184 KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. 



nevertheless he insisted on the necessit}' of carefully guarding the 

 peculiar privilege of the house over money bills. In reply Mr. Madi- 

 son, who practically closed the debate, said: " I am at a loss to see 

 where the danger lies. These are precisely the words used by 

 the former Congress on two occasions; one in 17S3, the other in a 

 subsequent ordinance which established the Revenue Board. The 

 same power was also annexed to the office of Superintendent of 

 Finances, but I never yet heard that any inconvenience or danger 

 was experienced from the regulations. * "*' * With respect to 

 originating money bills, the Mouse has the sole right to do it; but if 

 the power of reporting jjlans can be construed to imply the power of 

 originating revenue bills, then the constitution is inconsistent with 

 itself in giving to the Presiilcnt authority to recommend such meas- 

 ures as he may think expedient or necessary; but the construction is 

 too unnatural to require further investigation."* Previous to the 

 speech of Mr. Madison, Mr. Fitzsimmons had moved to substitute 

 "prepare" for "report" so that the clause read "digest zn^ prepare 

 plans for the improvement and management of the revenue and the 

 support of the public credit," and this alteration was accepted 

 without much argument. 



This debate derives its importance from the fact that it occurred 

 in the first session of Congress, and was the first indication, after the 

 adoption of the constitution, of the emphasis placed by the House 

 upon the privilege of originating revenue bills. There was not a 

 speech during the debate which belittled that privilege or gave evi- 

 dence that the speaker thought the privilege unwise or unjust. Even 

 Mr. Madison did not at this time express any doubts as to the wis- 

 dom of such a privilege. He simply accepted the provision as in 

 existence and therefore to be followed, but he failed to see how the 

 clause of the treasury bill, as originally reported, violated the consti- 

 tution. The decision reached was of little importance. The real 

 importance of the debate lies in the unanimity of opinion as to the 

 power of the House. Vet there is another point of interest in that, 

 apparently, "money bills" and "revenue bills" meant the same thing 

 in the minds of the speakers. In the argument of Mr. Madison, for 

 example, an illustration of this is given. No attention was called to 

 the possible distinction between the two terms, and it must be sup- 

 posed therefore, that the House considered itself to have the exclusive 

 initiative in all money matters, whether for increasing the revenue or 

 for decreasing it, or, possibly, for appropriating money. These 

 points will be of interest in connection with the accounts of subse- 

 quent disagreements between the House and the Senate. 



*.Aunals of Congress, Vol. I. p. 6(W-3. 



