178 KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. 



Franklin made a report"^ which contained three principal points. 

 First, that the members of the House should be apportioned on the 

 basis of population. Second, that all money bills should originate 

 in the House. f Third, that the states should have equal representa- 

 tion in the Senate. Thus the origination of money bills was made a 

 part of the struggle between the large and the small states over the 

 question of representation, and it would be but natural to expect to 

 find the large states in favor of and the small states opposed to this 

 proposition of Franklin. But many of the most influential members 

 from the large states did not believe in the wistlom of such a pro- 

 vision. J Madison, of Virginia, opposed it throughout, declaring that 

 the Senate was as much the representative of the people as was the 

 House, and wovdd umloubtedly be composed of a class of men more 

 capable of dealing with financial questions than would the House. 

 Of the satne mini! were Morrisj^ and Wilson|| of Pennsylvania, and 

 Williamson** of North Carolina, while the members most earnest in 

 support of the provision were Clerry of .Massachusetts, Mason of 

 Virginia and Franklin of Pennsylvania. Gerry said "it would 

 establish the constitutional principle that the second branch were not 

 possessed of the confidence of the people in money matters, "ti 

 Franklin thought that those who were nearest the people should 

 distribute the people's money on the princii)le that '• those who feel 

 can best judge. "+ J On the cpiestion whether the clause reading ".Ml 

 bills for raising revenue shall originate in the first branch of the 

 legislature, and shall not be amended or altered by the second 

 branch,"' the vote stoorl Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Mary- 

 land, North Carolina, Yes, 5. Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Caro- 

 lina, No, 3. Massachusetts, New V'ork, (ieorgia, Divided, 3. $i^ 



It is evident from this vote that the small states were offering an 

 inducement to the large states which the large stales either were 

 unwilling to accent, or did not regartl as wise. By a majority of the 

 members of the convention the matter was not looked upon as a 



♦Madison Papers, Vol. II. pp. 10-4. 10;:6. 



+The provision rea'i • ihat all bills for raising or appropriating money, anrt for fixing 

 the salaries of the officers of the Govi'rnment of the Lnitea ."elates, shall origin te in the 

 first branch of the legislature, and shall not be altered f)r amended by the second brai;ch." 

 — Elliots Debates, Vol. V, p. 274. 



JMadison Papers, Vol. II, p. 8.>7. 



§Ibia.,p. 1011. 



lllbid., p. ion, 



**Ibid..p, 1013. 



+tlbid., p, 1043. 



tX" Dr. FranUUndid not mean to go into a justification of the report, but as it had been 

 asked what would be the use of restr;iining the secontl branch fmrn meddling wlthnroney 

 bills, he could not but remark that it was alwavs of importance that the people should 

 know who had dispose.l of their raonev and how it had been dispo.se 1 of. It was a maxim 

 that those who feel can be-t ju Ige. This end would, he thought, be best attained if 

 monev affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people. This 

 was his inducement to concurin the report."— Elliott's Debates, Vol. V, p. 'Jsl. 



§S Madison Papers, Vol. II, p. 1045. 



