor any such amendment as that which has been offered 
 by the gentleman from Vermont if they had a fair opportunity 
 to express their opinions thereon. 
 
 There are tw’o objections to this proposition—first, that it is a 
 blow, and is designed to be a blow, struck at the Roman Catholic 
 religion; and in striking that blow I say that you gentlemen of the 
 Rei)ublican party make a great mistake, because you necessarily 
 alienate from yourselves the Roman Catholic voters who have 
 heretofore cast their ballots for your candidates. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, there is left me only one minute in 
 which to close this debate, but that is all that is nece.s.sary. 
 
 I deny that this amendment is an attack on the Roman Catholic 
 Church. If so, the Democratic party in 1876 made an attack on 
 the Roman Catholic Church, because they put into their national 
 platform precisely the same principle contained in the limitation 
 to the expenditure of the money herein appropriated. The whole 
 charge of the gentleman is false. No church is attacked. It is 
 simply provided that none of the public money shall go for the 
 support of any church or of any institution under sectarian or ec¬ 
 clesiastical control. The hour for this discussion has been entirely 
 consumed, except this minute, by the other side of the House, and 
 the more they have talked against it the more it has become ap¬ 
 parent that it is the only ground on which the American people 
 can safely stand. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the amend¬ 
 ment. 
 
 The question being taken on the adoption of the amendment 
 reported from the Committee on Appropriations, the House divided; 
 and there were—ayes i:i4. noes 21. 
 
 Mr. SULZER and Mr. FITZGERALD demanded the yeas and 
 nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays w'ere not ordered. 
 
 So the amendment was agreed to. 
 
 The bill as aniended wiis ordered to be enj^ossed and read the 
 third time : and it w'as accordingly read the third time, and passed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. GROUT, a motion to reconsider the last vote 
 was laid on the table. 
 
 2W2 
 
 O