The Great Washington Enrolment Error: How a Senate Amendment Slipped Into a Harbor Bill
A clerical mistake in the final printing of a river and harbor bill has inserted a controversial $10 million amendment intended for Galveston into legislation for Seattle's Elliott Bay, sparking threats of filibuster and legal chaos.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
WASHINGTON, March 18 — One of the most curious mix-ups that ever occur in carrying appropriations bills under pressure has just been discovered in the river and harbor bill. Instead of appropriate provisions implying for the improvement of the Galveston ship channel and Clear Lake bayou from its mouth at Galveston to the proposed harbor site at Houston, it forms a bill as if Congress had really adopted the amendment for which Senator Milliken patiently argued and had put the whole work under the contract system at a rate of not less than $10,000,000, with $5,000,000 to be immediately available.
The Milliken amendment was carried in the Senate, but the House conferees refused absolutely to permit it to remain, although they agreed in an admission of $600,000 of their original sum. Mr. Milliken threatened to filibuster against the bill if the Senate reversed his amendment. But when the report came up for discussion last on Friday night he fell out of all. The bill, as approved by its president and as printed today in law-print form, contains both the provision agreed upon in reference as well as the Milliken amendment entire.
The enrolling of the bills in some way inserted the amendment which was stricken out, and when the bill compared with the conference report the error now is detected. It remains to be seen which will be accepted by the secretary of war, the special agent who will pass him in person during the work. This question will probably be submitted to the attorney general, although some senators to whom the cost was put declared to us that the secretaries would undoubtedly be guided by the intent of conferees as set forth in the conference report, which is a part of the official record.
This bizarre legislative glitch highlights how easily federal infrastructure funding can be hijacked by political maneuvering—a dynamic that persists today. The 'Milliken amendment' likely refers to the contentious post-Spanish-American War debates over Galveston's seawall and harbor improvements, which were often prioritized over Pacific Northwest needs like Seattle's Elliott Bay development.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.