Economy

Iu the courso of tho long diseussion on iêdnfced appropnations for Territorial jovernments, tlie action oL the Commiiteo on AppropriatiouB having been eriticized on the República side of tho House, Mr. Bandnll (the Speaker) defended the conree of that coinmittre, and condeniDed the tendency of tin: Republicau members to )ierd together in opposition to all nieasures of economy. He was replied to by Mr. Garüeld, who declarcd that such an iniputation against tho Repnblican side of the House was not to be borue, andasseited that from 1872 to the present time (under Iiepublicau, as well as under Democratie control of the House) the expenses of tho Government have b-en on tho descending scale. Tho Republicana believed in two tliings - the support of the Government (cost what it might) and in all cconomy that was possible in connection with an houest, fair, and reasonable support of tho Government. Mr. Randall took issue with Mr. Garfield's statement, and repeated his first awertion that the Republiean side of the House had lent its rfforts aa against cconomy. He (Randall) had chafed under itfrom time to time because hoknew there vere as good men on the Ropublican side of the Houso as there wero on the Democratie side. It was through no disrespect thnt he appealeíl to the Republican side no longer to continue ia that direction, no longer to rcBist economy. Mr. Hale nlso replied to Mr. Randal], and said that the lattor had never had so hard a task ns he had this scsbion in trying to control the Democratie sidcof the House so as to prevent it bankrupting the treasury. He (Randall) had had the making np of the corumittees. It was not a Republican committee that had reported the River and Harbor bill to which he (Randall) was bo rouch opposcd. Mr. Randall - You voted for it. Mr. Hale - I certainly did, but I am speaking now from the gentleman's s-taudpoint. He did not believe in it. That bill could never have been stalked into the House if it had not been reportod by a Democratie committee. So, too, with the Mcxicau Pension bill, that would take $7,000,000 a year ont of the treasury. The Speaker, as au economist, will be glad to seo that bill voted against by the Republican members. The trouble with economy on the other side is that it is " cheese-paring." Th expendituro of the bpenker s strengt! and iniiuence should be made 011 his iollowers on the Democratie sido of the House. Mr. Conger made a sareastic allusion to what ho called Ihe Spcaker's zeal iu behalf of cconomy, aud said if the gentleman wonld attend the Democratie canouses and use his power and persuasivo eloquenoe tliere, it would bo more appropriate tban for him to step down from liis pliiee and locture the Bepubliean members of the House. That gentlcmnn's voice, when he spoke as a politieian. was potent in the land. The overshadowÏDg of a Presidential nominatiou gave kis voice power all over the land, Ho whipped in his foilowers with that kind of grntitnde whic.h had been deiincd as " expiotation of fa vors." In the further progress of tlio cüscussion, Mr. Calkius quoted from the remarks of Mr. Raudall ou the bill for an increase of members' salaries, and rcmiirk( A (ironically) that iie had no doubt that the gentleman's action on tJiat occasion had been prompted in the interest of economy. Mr. Randall replied thafe the allusion had not the ni'erit of originality. It liad beeu made over and over again, and he h:d btrt one reply to it. He had advocated sinwrely and honestly to inercase the members' salaries, hut vhon ho went back to the people the people condemued the measure, and ho had, as a faitiiful public servant, given np his own opinión in that respect, and obeyed the instructious of the people. That was what he wantod the ltepublioan party to do. Mr. Oalkins - I was not iinpuguing your motivo. Mr. ltandall - I did not suppose that you were, but you were impugning my consistency, and I was auswering that charge. When my conduet as a Eepresentalive was condemned by the peoplo I yielded to tlieir authority and snbmitted to their control, as I am always ready to do. Mr. Oalkins - Did the gentleman cover back the $5,000 drawn from the treasury. Mr. Randall - I never did. I look over all my reeord here, and I can say truthfully that I havo never cast a vote that was prompted by any personal considerations. Mr. Williams, of Wisconsht - If you tbonght that members shonld have 7,500 a year, why did you afterward move to out down their falary toí.OOO? Di.l the people demand that ? Mr. Handall - I did not propose to cut down their compensation to $1,000. The j eoramittee recommended $1,500, and I took the ground that tho peoplo nad eondpmned an increase of salaries, and it was not consistent for members to be cutting down the pay of other people and letting tlieir own stand. Mr. Williams - Why do you not propose to cut it down now 1 Mr. Kandall - Whenover a gentleman makes a proposition to cut it down I will be found with him. Mr. Williams - Why do not yourcommittees do it bofore you lecture us on economy? Mr. Hiindall - T say deliberately here that I Gelieve rather iu f uttiug down the ] number of om)loye.') than in cutting j down salaries. I belicve that if the law I was adhered to in the departments in regard to the number of hours for clerical work t.he f orce could be reduced 25 per cent.