I go KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. 



and had been vigorously discussed with little probability of being 

 passed before the end of the session. When the Senate bill became 

 a special order but seven business days of the session were left. 

 Under these circumstances the constitutional point was barely touched 

 upon in the first part of the debate, and did not come up again until 

 the closing arguments were made. A point of curious interest which 

 did, however, arise early in the debate, is the changed attitude of Mr. 

 P'orsythe, who had first objected to the whole bill as unconstitutional 

 and afterwards had restricted his objection to the one clause of the 

 bill which provided for the raising of duties. He next declared him- 

 self in favor of the passage of the entire bill, objectionable clause 

 included, on the ground that since the bill was introduced and 

 "having originated in the Senate notwithstanding the constitution, he 

 could perceive no prohibition against its passage."* 



The main argument against the constitutionality of the bill was 

 that made by Mr. Webster. His argument was: "The constitutional 

 question must be regarded as imi)ortdnt; but it was one which could 

 not be settled by the Senate: it was purely a (juestion of privilege and 

 the decision of it belonged alone to the House. The Senate by the 

 constitution could not originate bills for raising revenue. It was of 

 no consequence whether the rate of duty was increased or decreased; 

 if it was a money bill it belonged to the House to originate it. This 

 subject belonged exclusively to the House of Representatives."! In 

 reply Mr. Clay reiterated his statement that the bill "might be con- 

 stitutionally passed by the Senate, because it was not a bill for raising 

 revenue, "I yet several senators now affirmed that tiiey could not vote 

 for the bill because it had originated in the Senate. It is probable 

 that a majority vote could have been secured for the measure in spite 

 of these objections, but its passage was regarded as doubtful by Mr. 

 Clay, and a plan was at once prepared by which the danger of defeat 

 might be lessened. On February 26, after the House tariff bill had 

 been debated some three weeks, a motion vj was made to amend that 

 bill by striking out all but the enacting clause, and substituting the 

 Senate bill. In spite of angry comment on the part of the oppo- 

 sition this was done, and the bill as amended was rushed through the 

 House and sent to the Senate, February 27. || The Senate, being as- 

 sured by Mr. Clay that the House bill was identical with his own, 

 laid both bills upon the table and then took up for consideration the 

 House bill. This silenced all opposition on the ground of unconsti- 



*Cong. Deb.. Vol. IX, pt. I. p. 719. 

 *-Ibld.,p. 7*:. 

 tlbid.,p. 7->3. 

 SIbld.. pt. II, p. 177a. 

 :Ibld., pt. I, p, 786 



