Tlje Evil of Changing Existing Laws iij Appropriation Bills. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HOIST. CHAS. P. THOMPSON", 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 In the House of Representatives, Thursday, August 3, 1876. 
 
 The House haying under consideration the re¬ 
 port of the committee of conference on the disa¬ 
 greeing votes of the two Houses on the amend¬ 
 ments of the Senate on the bill (H. R. No. 1594) 
 making appropriations for the consular and dip¬ 
 lomatic service of the Government for the fiscal 
 year ending June 30,1877— 
 
 Mr. THOMPSON said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker : We have now arrived at 
 a point where it can but be profitable for us 
 to pause and most carefully consider what 
 is the cause of the defective workings of 
 our system of legislation. We find that 
 general appropriation bills which ought to 
 have been passed more than a month ago 
 are suspended between the two Houses of 
 Congress, and in great danger of not being 
 passed at all, and the operations of Govern¬ 
 ment stopped for want of the necessary 
 funds to meet the necessary expenses of the 
 Administration, and the country also in 
 danger of having changes in existing laws 
 effected in a manner that is revolutionary 
 and subversive of the rights of the people. 
 What is the cause of this most alarming 
 state of things ? Is it in the fact that Con¬ 
 gress is composed of two distinct and inde¬ 
 pendent branches ? Cannot the Govern¬ 
 ment be carried on successfully with a Senate 
 and House of Representatives ? Have we to 
 try again the experiment of a single legis¬ 
 lative body, which history and experience 
 have found to be a failure and so unfavor¬ 
 able to good government that not a State 
 has adopted such a system of legislation or 
 scarcely a city in the whole country has or¬ 
 ganized its council upon that basis ? 
 
 I do not believe for a moment that any 
 one is prepared to say that the framers of 
 our Constitution made a mistake when they 
 provided in the first article of the Constitu¬ 
 tion, and in the first section of that article, 
 that “ all legislative powers herein granted 
 shall be vested in a Congress of the United 
 States, which shall consist of a Senate and 
 House of Representatives,” and provided 
 also that each branch of Congress shall be 
 equal to the other in rights, privileges, and 
 powers except where the contrary is partic¬ 
 ularly specified. It is not necessary for my 
 present purpose to enumerate the few par¬ 
 ticulars in which their rights, powers, and 
 
 privileges are not the same. The only ma¬ 
 terial difference so far as legislation is con¬ 
 cerned is set forth in article 1, section 7, 
 which is: 
 
 All bills for raising revenue shall originate in 
 the House of Representatives, but the Senate may 
 propose or concur with amendments as on other 
 bins. 
 
 But it was not intended that they should 
 be equally susceptible to popular influences. 
 The House was so constituted, so organized 
 that it would feel at once the throb of the 
 popular heart; the Senate, so that cool and 
 deliberate action might be insured. The 
 Senate was designed to be the great con¬ 
 servative force in our system of legislation. 
 But I am sorry to say that the popular in¬ 
 fluences at work have tended to make the 
 two branches much alike, too equally sus¬ 
 ceptible to the momentary popular influ¬ 
 ences. Sir, under our system the popular 
 sensation is felt too soon in our legislation. 
 The workings of our system of legislation 
 have developed the fact that its checks and 
 balances are not too great for wise and 
 necessary legislation, but are found often¬ 
 times to be too small to prevent hasty and 
 ill-matured legislation. I think this fact 
 will be conceded on all sides. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, if our system of legis¬ 
 lation is right, if Congress is wisely organ¬ 
 ized with two separate independent branches 
 and the system is to be maintained, there 
 must be some error in the modes of legisla¬ 
 tion in the one branch or the other, or in 
 both, which are to be remedied to secure 
 the proper workings of the system. Let us 
 ask ourselves earnestly and conscientiously 
 whether we may not be somewhat respon¬ 
 sible for the imperfect workings of this sys¬ 
 tem ; for if we are, then it behooves us to 
 put ourselves right at the earliest possible 
 moment. The way to obtain justice is to 
 do justice. The most approved method of 
 inducing others to do right is to do right 
 ourselves. 
 
 Eor one, I am fully convinced that this 
 House is in fault, and that further persist¬ 
 ence in it will make it criminally in fault; 
 that we ought at once to put ourselves right. 
 I am not going to discuss at length at this 
 
2 
 
 n ... . » ■ —- . - — 
 
 moment the effect of the amendment made 
 to the one hundred and twentieth rule of 
 this House by striking out all after the word 
 “progress ” and adding thereto, “nor shall 
 any provisions in any such bill or amend¬ 
 ment thereto changing existing law be in 
 order except such as, being germane to the 
 subject-matter of the bill, shall retrench ex¬ 
 penditures ;” an amendment that I believed 
 most vicious in its tendencies, and against 
 which I recorded my vote with the deepest 
 conviction of the correctness of that vote, 
 and observation and reflection have strongly 
 confirmed the conviction I then entertained, 
 that the policy of making it possible and 
 even probable that the Committee on Ap¬ 
 propriations would absorb many of the du¬ 
 ties and powers of nearly all the other com¬ 
 mittees and sadly derange the whole mode 
 of legislative proceeding in this House, and 
 cause questions to be considered alone, or 
 more particularly with reference to their 
 pecuniary character, when it might be of 
 the first importance to have them consid¬ 
 ered in other and widely different aspects 
 than that of their immediate effect upon the 
 Treasury of the United States. 
 
 I know that it has not been unusual for 
 new legislation to be ingrafted on appro¬ 
 priation bills, for appropriation bills to con¬ 
 tain legislation independent of “any ex¬ 
 penditure previously authorized by law ” or 
 the “continuation of appropriations for such 
 public works and objects as are already in 
 progress. ’ ’ And I know not why this House 
 should be held more responsible for such 
 legislation than others, unless it has carried 
 this wrong to a greater extent than other 
 Houses have done. But, sir, be this as it 
 may, the question now is not as to the expe¬ 
 diency of that course, but it is a wholly dif¬ 
 ferent question. It is this question—a graver 
 one cannot be proposed: Will this House 
 demand and insist that legislation, which 
 under that rule has been ingrafted upon the 
 general appropriation bills changing exist¬ 
 ing laws, shall be re-instated and retained 
 in those bills after they have been stricken 
 out by the Senate, for the purpose of com¬ 
 pelling the Senate, coercing the Senate, to 
 adopt that new legislation or refuse to pro¬ 
 vide funds for carrying on the various de¬ 
 partments of the Government? This is the 
 question; and I have no doubt, for one, 
 how this House ought to answer it. This* 
 manifest attempt at coercing a co-ordinate 
 and equal branch of Congress is wholly 
 without justification or excilfee. Much of 
 this new legislation under the amendment 
 to that rule has received, I regret to say, 
 my vote; not that I do not believe the meas¬ 
 ures to be sound and necessary, but on ac¬ 
 count of the mode in which that new legis¬ 
 lation passed the House, namely, as amend¬ 
 ments to appropriation bills; and it is not 
 only my right but my duty to speak and 
 act with reference to the use, the disposition 
 that is to be made <of that legislation. 
 
 I have said tbfl? duties, privileges, and 
 
 powers of the two Houses are equal in all 
 matters of legislation, except that the House 
 of Representatives has the exclusive right 
 to originate bills for raising revenue. But, 
 sir, this to my mind is not so much a ques¬ 
 tion as to what are the relative rights of the 
 two Houses. The real question, the impor¬ 
 tant question, is, What are the rights of the 
 people ? The people have the right to have 
 this protection; that no law shall be passed 
 affecting their rights unless it have the con¬ 
 current approval of both Houses of Con¬ 
 gress, expressed separately and independ¬ 
 ently of each other, without interference or 
 coercion. A law must be the separate judg¬ 
 ment of the two Houses as well as their 
 combined judgment; and unless it is, it is 
 not the will of the people constitutionally 
 expressed. The will of the people is that 
 the Constitution shall be obeyed. All laws 
 must not only be enacted according to the 
 forms of the Constitution, but in harmony 
 with its spirit. The people are now saying 
 to Congress in the strongest possible man¬ 
 ner, “ Pass no law that has not the full, fair, 
 uncoerced approval and concurrence of both 
 Houses of Congress.” They are saying 
 this through the Constitution. How can 
 they speak more earnestly? 
 
 Legislation in this country was designed 
 to be by Congress, and not by either House 
 alone. If by any means the House and the 
 Senate are put in a position where they are 
 led to trade with each other, where one 
 measure which is the favorite of the House 
 and disapproved of by the Senate, and an¬ 
 other measure which is the favorite of the 
 Senate and disapproved of by the House, 
 and both are passed by the two Houses for 
 the reason that unless both are neither can 
 be, I say most emphatically that if both 
 measures are passed by Congress, they are; 
 in direct violation of the spirit of the Con¬ 
 stitution. Neither ought to have been en¬ 
 acted by Congress, and the enacting of them 
 is a most gross and outrageous fraud upon 
 the people. Moreover, it is the sacred right 
 of this House, the constitutional right of 
 the majority and the minority of this House, 
 that if a bill passes here, however large its 
 majority, however necessary or important 
 it may seem to be for the advancement of 
 the prosperity, honor, and glory of the 
 country—I repeat, it is the constitutional 
 right of the majority and the minority to* 
 have the free, honest, and uncoerced judg¬ 
 ment of the Senate upon that bill and every • 
 section of it, and if it does not meet its ap¬ 
 proval and concurrence, to have the bill 
 defeated, so that it shall not become a law. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I demand my constitutional 
 right in this matter ; I demand it as a mem¬ 
 ber of this House; I demand it in ihat higher, 
 nobler, more commanding capacity of an 
 American citizen—I demand that this House 
 shall not attempt to coerce the Senate to 
 make any change in existing laws by an en- ,» 
 deavor to retain such changes in the appropri¬ 
 ation bills against the consent, the approval 
 
V - 
 
 z> dC?/ 
 
 S 
 
 of the Senate. I demand of the Senate that 
 it shall not yield in the slightest degree to any 
 influences from the House which are not 
 wholly independent of considerations as to 
 how much or how little may be gained for its 
 favorite measures by adopting the measures 
 proposed by the House. I have the right 
 both as a member of this House and as an 
 American citizen to have the judgment of the 
 Senate upon the neccessity, fitness, and pro¬ 
 priety of the measures proposed by this House 
 and each of them. If one House of Congress 
 is to control certain legislation and another 
 branch certain other legislation, we might as 
 well divide the work; let the Senate have its 
 class of subjects, and the House its, which 
 would'work a complete revolution in our sys- 
 / tern of government. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, let us suppose for a moment 
 that a private citizen engaged in large and im¬ 
 portant transactions had come to the conclu¬ 
 sion that he would not enter upon any new 
 enterprise unless the enterprise should meet 
 with and receive the unqualified approval of 
 two carefully selected advisers, each forming 
 his opinion independent of the other; and sup¬ 
 pose further that these chosen and trusted ad¬ 
 visers should make an agreement that if the 
 one would declare his concurrence in the feas¬ 
 ibility of the favorite project of the other, the 
 latter would declare his concurrence in the 
 feasibility of the favorite project of the former, 
 when in fact there was not a mutual agree¬ 
 ment as to the feasibility of either project, 
 and that agreement should be carried out; 
 would it not be said, and most truthfully and 
 justly said, that a most gross and wicked 
 fraud had been committed ? Sir, in no case 
 would that private citizen have the real judg¬ 
 ment of but one of his advisers, and instead 
 of the judgment and support of the opinion 
 of two honest men with reference to the en¬ 
 terprise, he would have but the opinion of 
 one, and that of one who has been guilty of 
 committing a most wicked fraud upon him. 
 It would be an equally gross fraud upon the 
 people of this country were the Senate and 
 the House to meet through its conference 
 committees with the purpose on the part of 
 each of getting through Congress as much of 
 legislation as possible that both Houses do 
 not approve, by each conceding to the other 
 its favorite measures, and a repoit were agreed 
 upon and presented to both Houses and rat¬ 
 ified with a similar purpose. Such laws, al¬ 
 though possibly passed under the letter of the 
 Constitution, would be passed in the most di¬ 
 rect and absolute violation of its spirit. 
 
 I have no language in which to express the 
 surprise with which I have heard such expres¬ 
 sions as these, “ The Senate has made so 
 much and the House has made so much.” 
 Sir, in the manner that legislation is being 
 conducted in these appropriation bills, noth¬ 
 ing can be made by the Senate, nothing can 
 be made by the House ; but the people may 
 lose everything. What it is alleged that the 
 Senate and the House have gained may be 
 only the measure of what the people have 
 lost. Every change in the existing laws ef¬ 
 fected by the necessity of having an appro¬ 
 
 priation bill passed is a change made without 
 their consent. If done, the servants of the 
 deople have consented that laws might 
 be made practically by one body, when they 
 had no such power delegated to them. The 
 people have the right to have each House of 
 Congress to guard and protect them against 
 any errors or mistakes that may be commit¬ 
 ted by the other. 
 
 But it may be said that there is an over¬ 
 powering neccessity for putting new legisla¬ 
 tion upon these appropriation bills, that in 
 no other way can the demand for retrench¬ 
 ment be met and the enormous expenditures 
 of the Government be reduced and brought 
 within reasonable limits. Sir, whatever may 
 be the impression upon the minds of some, 
 there is no such neccessity existing. There 
 cannot be such a neccessity. The great and 
 overpowering neccessity of the present time 
 is a strict observance on the part of all of the 
 Constitution of the United States—its grants 
 and limitations. There can be no sufficient 
 cause shown or apology made for a violation 
 of either the letter or the spirit of that sacred 
 instrument, which is the charter of our pow¬ 
 ers and the guardian of our liberties. The 
 people demand no reforms except those that 
 may be made in a constitutional manner. It 
 is not enough that certain retrenchments seem 
 proper and just to this House; the people do 
 not want them adopted until they appear 
 proper and just to the Senate, and not even 
 then unless two-thirds of both Houses of Con¬ 
 gress approve them or the President shall also 
 approve them. Neither House of Congress 
 nor the President alone can express the will 
 of the people upon subjects of legislation. 
 
 Let us not be too anxious about this matter. 
 This House can only speak for itself. It is 
 only responsible for its own action, and the 
 Senate is equally responsible for its position, 
 and the President for his. Let us respect the 
 rights of each as we expect each to respect 
 ours. We have no right to do otherwise, 
 whatever may be our convictions as to the 
 importance of the measures we may be at¬ 
 tempting to advance. 
 
 Am I asked what is our duty at this time 
 in relation to the matter under consideration ? 
 I answer, without a doubt as to its correct¬ 
 ness, unload at once all the appropriation bills 
 now in any manner under the control of this 
 House of every word changing existing laws 
 which has not been approved of by the Sen¬ 
 ate ; put that new legislation before the House 
 again, so far as it is now deemed just and es¬ 
 sential to the public welfare, through the re¬ 
 ports of appropriate committees of the House; 
 so modify Rule 120 that no amendment shall 
 be in order changing existing laws in the 
 general appropriation bills. The danger of 
 pressing measures by tacking them to appro¬ 
 priations and having them carried, not by 
 their own merit, but by the force of the bill 
 to which they are attached, is too great to be 
 hazarded. 
 
 In view of the experience we have had I 
 cannot see how any member can ever again 
 vote to put an amendment upon an appro¬ 
 priation changing existing laws, however de- 
 
4 
 
 f 
 
 sirable the change sought for may appear to 
 him. I answer further, restore at once the 
 proper and healthy action of the various com¬ 
 mittees upon their appropriate subjects of 
 legislation; restore to them their true posi¬ 
 tion, the position they occupied before they 
 were dwarfed to give the great power and 
 scope which have been given by that amend¬ 
 ment to that ride to the Appropriation Com¬ 
 mittee. 
 
 I trust I may be permitted to say gen¬ 
 erally, that it is our highest duty to most 
 
 sacredly regard both the letter and spirit of 
 the Federal Constitution and in all our de¬ 
 liberations here to place public honor and 
 justice above national wealth and power, 
 and the public welfare far above personal 
 or party considerations. I owe this House 
 an apology for not stating my convictions 
 earlier upon this question. I make that 
 apology now. I do not know the measure 
 of my fault, but I am certain that longer 
 silence would have been a crime. 
 
 FOREIGN INTERCOURSE. 
 
 Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise mainly 
 to place upon record certain statistical infor¬ 
 mation which I think will be of use to gentle¬ 
 men who may not have obtained it from the 
 Departments and who may require it in the 
 succeeding conference. We have two branches 
 of our foreign service: the consular and the 
 diplomatic. The consular service is not paid 
 out of the ordinary funds of the Treasury. 
 It is paid by fees collected upon foreign mer¬ 
 cantile transactions, and should be expended 
 for the benefit of the commerce of the coun¬ 
 try. The first statement I submit is a com¬ 
 parison of the appropriations for consular sal¬ 
 aries from the year 1856 to 1875, showing also 
 how the revenue from fees has grown with 
 the increase of the consular service; the fees, 
 however, in the larger ratio. In 1856 the 
 salaries amounted to $280,000 in round num¬ 
 bers, with no report of fees. The next year 
 the salaries amounted to $273,750 and the 
 fees to $110,802. From that small beginning 
 the consular service appropriation rose in 1872 
 to $477,000 as the highest figure, while the 
 fees have increased to over $700,000. [See 
 table.] 
 
 This statement is important as showing 
 that the facilities we afford to commerce by 
 consular appointments are actually increasing 
 the revenue to the Treasury; and the effort 
 to abolish those consular appointments where 
 the fees are small is like a telegraph com¬ 
 pany abolishing every office on its line that 
 does not pay the expenses of its maintenance. 
 
 Last year we reduced the payments from 
 the figures of 1872 $333,000, while the fees 
 are about $700,000. Hence, I maintain that 
 the destruction of the consular service pro¬ 
 posed in this bill is a destruction pro tanto of 
 the commercial interests of the country. I 
 desire that the next committee of conference 
 
 may bear in mind that the consular service is 
 one which merchants pay for and that they 
 have a right to demand its vigorous support, 
 while they also pay in part for the diplomatic 
 service. 
 
 Comparison of amounts appropriated for con¬ 
 sular salaries with the amounts of fees col¬ 
 lected and returned to the Fifth Auditor of 
 the Treasury for the fiscal years named. 
 
 Appropriations. 
 
 Salaries. 
 
 Fees re¬ 
 turned. 
 
 August 1, 1856. 
 
 February 7, 1857.... 
 
 July 5, 1858. 
 
 March 3, 1859. 
 
 May 26,1860. 
 
 February 28, 1861... 
 February 4, 1862.... 
 February 4,1863.... 
 
 June 20, 1864. 
 
 January 24, 1865.... 
 
 July 25,1866...... 
 
 February 28, 1867... 
 
 March 30, 1868. 
 
 March 3, 1869. 
 
 July 11, 1870. 
 
 February 21, 1871... 
 
 May 22, 1872. 
 
 February 22, 1873... 
 
 June 11, 1874. 
 
 February 18, 1875... 
 
 $280,750 00 
 273,750 00 
 
 273.750 00 
 235,000 00 
 
 268.750 00 
 *329,261 97 
 
 351,550 00 
 •416,354 34 
 ■477,500 00 
 ; 450,000 00 
 1425,000 00 
 •431,500 00 
 ■400,000 00 
 ■400,000 00 
 ■ 376,663 00 
 •391,200 00 
 416,000 00 
 •409,000 00 
 364,500 00 
 333,200 00 
 
 No report. 
 $110,802 89 
 110,896 78 
 99,113 23 
 77,590 21 
 
 152,982 54 
 254,218 34 
 287,108 00 
 442, 477 56 
 424,099 17 
 435,179 73 
 459,722 43 
 534,670 79 
 632,258 22 
 706,907 95 
 746,594 89 
 715,202 94 
 697,988 49 
 J700,000 00 
 
 *This includes a deficiency of $54,571.97. 
 f This includes loss by exchange, estimated 
 at $45,000 to $48,000. The House bill pro¬ 
 poses to reduce the appropriation for consular 
 salaries to $294,900. 
 
 I Estimated.