ADAMS: THK CONTROL OF THE PURSF.. 189 



originate in the House of Representatives. This was a bill to reduce 

 the duties, except in a single clause, and that clause relates to the 

 act, which had not yet gone into operation. * ''■ * He did not 

 believe that it was the intention of the constitution so far to restrict 

 the right of the senate as to preclude the origination of a bill to 

 repeal an existing law."* Probably this was the first important 

 occasion upon which a distinction between raising revenue and 

 reducing revenue was made. This point became the point in contro- 

 versy between House and Senate at a later day, but at this time the 

 House had no opportunity to discuss the queston. Mr. Dickerson 

 disagreed with Mr. Clay's interpretation of the constitution: "Such a 

 bill as this could not originate in the senate. * * * To raise revenue 

 was entirely a distinct thing from a mere question of the modification 

 of duties. The tgrm as used in the constitution implies the collecting 

 and bringing money into the treasury."! Mr. Webster stated in 

 reply that "by its title the bill could hardly be rejected as a bill for 

 raising revenue, which ought to originate in the other House,"! 

 and that he should vote for the leave to introduce it. His position 

 at this time is possibly, and yet not necessarily, at variance with his 

 later speech against the entire bill. 



Mr. Clay's assertion that the bill proposed to reduce and not to 

 raise revenue and that it did not, therefore, come under the constitu- 

 tional restriction upon the Senate, satisfied most of those who bad 

 previously opposed its introduction. Mr. Dickerson was not satis- 

 fied, but Mr. Forsythe now altered his argument and stated that while 

 he could not see any constitutional objection to Senatorial action 

 upon a bill to reduce the revenue, yet the one clause which Mr. Clay 

 had admitted was intended to raise duties was sufficient to cause his 

 original objection to hold good. He therefore moved to strike out that 

 clause. § The Senate, however, refused to alter the bill, and leave 

 was given to introduce it. || 



At the time when Mr. Clay's tariff bill was introduced the Senate 

 was engaged in the consideration of the revenue collection bill, so 

 that it was not until February 19 that the tariff bill was reported 

 back** from the special committee to which it had been sent. On 

 February 21 it was made a special order. ff Meanwhile a tariff bill, 

 not at all similar to Mr. Clay's, had been introduced in the House, 



*Coug. Deb., Vol. IX. pt. I. p. 477. 



t Ibid., p. 478. 

 ilbid ,p. 478. 

 § Ibid., p. 480. 

 J Ibid., p. 481. 

 **Ibid., p. COl, 

 ttlbid.,p. 690. 



