426 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 In view of that ruling, the Chair announced that the point of order made by
 the Senator from Missouri was overruled. From the ruling of the Chair the
 Senator from Miasonri has appealed to the Senate.
 Mr. CLAxK. Mr. President, I desire very briefly to discuss the appeal.
 I had great affection in his lifetime and have great respect for the memory
 of Vice President MarshalL I cannot forget, however, that at one time when
 I was familiar with proceedings of that sort, and was Parliamentarian of the
 other House, that great Vice President was overruled nine times in one week
 by the Senate of the United States, and therefore I do not think the matter
 is necessarily settled. Furthermore, It does not seem to me that the ruling
 of Vice President Marshall is in any way applicable to this situation.
 The Chair holds, and holds properly, that title II of the bill does contain
 some legislation. Many appropriation bills come over here from the House
 that contain some item of isgislation; but from the present ruling of the
 Chair it would follow that If any general appropriation bill contained any item
 of legislation, therefore any other item of legislation would be in order in
 the Senate on a general appropriation bill
 I do not believe that is sound. In other words, it seems to me the necessary
 application of the ruling of Vice President Marshall, which the Chair has just
 read, would be to the particular provision which it was sought to amend, and
 that from the ordinary artiflce of dividing a bill into titles, it does not follow
 that if a particular title happened to contain matter of legislation it would
 open up the whole title to any other item of legislation. In other words, the
 question should be whether or not the provision sought to be stricken out by
 the pending Senate amendment is legislation, and whether that should be
 opened up by the Senate amendment.
 Mr. President, I am thoroughly in favor of the general purpose of the Senate
 committee amendment, and there is no diiculty about making the committee
 amendment in order on any general appropriation bill by some very simple
 transformation in language turning it into a limitation. The committee had
 in mind to make this amendment as a limitation on this appropriation bill,
 but they have not done it in the apt terms of limitations on appropriation bills
 according to the text of the rules for a generation have been established both in
 the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The proponents of the
 amendment to the committee amendment seek to take advantage of the fact
 that the committee amendment itself is not in the aptest language to open up
 the general field of legislation. Therefore it seems to me that If the point
 of order which I have made should be overruled, the Senate should in all good
 conscience repeal rule XVI, and open up general appropriation bills to any sort
 of legislation which any Senator desires to offer at any time.
 Mr. AAuM. Mr. President, I am not an expert on parliamentary law, but I
 kaow the Intent of the Senate committee in reference to this provision to be
 that which the Senator from Missouri describes. It was an effort to put a
 limitation upon the use of the particular appropriation contained in the bill.
 It is not general legislation, it is not new legislation. We merely state that the
 money appropriated by this bill shall be so used that any project to which it is
 allocated shall be completed within the limits of this appropriation.
 Mr. CLa n. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
 Mr. AnMa. I yield.
 Mr. (kOam. As I have said, I am in entire sympathy with what I conceive
 to be the purpose of the Committee on Appropriations. Does not the Senator
 agree with me that If advantage be taken of a possible appropriateness in
 language, converting this committee amendment from a limitation in a general
 appropriation bill into an excuse for opening up the committee amendment
 to amendments of a general legislative character, it opens the door wide to any
 sort of legislation which may be contemplated by any Member of the Senate?
 Mr. ADAMs. I am thoroughly in accord with the decision of the Chair, but
 I beg to differ with the reasoning. My understanding of the terms "new
 legislation" and "general legislation" is that they should be construed to
 mean something alien to an appropriation bill. In other words, title II does
 not contain within it that which I think can be correctly defined as new or
 general legislation. Every part of an appropriation bill is legislation. An
appropriation bill Is legislation. What the rule seeks to forbid is attaching
to an appropriation bill legislation upon other subjects which are new, and
which are matters of general legislation, rather than the regulation, the con-
trol, and the direction of the particular appropriation. In that sense I do
not believe that a limitation, however Inaptly framed, which Is directed exclu-
sively to the appropriation made by the bill, is either to be termed "new" or