the negative, with Massachusetts divided and New York absent. In this form it went to the Committee of Detail, but still unsupported by a majority of the States.

Again, upon the report of this committee, it came into debate, and Mr. Pinckney moved to strike out the clause, and was supported by Gouverneur Morris, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Madison. Mr. Mason, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Ellsworth thought it had better stand as a compromise. Mr. Gorham was in favor of originating the bills in the House, but giving power to the Senate to amend. The clause was struck out by the votes of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia (7), against New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and North Carolina (4), without disturbing the equality of States in the Senate. But Mr. Randolph gave notice of a motion to reconsider, and Mr. Mason, with some others, still regarded it as necessary to adhere to the compromise, although the large States had disclaimed its supposed value and the small States were willing to adhere if the large States desired it.

Upon the reconsideration, Mr. Randolph proposed to limit the exclusive power to "bills for the purpose of revenue," to obviate objection to the words "raising money," which might happen incidentally, not allowing the

Senate by amendment to either increase or diminish the same. His motion was in the following words: "Bills for raising money for the purpose of revenue, or for appropriating the same, shall originate in the House of Representatives; and shall not be so amended or altered by the Senate as to increase or diminish the sum to be raised, or change the mode of levying it, or the object of its appropriation."

Mr. Mason renewed his arguments in its favor. Mr. Wilson again opposed it with warmth. He said "it would be a source of perpetual contentions when there was no mediator to decide them. The President here could not, like the executive in England, interpose by a prorogation or dissolution. This restriction had been found pregnant with altercation in the eight States where the constitutions had established it. The House of Representatives will insert other things in money bills, and, by making them conditions of each other, destroy the deliberate liberty of the Senate." And he recited a remarkable case of this misuse of power by the House of Commons. Gouverneur Morris thought its proposed advantages illusory, because the "Senate could tire out the other House and extort their concurrence in favorite measures as well by their negative or withholding their assent as by adhering to a bill introduced by themselves. In respect to

the representatives 'holding the purse-strings,' both Houses must concur in the untying; and of what importance could it be which untied first, which last?" Mr. Madison made a full argument on the same side. Mr. Read would follow the example of many of the States, retaining the exclusive authority in the first House, but giving the Senate liberty to amend. Mr. Carroll said the clause in the Maryland constitution was "a source of continual difficulty and squabble between the two Houses."

At the end of this searching debate (August 13) three votes were taken. First, on the exclusive right in the first House to originate money bills: the ayes were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia, North Carolina (4); the noes were Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia (7). Second, on originating by the first House and amending by the Senate: the vote was the same, -noes seven, ayes four. Third, on the question of no appropriations of money except those originating in the first House: Massachusetts alone voted aye (1), the other ten States voting no.

Here, for the first time, appears a very strong conviction of the Convention that a distinction should be made between bills for raising revenue and bills for appropriating money.

Two days later Mr. Strong, of Massachu

setts, moved to insert in another place the same clause of Mr. Randolph which had been voted down on the 13th. It was thought best to postpone the question for the time and consider other matters, which was done. Subsequently a committee of eleven was appointed to consider various old and new questions of detail in the Constitution as reported, and on the 5th of September Mr. Brearley reported from this committee, among other clauses, the following: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, and shall be subject to alterations and amendments by the Senate; no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

Again it was postponed on motion of Gouverneur Morris, who said it had been “agreed in the committee on the ground of compromise," and he wished to await the disposition of other clauses. Though opposed, this motion was carried by nine States against two. On the 8th of September the long dispute was ended. After a verbal amendment, which was made unanimously, the clause was adopted as it now appears in the Constitution, except that the Committee on Style, in their revision, transposed the last clause to another place. The final vote shows its acceptance by all the States except Delaware and Maryland.

Among the published objections of George Mason, on account of which he refused to sign the Constitution, was this, that "the Senate have the power of altering all money bills and of originating appropriations of money."

It thus appears that by express votes the Convention refused to extend the exclusive power of the House beyond bills for raising revenue, and by express vote decided to leave in the Senate an equal power to originate bills making appropriations of public money, and that only a minority of the Convention attached constitutional importance to the former provision.

ADMISSION OF NEW STATES.

It was among the clauses of the Virginia plan that provision should be made for the admission of new States into the Union, whether with a voluntary junction of government and territory, or otherwise, and without requiring the consent of all the States. This was agreed to in the committee of the whole. It was remembered that there had been discussion of new States to be formed in the west of North Carolina, west of Pennsylvania, in Maine, in Vermont, and in the Western region. In the Convention itself there had been talk (June 18) of a readjustment of territory among the States with a view to equalize them.

When the Committee of Detail made their