ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE USURPATION OF THE SENATE IN THE ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS, FEBRUARY 7, 1856.

On the 11th of December, 1855, Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, introduced a resolution directing the Committee on Finance to consider the expediency of reporting the appropriation bills for the support of the Government. The resolution was allowed to lie on the table till January 7, 1856, when it was called up for consideration, and adopted. On the 4th of February, Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Finance, reported to the Senate the following resolution :

"Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to prepare and report such of the general appropriation bills as they may deem expedient."

The resolution was adopted by the Senate, February 7, but this was all. Nothing was done under it.

This attempt was prompted by the protracted contest in the organization of the House of Representatives, when, after one hundred and thirty-three ballotings, Mr. Banks was chosen Speaker, February 2, and the Slave Power received its first check.

In the course of the debate, February 7, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

R. PRESIDENT,- Whatever the Senator from

M New York [Mr. SEWARD] touches he handles with

a completeness to render anything superfluous from one who follows on the same side; but the opposition which his views have encountered from the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and also from the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TоOMBS], as well as the intrinsic impor

tance of the question, may justify the attempt to state the argument anew.

We are carried first to the words of the Constitution, which are as follows:

"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills."

Under this provision, the annual appropriation bills for the Army, Navy, Post-Office, and civil and diplomatic service, from the beginning of the Government, have originated in the House of Representatives; and this has always been so, I believe, without question. It is now proposed to reverse the standing policy, and to originate such bills in the Senate; and this proposition has the sanction of the Committee on Finance.

The proposition is a clear departure from usage, and on this account must be regarded with suspicion. A slight examination will demonstrate that it tends to subvert well-established landmarks.

By looking at the debates in the Convention which framed the National Constitution, it will be found that this clause was not hastily or carelessly adopted, that it was the subject of much discussion, and was viewed as essentially important in establishing the system of checks and balances peculiar to our Republic. It was, indeed, part of the compromise between the small States and the large States.

After much consideration, the equality of the States was recognized in the Constitution of the Senate, and small States, like Delaware and Rhode Island, were allowed, in this body, equal power with large States, like Virginia and Massachusetts. But this great concession

to the small States was coupled at the time with a condition that "money bills" should originate in the House of Representatives, where the people were represented according to numbers. The language finally employed was, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." This was adopted, as compensation to the large and populous States for their comparative weakness in the Senate.

That I do not go too far, when I call it part of the compromise between the great States and small States, I proceed to show, from the debates in the National Convention, as reported by Mr. Madison, how it was regarded there.

The provision owes its authoritative introduction to Dr. Franklin, who moved it in the committee which subsequently reported it. Afterwards, in Convention, when the clause relating to equality of votes was under consideration, we have this report of what he said.

"Dr. Franklin observed, that this question could not be properly put by itself, the Committee having reported several propositions as mutual conditions of each other. He could not vote for it, if separately taken, but should vote for the whole together." 2

Colonel Mason, of Virginia, was of the same opinion, and desired" that the whole might be brought into one view." 3

Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, followed up the idea of the mutual dependence of the two propositions, remarking,

"He would not say that the concession was a sufficient one on the part of the small States; but he could not but regard 1 Madison's Debates, July 5, 1787, p. 1024, note. 2 Ibid., July 6, p. 1040.

3 Ibid.

it in the light of a concession. It would make it a constitutional principle, that the second branch were not possessed of the confidence of the people in money matters,”

-

Please, Sir, to mark the breadth of this expression. "which would lessen their weight and influence." 1

Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, followed, saying,

"He thought it evident that the concession was wholly on one side, that of the large States; the privilege of originating money bills being of no account." 2

At a later stage of the debates the subject was resumed, and the two propositions still appear together.

"Mr. Rutledge [of South Carolina] proposed to reconsider the two propositions touching the originating of money bills in the first, and the equality of votes in the second branch."

"Mr. Sherman [of Connecticut] was for the question on the whole at once. It was, he said, a conciliatory plan. It had been considered in all its parts."

"Mr. Luther Martin [of Maryland] urged the question on the whole. He did not like many parts of it. . . . . He was willing, however, to make trial of the plan, rather than do nothing."

"Mr. Gerry [of Massachusetts] did not approve of a reconsideration of the clause relating to money bills. It was of great consequence. It was the corner-stone of the accommodation." 8

At a still later stage Mr. Pinckney moved to strike out the section on money bills, "as giving no peculiar advantage to the House of Representatives, and as clogging the Government." Mr. Gorham "was against allowing the Senate to originate, but was for allowing it

1 Madison's Debates, July 6, 1787, p. 1042.

2 Ibid., p. 1043.

8 Ibid., July 14, pp. 1096 - 1098

only to amend." Mr. Gouverneur Morris urged, that it was "particularly proper that the Senate should have the right of originating money bills. They will sit constantly, will consist of a smaller number, and will be able to prepare such bills with due correctness, and so as to prevent delay of business in the other House." To all this Colonel Mason replied, in the strong language which seems to have been natural to him, that he "was unwilling to travel over this ground again. To strike out the section was to unhinge the compromise of which it made a part.”1

I might adduce other authorities; but here surely is enough to show that the provision was in reality one of the important compromises of the Constitution.

This brings me, Sir, to the precise meaning of the provision. The seeming indefiniteness of the term, "bills for raising revenue," may alone furnish apology for the present debate. It may be argued, that, while the Senate is placed under certain restrictions, it may nevertheless originate "appropriation bills." This, of course, is a question of interpretation. Does this interdict upon the Senate extend to bills by which money is appropriated to the support of Government, as well as to bills by which it is directly obtained? Are appropriation bills included under the term, "bills for raising revenue"? Now I cannot accord with opinions so confidently expressed by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS], that it was clearly the intention of the Constitution to concede to the Senate the power of originating all appropriation bills; nor, on the other hand, do I assert that such

1 Madison's Debates, August 8, 1787, pp. 1266, 1267.