[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 4]
[Chapter 94 - General Appropriation Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILLS.\1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Enumeration of. Section 3553.
2. General appropriations and deficiencies. Sections 3554-
3564.\2\
3. District of Columbia expenses. Section 3565.
4. As to what are general appropriation bills. Sections 3566-
3570.
5. Appropriations for support of armies. Sections 3571, 3572.
6. Estimates from Executive Departments. Sections 3573-3577.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3553. Enumeration of the general appropriation bills.--The general
appropriation bills are not enumerated or defined by any rule of the
House, but have become established in the practice, increasing in
number from time to time.\3\ They are fourteen in number: \4\
The legislative, executive, and judicial bill, the sundry civil bill,
the District of Columbia bill, the fortifications bill, the pensions
bill, the urgent deficiency bill, and the general deficiency bill, all
of which are reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
The agricultural bill, which is reported by the Committee on
Agriculture.
The Army bill and the Military Academy bill, which are reported by
the Committee on Military Affairs.
The naval bill, which is reported by the Committee on Naval Affairs.
The diplomatic and consular bill, which is reported by the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
The Post-Office bill, which is reported by the Committee on the Post-
Office and Post Roads.
The Indian bill, which is reported by the Committee on Indian
Affairs.
Each of these bills is reported and passed annually.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Discussion as to right of Senate to originate. Sections 1500,
1501 of Vol. II.
\2\ See sections 4032-4053 of this volume for jurisdiction of the
Committee on Appropriations and general conditions as to appropriation
bills.
\3\ See First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 170, for a
history of the development of the general appropriation bills. A rule
of the House numbered 77 (see Journal, first session Forty-sixth
Congress) enumerated 10 general appropriation bills; but that rule
disappeared in the revision of 1880.
\4\ For the scope of these bills as to the appropriations carried by
them see sections 4032-4053 of this volume.
Sec. 3554
The river and harbor bill, which is reported by the Committee on
Rivers and Harbors, is not one of the general appropriation bills \1\
and is not necessarily reported annually.
3554. A general appropriation bill (except the general deficiency)
provides for the next fiscal year, and expenditures for preceding years
are not in order on any bills reported by committees other than the
Appropriations Committee.--On June 18, 1890,\2\ the House being in
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union considering the
Indian appropriation bill, the Clerk read a paragraph providing for the
payment to the Mexican Pottawatomie Indians, of Kansas, of a sum of
money ``in full of all their money demands and claims arising out of
any payments heretofore made under treaties with the Pottawatomide
Indian Nation.''
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order first,
that the payment was not authorized by existing law; second, that it
was not a provision for carrying on the Indian service for the coming
fiscal year; third, that it was a mere claim; and, fourth, that the
paragraph contained legislation.
The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
3555. Also on the same day Mr. Bishop W. Perkins, of Kansas, offered
an amendment to the Indian appropriation bill, appropriating a sum for
the Citizen and Prairie bands of Pottawatomies under these conditions:
This amount to be in full for the sum due said Indians for arrears
under article 3 of treaty of October 16, 1826; article 2, treaty of
September 20, 1828; article 4, treaty of October 27, 1832; for
educational purposes up to and including fiscal year ending June 30,
1891; this amount to be set apart as specified in said several treaties
as a school fund for said Indians, and paid out under the direction of
the Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, having made the point of order,
the Chairman \4\ ruled:
The Chair is of the opinion that an appropriation of $5,000 for the
year ending June 30, 1891, would be in order, the treaty being as the
gentleman from Arkansas states; but the amount beyond that, the
deficiency, is not, in the judgment of the Chair, in order on this
bill.
Mr. Samuel W. Peel, of Arkansas, having appealed, the decision of the
Chair was sustained, 38 ayes to 37 noes.
3556. Also on the same day Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made
the point of order against a proposition in the Indian appropriation
bill to pay a sum to the same band of Indians ``in full for the amount
found due said Indians by supplemental report of commissioners
appointed by the President of the United States under Senate amendment
to article 10, treaty of August 7, 1868, with said Pottawatomie
Indians.''
The Chairman \5\ ruled:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See sections 3897-3903 of this work.
\2\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 6233.
\3\ Edward P. Allen, of Michigan, Chairman.
\4\ Edward P. Allen, of Michigan, Chairman. (First session Fifty-
first Congress, Congressional Record, pp. 6228, 6231.)
\5\ Edward P. Allen, of Michigan, Chairman. (First session Fifty-
first Congress, Congressional Record, pp. 6231, 6232)
Sec. 3557
The Chair in passing upon this point of order desires to say, in
addition to what the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Perkins], the chairman
of the committee, has said, that he heartily acquiesces in all that he
has said about the injustice of delaying these long-deferred claims
against the Government of the United States in favor of these Indian.
And the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Perkins] has the Chair for a witness
as to his assiduity and faithfulness in undertaking to bring these
claims to the attention of Congress and the country that they might be
adjudicated. But that does not do away with the duty of the Chair to
rule as he understands the rules of this House require, that claims of
this nature can not be put into or acted upon in a bill which provides
for ``the current and contingent expenses of the Indian department and
for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes for the
year ending June 30, 1891.'' That all these claims can be paid whenever
Congress desires to pay them is evident, and that the Committee on
Indian Affairs has jurisdiction of these matters is also evident to the
Chair, and they can be brought in by bills at any time and passed upon
by this House; but the Chair still feels, and is stronger in his
opinion than before, that upon an annual appropriation bill items of
this kind have no place whatever, and the Chair sustains the point of
order.
3557. On June 17, 1890,\1\ the Indian appropriation bill being under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, the Clerk read a paragraph appropriating a sum of money to carry
out the treaty arrangements made with the Cherokee Indians by the
United States of December 29, 1835, to pay their transportation to, and
subsistence for a year after their arrival in, the Indian Territory.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that this
was a claim or a deficiency.
The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
3558. On June 17, 1890,\3\ the Indian appropriation bill was under
consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, and the Clerk had read a paragraph providing for the payment of
the expenses of transportation in a former year of 274 Creek Indians,
at $30 each, and subsistence for twelve months, at $25 each, for 160
Creek Indians, the Indians being entitled to the sums per capita due
them under the treaty of 1826 and the treaty of 1832 with the Creek
Indians.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that this
was a deficiency appropriation, not an appropriation for the coming
fiscal year.
On June 18 the Chairman \2\ ruled:
During the consideration of the bill by the Committee of the Whole
yesterday a paragraph relative to the Cherokee Indians, to pay for
their transportation to, and subsistence for a year after their arrival
in, the Indian Territory, was the subject of a point of order made by
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Cannon], the point being that the
paragraph was not properly in this bill; that the item, if anything,
was a claim or a deficiency, and had no place upon this general
appropriation bill.
The Chair ruled upon that point of order and sustained it.
Subsequently several other paragraphs were read, as to which the same
and other points of order were made. These paragraphs embrace sundry
items, some for the payment of money to individuals and others for the
payment of money to tribes of Indians. The bill before the committee is
entitled ``A bill making appropriations for the current and contingent
expenses of the Indian Department and for fulfilling treaty
stipulations with various Indian tribes for the year ending June 30,
1891, and for other purposes.'' Had these items been offered as
amendments to the bill in Committee of the Whole and had the point been
made upon them, all points of order having been reserved, the Chair
does not hesitate to say that they would not have been
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, p. 6201.
\2\ Edward P. Allen, of Michigan, Chairman.
\3\ First session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 6201, 6228.
Sec. 3559
in order. Though in the bill, they have no status higher than if
offered as amendments. This is an appropriation bill, appropriating
money for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department
and for fulfilling certain treaty stipulations with various Indian
tribes for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, and for other
purposes. The ``other purposes,'' in the judgment of the Chair, are
those incidental to the main purpose. If, then, these items could not
be considered as amendments to the bill when offered in Committee of
the Whole, neither can they be considered when reported in the bill. If
they are anything, they are deficiencies--some of them--and others are
claims of individuals.
3559. On January 28, 1897,\1\ the Indian appropriation bill being
under consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, the Clerk read a paragraph appropriating a sum of money to
enable the Secretary of the Interior to reimburse the confederated
Kaskaskia, Peoria, Piankeshaw, and Wea tribes of Indians the amount due
them under the treaty of May 30, 1854.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that this
was a claim and had no place on a bill appropriating for the service of
the coming fiscal year.
The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
3560. On the same day Mr. Andrew R. Kiefer, of Minnesota, offered to
the Indian appropriation bill an amendment appropriating a sum of money
to certain Sioux scouts who served in 1862 and who were omitted from
the pay roll of the year 1895, when payment was authorized.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon made the point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman \3\ sustained the point of order.
3561. On January 28, 1897,\4\ Mr. James S. Sherman, of New York,
offered to the Indian appropriation bill an amendment authorizing the
Secretary of the Interior to pay the claims of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railroad Company for transportation of Indian pupils in September and
October, 1889, to and from Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute,
out of the unexpended balance of appropriations for the support of
Indian day and industrial schools for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1895.
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order that this
was not in order on this bill.
The Chairman \2\ sustained the point of order.
3562. Appropriations for the continuation of work on a public
building, and not intended to supply any actual deficiency, belong to
the sundry civil bill, not the general deficiency.--On March 17,
1880,\5\ the House was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, considering the deficiency appropriation bill.
Mr. Benjamin Butterworth, of Ohio, offered the following amendment:
For completing the custom-house and post-office building at
Cincinnati, Ohio, $150,000, said appropriation to be immediately
available.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1258.
\2\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman.
\3\ Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, Chairman. (Second session Fifty-
fourth Congress, Congressional Record, p. 1258.)
\4\ Second session Fifty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1263.
\5\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1650.
Sec. 3563
Against this amendment Mr. Joseph C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky, made
the point of order, under Rule XXI.
The Chairman \1\ ruled:
Although the bill under consideration is not, technically speaking, a
general appropriation bill, yet Rule 120 \2\ of the old series was
always held to apply to bills of this character, as well as to original
appropriation bills. The difficulty with the amendment of the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Butterworth] seems to be that it does not come from any
committee having any jurisdiction of the subject. The right of
individuals upon their own responsibility to offer amendments to
appropriation bills has been very much restricted by the third clause
of Rule XXI of the new rules. Without commenting upon that clause, the
Chair holds that the amendment is not in order, coming from an
individual Member of the House and not from a committee having
jurisdiction of the subject-matter.
Mr. Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, having called attention to the fact
that this was a public work or object already in progress, the Chairman
said:
There is now a law making an appropriation for the work upon the
Cincinnati custom-house and court-house for the present fiscal year.
This bill is one making appropriations for deficiencies only. The
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Butterworth] is not
to supply any actual deficiency, but to make provision for the
completion of the work. * * * If the bill under consideration were the
sundry civil appropriation bill, a bill which properly relates to these
subjects, the Chair would hold that such an amendment would be in
order, although offered by an individual.
3563. Deficiencies are not in order on appropriation bills reported
by committees other than the Committee on Appropriations.--On January
14, 1903,\3\ while the army appropriation bill was under consideration
in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, a paragraph
was read appropriating a certain sum, ``one-half of this amount to be
immediately available.''
Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made a point of order against the
provision. After debate the Chairman \4\ said:
The bill under consideration is the general annual army appropriation
bill for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1903, and ending June 30,
1904. The general appropriation for the present fiscal year of 1903 was
made in the bill last year. It seem to the Chair that any expenditure
for the Army during the current year must necessarily be considered as
an expenditure to make up deficiencies in the army appropriation bill
for the fiscal year 1903, or the current year. Any bill, therefore,
whether this bill or any other measure, providing for the appropriation
of the sums so used, must be considered as a deficiency bill, and the
appropriation itself, whether made in this measure or in a measure with
another title, would be an appropriation to make good a deficiency--an
amount not provided for in the army appropriation bill for the current
fiscal year. Being a deficiency appropriation, it should be included in
a deficiency bill, and under clause 3 of Rule XI the deficiency bill
would be a bill referred to and coming from the Committee on
Appropriations. As it seems to the Chair that this is to make good a
deficiency, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.
3564. Deficiency appropriations are in order in any general
appropriation bill within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations.--On February 14, 1901,\5\ the sundry civil
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, and a point of order
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Chairman.
\2\ This rule is now section 2 of Rule XXI. (See sec. 3578 of this
work.)
\3\ Second session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 804, 805.
\4\ Henry S. Boutell, of Illinois, Chairman.
\5\ Second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2419.
Sec. 3565
had been raised by Mr. William A. Jones, of Virginia, against the
following paragraph:
For rent of old custom-house at New York, N. Y.: For rental of
temporary quarters for the accommodation of certain Government
officials from August 28, 1899, to June 30, 1900, $109,847.12; from
July 1, 1900, to June 30, 1901, $130,600; from July 1, 1901, to June
30, 1902, $130,600; in all, $371,047.12.
In support of his point of order Mr. Jones urged that the bill under
consideration was to provide for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1902,
and that all expenditures for prior years belonged on the general
deficiency bill.
After debate, the Chairman \1\ held:
The Chair finds that all the precedents offered seem to relate to the
Indian appropriation bill, and the rules make a distinction between the
jurisdiction of the two committees. The Indian Affairs Committee only
have control of the general appropriation bill for the Indian Service,
and the deficiencies are given to the Committee on Appropriations. Now,
none of the precedents relate to any bill reported from the Committee
on Appropriations, and no reason is given in any decision, so far as
the Chair is able to find--and there are two or three pages of them--
that would exclude the Committee on Appropriations from reporting any
appropriations for a deficiency in a general appropriation bill. The
Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.\2\
3565. The payment of one-half of District of Columbia expenses out of
District revenues is in order on appropriation bills other than the
District bill.--On February 17, 1900,\3\ the legislative, etc.,
appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union, when this paragraph was read:
Of the foregoing amounts appropriated under public buildings and
grounds the sum of $27,130 shall be paid out of the revenues of the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Sidney E. Mudd, of Maryland, made the point of order that this
involved a change of law.
After debate, the Chairman \4\ held:
As the Chair understands it, the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mudd] is that the provision to exclude
which the point of order is invoked is a change of existing law. * * *
Clearly this provision is for a work now in progress. The gentleman
from Maryland does not contend, as the Chair understands, that it is
not so. The parks, according to the understanding of the Chair, are not
on a parity with the Capitol grounds, but are rather similar to the
streets of the city. The organic act of 1878 clearly intended, and in
section 5, rather more clearly than in section 2, states that Congress
should charge one-half of all public expenses in the District to the
District of Columbia. Section 5 of the act expressly names ``streets
and sewers and any other work.'' So that the Chair thinks it was
clearly the intention of Congress by that organic act to provide that
Congress should charge the District of Columbia with one-half of all
public expenses in the District. And this, it seems to the Chair, is
such an expenditure as Congress intended by the act of 1878 should be
borne one-half by the District of Columbia. The Chair, therefore,
overrules the point of order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sereno E. Payne, of New York, Chairman.
\2\ On January 30, 1819, the House adopted a rule that appropriations
for carrying treaties into effect should not be included in a bill
carrying appropriations for other objects. (Second session Fifteenth
Congress, Journal, pp. 219, 221; Annals, pp. 872, 911.) This has long
since ceased to be a rule of the House.
\3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, pp. 1803-1896.
\4\ James S. Sherman, of New York, Chairman.
Sec. 3566
3566. An appropriation bill covering several subjects may fairly be
considered a general appropriation bill within the privilege conferred
by the rule.--On January 18, 1907,\1\ Mr. Lucius N. Littauer, of New
York, from the Committee on Appropriations, reported a bill (H. R.
24541) making appropriations to supply additional urgent deficiencies
in the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, and for
other purposes; which was read a first and second time, referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and, with the
accompanying reports, was ordered to be printed.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
asked whether it would be in order for the gentleman from New York to
immediately move to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for the consideration of this bill.
The Speaker \2\ said:
Upon examination the Chair finds that the bill covers several items,
and can fairly be called, and is, in fact, a general deficiency bill.
3567. On April 5, 1900,\3\ Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, from
the Committee on Appropriations, presented as privileged--
A bill making appropriations to supply additional urgent deficiencies
in the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, and for
other purposes.
This bill, which carried a total of $405,000, provided for fees of
jurors, witnesses, etc., of United States courts, and other expenses of
the Department of Justice.
3568. On March 8, 1900,\4\ Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, from
the Committee on Appropriations, reported the bill (H. R. 9279) making
appropriations to supply additional urgent deficiencies in the
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, and for prior
years, and for other purposes.
This bill was reported as privileged without question.
3569. An urgent deficiency bill, appropriating generally for the
various Departments and Services of the Government, was held to be a
general appropriation bill within the meaning of Rule XXI.--On January
17, 1900,\5\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
was considering the bill (H. R. 6237) ``making appropriations to supply
urgent deficiencies in the appropriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1900, and for prior years, and for other purposes.''
During the reading of the bill Mr. William S. Cowherd, of Missouri,
offered this amendment:
Add, after the word ``dollars, in line 6, page 4, the following:
``Also, to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to provide the new
post-office building in Kansas City, Mo., with elevators, to complete
that building, $35,000.''
Thereupon Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, made the point of order
that the amendment was not in order on a general appropriation bill,
since it proposed an
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1347, 1348.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3799.
\4\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 2664.
\5\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 921.
Sec. 3570
appropriation unauthorized by law, the limit of cost for the building
having been reached by appropriations already made.
Mr. Cowherd contended that the bill under consideration was not a
general appropriation bill, and therefore that the amendment did not
fall within the provision of Rule XXI,\1\ section 2.
After debate the Chairman \2\ held:
The gentleman from Missouri offers an amendment to the pending
paragraph, to which the gentleman from Illinois makes the point of
order that it is not in order because of the provisions of Rule XXI,
section 2, which reads:
``No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation
bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not
previously authorized by law, unless in continuation of appropriations
for such public works and objects as are already in progress; nor shall
any provision changing existing law be in order in any general
appropriation bill or in any amendment thereto.''
In the opinion of the Chair, following the precedents, the point of
order must be sustained if the pending bill is a general appropriation
bill. The gentleman from Missouri, however, urges that the pending bill
is not a general appropriation bill, and therefore that section 2 of
Rule XXI does not apply; and in support of his position he cites the
introduction into the House on two previous occasions of deficiency
appropriation bills that were admitted, according to the method then
pursued, not to be general appropriation bills. In each of those cases,
however, it will be observed that the subject-matter of the bill could
have been covered in a single paragraph. * * * There was no pretense
that the bills contained subject-matter relating to the Departments of
the Government or a majority of the Departments of the Government.
There is a vast distinction between the bills to which the gentleman
refers and the bill before the House. This bill carries the sum of
$58,000,000. It deals with the Executive Department, the War
Department, the Navy Department, the District of Columbia, and various
other subjects. It is manifestly on its face a general bill and, in the
opinion of the Chair, must be so considered.
It is urged that the Committee on Appropriations can not present more
than one general appropriation bill under any particular heading. There
is nothing, so far as the judgment of the Chair goes, to prevent the
Committee on Appropriations from dividing their general appropriation
bills in case of necessity for such action on their part. The reason
for the adoption of Rule XXI, section 2, was to prevent general
legislation upon appropriation bills, and there is no reason why Rule
XXI should be applicable to any general appropriation bill that does
not apply with equal force to the one that is now before the House.
Without undertaking to put the decision at all upon this proposition,
the Chair suggests that it may be a question whether or not the point
made by the gentleman from Missouri can now be entertained. This bill
was introduced into the House as a general appropriation bill. The
right to so introduce it was recognized as a privileged right; it was
submitted to the Committee of the Whole as a general appropriation
bill. No Member rose in his place, either when the bill was presented
or when it was committed to the Committee of the Whole House, to object
that it was not a general appropriation bill, and it may very well be
held that it is now too late to raise that question.
The House went into Committee of the Whole to consider it under the
rules, and, without placing the decision upon that ground at all, the
Chair sustains the point of order.
3570. On March 17, 1884,\3\ a deficiency bill, appropriating for
several departments of the Government, was reported from the Committee
on Appropriations. A question being raised as to whether or not the
bill was a general appropriation bill, the Speaker \4\ said:
A special deficiency bill is not a general appropriation bill,
because it is a bill which may or may not be presented to the House,
according to the necessities of the Government. The general
appropriation bills are bills which are required to be passed each year
for the support of the Government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3578 of this work.
\2\ John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
\3\ First session Forty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1998.
\4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 3571
3571. No appropriation for the support of armies shall be for a
longer term than two years.--Article I, section 8, of the Constitution
provides:
The Congress shall have power * * * to raise and support armies, but
no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than
two years.
3572. Interpretation of the constitutional provision limiting the
duration of appropriations for the support of armies.--On January 2,
1904,\1\ the Solicitor-General of the United States, Henry M. Hoyt,
rendered to the Secretary of War an opinion, which was approved by the
Attorney-General, P. C. Knox, as to the construction of Article I,
section 8, clause 12 of the Constitution, and the relation thereto of a
proposed contract to pay a royalty in the use of certain gun carriages.
After referring to the acts of Congress, the opinion proceeds:
These acts make the sums therein appropriated ``to be available until
expended;'' and here arises the real inquiry, namely:
Whether, inasmuch as a judicious and proper use, for the purposes
intended, of the moneys thus appropriated for military purposes, might,
and in some cases probably would, extend over a period of more than two
years, these appropriations are in conflict with Article I, section 8,
clause 12 of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have
power ``to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to
that use shall be for a longer term than two years.''
The words ``to that use'' refer to the raising and supporting armies,
so that the clause is as if it had read ``no appropriation of money to
raise and support armies shall be for more than two years.'' The
question is, therefore, whether the appropriations here considered
``for mountain guns, with their carriages, packing outfits, accessories
and ammunition,'' are appropriations to raise and support armies. To
raise and support an army is one thing. To render it effective, by
equipping it with guns, ammunition, and other means for attack and
defense, is another; and the word ``equip'' was, in military parlance,
so common and well known as to preclude the idea that the framers of
the Constitution intended the words ``raise and support'' as including,
or as the equivalent of, ``raise, support, arm, or equip,'' and thus to
limit appropriations for forts, fortifications, heavy ordnance, arms,
ammunition, and other means for the public defense to such as must be
expended within two years.
Furthermore, it is not necessary to extend the meaning of the words
``to raise and support'' beyond their ordinary signification in order
to include the power to arm and equip armies when they are raised and
supported. That power follows as of course from the power to declare
war; to raise and support armies; to provide forts, magazines, and
arsenals; and to levy and collect taxes to provide for the common
defense.
That the inhibition was not intended to go beyond the ordinary
meaning of the term ``raise and support,'' nor to forbid Congress, in
time of peace, to prepare for war by erecting and arming forts and
fortifications, providing arsenals, heavy artillery, arms, ammunition,
and other means for the common defense and public safety, even though
this should require appropriations for more than two years, is
manifest: First, from the fact that, had a matter of such vast
importance been actually intended, it would have been expressed with
the clearness and precision which characterizes the whole of the
Constitution, and would not have been left to what is, at best, a very
doubtful inference from an ambiguous expression; and, second, it is
manifest from the broad, unlimited powers conferred upon Congress in
other parts of that instrument.
Thus the power to declare war is also the power to prepare for,
maintain, and carry on war, offensive and defensive; of constructing
and arming forts and fortifications, providing heavy artillery, arms,
ammunition, and all other mean of warfare. This may and often does
require appropriations for more than two years. The power to do these
things was not intended to be taken away or restricted by the
inhibition of appropriations to raise and support armies. The two
purposes were different. The one was to raise and support armies, and
to guard against excess in this the power was limited; the other was to
arm, equip, and render effective such armies as we might have within
the previous limitation, and to provide for the common defense. And, as
to this latter purpose, no restriction is imposed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vol. 25, Opinions of the Attorneys-General, p. 105.
Sec. 3573
Clause 17, section 8, Article I, which gives to the Government
exclusive jurisdiction over all places purchased by the consent of a
State, ``for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and
other needful buildings,'' confers upon Congress an unlimited power to
procure sites for, erect, arm and supply, at will, these forts,
magazines, arsenals, and other needful buildings for military purposes;
and the fact that, in order to do these things, appropriations for more
than two years would be required, in no wise detracts from or restricts
the exercise of this power.
The constitutional provision that ``no money shall be drawn from the
Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations'' equally forbids the
making of contracts or promises for the payment of money for which no
appropriation has been made; so that, if appropriations ``to raise and
support armies'' embraced appropriations for forts, magazines,
arsenals, cannon, arms, etc., Congress would be without power to
contract for the completion or supply of any of these except such as
could be completed or supplied within two years after the appropriation
therefor.
The wide and unlimited power to levy and collect taxes, etc., to
``provide for the common defense and general welfare'' fully authorizes
Congress to provide forts, magazines, arsenals, guns, ammunition, and
military stores and supplies, without reference to whether or not the
appropriations therefor extend over more than two years; and, in
reading this and the other clauses referred to, it is impossible to
suppose that the powers thus conferred without condition or restriction
were, in fact, intended to be limited and qualified by the clause here
considered.
I have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the
appropriations forbidden by Article I, section 8, clause 12 of the
Constitution are those only which are to raise and support armies in
the strict sense of the word ``support,'' and that the inhibition of
that clause does not extend to appropriations for the various means
which an army may use in military operations, or which are deemed
necessary for the common defense, or which may be provided as a measure
of precaution irrespective of the existence or magnitude of any present
army.
And, answering your question more specifically, I am of opinion that
the provisions referred to in the appropriation acts cited are not in
conflict with clause 12, section 8, Article I of the Constitution.
3573. Executive communications are addressed to the Speaker and are
by him referred.
The rule and the law governing the making up, transmittal, and
reference of estimates for appropriations. (Footnote.)
Form and history of Rule XLII.
Rule XLII provides:
Estimates \1\ of appropriations, and all other communications from
the Executive Departments, intended for the consideration of any
committees of the House, shall be addressed to the Speaker and by him
referred, as provided by clause 2 of Rule XXIV.\2\
This rule dates from March 15, 1867, when it was adopted with the
object of giving to the House information which had hitherto been sent
only to the Committee on Appropriations.\3\ It was old rule No. 159
before the revision of 1880. In the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Statutes of the United States provide:
``All estimates of appropriations and estimates of deficiencies in
appropriations intended for the consideration and seeking the action of
any of the committees of Congress shall be transmitted to Congress
through the Secretary of the Treasury, and in no other manner; and the
said Secretary shall first cause the same to be properly classified,
compiled, indexed, and printed, under the supervision of the chief of
the division of warrants, estimates, and appropriations of his
Department.'' (Session Laws first session Forty-eighth Congress, p.
254, act of July 7, 1884.) All officers making estimates are to furnish
the same to the Secretary of the Treasury by October 15 of each year.
(31 Stat L., p. 1009.) Estimates of expenses of the Government are to
be prepared and submitted according to the order and arrangement of the
appropriation acts of the year preceding. (34 Stat. L., p. 448.)
\2\ See section 3089.
\3\ First session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 120; Journal, p. 46.
Sec. 3574
revision of 1890 it was modified so that the reference of the
Communications should be made under the rule instead of by the
House.\1\
3574. The annual estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury for the
support of the Government are printed in advance of the assembling of
Congress.--On January 16, 1850,\2\ the letter of the Secretary of the
Treasury, transmitting the estimates for the service of the Government,
was referred to the Ways and Means Committee. The index of the Journal
contains the following entry:
Estimates not laid before the House by Speaker, but informally laid
on Members' tables the first day of session, referred to the Committee
of Ways and Means.\3\
3576. On December 18, 1847,\4\ the House
Ordered, That the estimates of appropriations, transmitted to the
House by the Secretary of the Treasury on the 6th instant, be referred
to the Committee of Ways and Means.
The index of the Journal \5\ has this entry:
This document was printed in the recess by order of the last House
and was not, therefore, laid before the House in the usual way, and
does not appear in the Journal at the time it was furnished to Members.
There is no mention of the receipt of the document in the Journal of
the 6th.
These estimates, called the ``Book of Estimates,'' are now printed in
advance of the assembling of Congress. They are technically in the form
of a letter to the Speaker, but are not actually delivered to him, and
are not always introduced and referred in the House, although such
procedure is technically required to give jurisdiction to the various
committees reporting appropriation bills.\6\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Communications from the heads of the Departments and from other
officers whose duty it is to make reports to Congress or to the House
are addressed to the Speaker, who causes a brief statement of their
contents to be indorsed thereon. Immediately after the approval of the
Journal, these communications are referred under the rule to
appropriate committees.
\2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 326, 1641.
\3\ This committee reported the appropriation bills then.
\4\ First session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 108.
\5\ Page 1379.
\6\ For the provisions of law as to the manner of communicating
estimates, attention is called to the Revised Statutes, second edition,
Title 41, p. 720, sections 3660 to 3671; to 18 Stat., chapter 129, page
370, section 3, Act of March 3, 1875, and to section 2, deficiency act
of July 7, 1884 (23 Stat., p. 254). In estimating for new objects, it
is desirable that the title of the appropriation be put in as few words
as possible. The estimate of the amount required for the service of a
Department should be the exact amount the head of the Department
expects to be called upon to expend during the fiscal year, as, by the
provisions of the fifth section of the act of July 12, 1870, Revised
Statutes, second edition, page 729, section 3690, unexpended balances
are not applicable to the service of the succeeding year.
The estimates should be transmitted to the Treasury Department in
accordance with the following paragraph from the act of March 3, 1875
(18 Stat., chap. 129, p. 370): ``Section. 3. That it shall be the duty
of the heads of the several Executive Departments, and of other
officers authorized or required to make estimates, to furnish to the
Secretary of the Treasury, on or before the first day of October of
each year, their annual estimates for the public service.''
``And hereafter all estimates of appropriations and estimates of
deficiencies in appropriations intended for the consideration and
seeking the action of any of the committees of Congress shall be
transmitted to Congress through the Secretary of the Treasury, and in
no other manner; * * * .''--Deficiency act of July 7, 1884, section 2
(23 Stat., p. 254).
Sec. 3576
3576. Estimates of expenses of the Government are to be prepared and
submitted according to the order and arrangement of the appropriation
acts of the year preceding.
A law directs the committees to draft the appropriation bills on the
general order and arrangement of the acts of the preceding year.
Section 4 of the act approved June 22, 1906,\1\ provides:
Hereafter the estimates for expenses of the Government, except those
for sundry civil expenses, shall be prepared and submitted each year
according to the order and arrangement of the appropriation acts for
the year preceding. And any changes in such order and arrangement, and
transfers of salaries from one office or bureau to another office or
bureau, or the consolidation of offices or bureaus desired by the head
of any Executive Department may be submitted by note in the estimates.
The committees of Congress in reporting general appropriation bills
shall, as far as may be practicable, follow the general order and
arrangement of the respective appropriation acts for the year
preceding.
Hereafter the heads of the several Executive Departments and all
other officers authorized or required to make estimates for the public
service shall include in their annual estimates furnished the Secretary
of the Treasury for inclusion in the Book of Estimates all estimates of
appropriations required for the service of the fiscal year for which
they are prepared and submitted, amd special or additional estimates
for that fiscal year shall only be submitted to carry out laws
subsequently enacted, or when deemed imperatively necessary for the
public service by the Department in which they shall originate, in
which case such special or additional estimate shall be accompanied by
a full statement of its imperative necessity and reasons for its
omission in the annual estimates.
3577. The House once passed a resolution requesting the President to
cause a reduction of the executive estimates to be made.--On December
15, 1873,\2\ the House, on account of the financial embarrassment
throughout the country, passed a resolution requesting the President to
cause a revision of the estimates submitted in the annual Book of
Estimates, in order to make a reduction in the totals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Legislative act, first session Fifty-ninth Congress. (34 Stat.
L., p. 448.)
\2\ First session Forty-third Congress, Journal, p. 128; Record, pp.
211-214.