308 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 So far as I know, nobody has ever questioned the constitutionality of the
 Public Works Act of last year and nobody has ever questioned the legality of
 the appropriations made under that act.
 The whole question Is whether the authority granted to the President to
 expend so much as he might see fit for a particular purpose out of that
 particular appropriation meant authority to obligate the Government beyond
 the extent of 4,800,000,000, and, if the President proceeded to spend $5,000,000
 on a project that might ultimately cost $150,000,000 or $250,000,000 or $800,-
 000,000, whether that allocation of a small part gave authority to the Director
 of the Budget to send here an estimate.
 I contend further, that if the contention be correct, that the allocation by
 the President did not carry any further authority of law on that project than
 the allocation made by him under that act, the Director of the Budget had
 no authority to make an estimate for the project, that the Chief of Engineers
 and the War Department had no authority to make an estimate for the project,
 and, therefore, the project does not properly come before the Senate as being
 authorized under our rules, which, it may be, had been adopted because we
 could not trust ourselves, but nevertheless have been on our rule book for many
 years. The proposed amendment comes outside the various exceptions author-
 ized by the rule because it is not an estimate which the Director of the Budget
 had the authority or the right to make, and is therefore not made in accordance
 with law.
 Mr. BAazxLr. Mr. President, unless the Chair Is ready to rule, I wish to say
 just a few words; but if the Chair is ready to rule, I shall refrain.
 The PUmIDIRo OwIcC. It is the purpose of the Chair to submit the question
 to the Senate. The Senator from Kentucky may proceed.
 Mr. Baxzrl. In that connection, then, I wish simply to emphasize a point I
 made awhile ago in an interrogatory propounded to the Senator from Texas
 [Mr. Connally], and earlier to the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Clark].
 I do not believe a point of order would lie against an item in an appropria-
 tion bill reported by the Appropriations Committee increasing the amount of
 the fund necessary to complete a construction project of any sort which had been
 authorized by Congress, even though a limitation had been placed upon the
 amount of money to be spent on the project For instance, if Congress should
 include in the Navy appropriation bill, or a bill carrying general legislation
 with respect to the Navy, an item authorizing the President to construct a bat-
 tleship to cost $20,000,000, and the President, in pursuance of the authority to
 construct such a battleship, exhausted the $20,000,000 and found it necessary to
 have another $1,000,00 or $2,000,000, and the Appropriations Committee should
 bring in an item authorizing the expenditure of an extra $1,000,000 on the bat-
 tleship, I do not believe a point of order would lie against that extra $1,000,000,
 because the construction of the battleship had already been authorized. Of
 course, the President could not go beyond the $20,000,000 unless Congress should
 appropriate the extra amount; but the Appropriations Committee could include
 such additional amount and bring it here as a part of its appropriation bill for
 the Navy, and a point of order would not lie against it, although in the author-
 ization itself Congress limited to $20,000,000 the amount to be expended.
 Mr. Noama Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?
 The Phmamno OmcEn Does the Senator from Kentucky yield to the Senator
 from Nebraska?
 Mr. BAzrrT. I yield.
 Mr. NomIs. I have not heard all the debate, and I desire to ask the Senator
 a question for information.
 Is it conceded, to begin with, that the President, in allocating or setting aside
 a sum of money for this particular purpose, acted within the power granted to
 him by Congress?
 Mr. BAwxLa. As I understand, it is conceded by both sides that he acted
 within the scope of his authority; and that authority never has been questioned.
 Mr. KnGo. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. BAunmr. I yield.
 Mr. KINw. I would not accept without qualification the statement just made
by my friend from Kentucky. I am inclined to think that the President might
expend the $4,800000,000 in any way he saw fit, of course, for a proper purpose;
but I deny that he would have the right to make commitments that would call
for additional appropriations, perhaps, of hundreds of millions of dollars, and
that such commitments would be a valid command to appropriations committees