It is one thing to know that support for, and opposition to, decentralization in 1885 was largely based on predictions about what structural change would do to subsequent spending decisions. It is quite another thing to show that the predictions were borne out. Because members on both sides of the issue fought so hard for their positions in 1885, and because reform rhetoric early in the next century turned its fire on the regime of 1885, it is tempting to assume without second thought that the decentralizers ultimately triumphed in both their structural and substantive goals, gaining both spending independence and expansion.

Yet we should be slow in jumping to conclusions about the actual performance of the 1885 regime. The reasons for expressing caution are simple enough: Many factors influencing spending decisions were still beyond the direct control of members of Congress (MCs) after 1885. MCs could change structure, but structure was not the whole ballgame. The country and its demography, geography, economy, and politics had begun to change at an astounding pace by 1885. Certainly these changes would have some impact on subsequent House spending decisions, independent of the appropriations structure itself. Thus, if we are to develop a clear understanding of how changing the appropriations process changed spending decisions, we need to take these other factors into account.