ADAMS: THE CONTROL OF THE PURSE. 193 



doubt, honestly favored the resolution on constitutional grounds, and 

 in the final vote but four Senators voted against the constitutional 

 doctrine expressed therein. It was on the constitutional question, 

 however, that the debate was begun. Mr. Evans opened the discus- 

 sion on January i8, and his argument practically embraced all that 

 was urged against the constitutionality of the bill. He. asserted that 

 "the whole question turned upon the meaning of the words 'raising 

 revenue.' In the present instance but one meaning could be 

 received, in as much as the avowed object of the framer of the bill 

 was, by reduction of the duties of importation, to increase the reve- 

 nue by thus creating a greater demand. It might be argued that 

 it is not a bill for raising revenue, but to reduce duties, 'duties' 

 being equivalent to the word revenue. This argument * * * is not 

 substantial. * * And if admitted that the reduction of duties 

 sought for by this bill will, by enlarging our commerce and holding 

 out a bonus to our merchants and ship owners to increase their 

 traffic, add to that revenue, then the question is at once set at rest, 

 and the Senate has no power to originate such a measure.* " Thus 

 accepting the definition of the word "raise" as opposed to 

 "reduce," Mr. Evans still objected to the introduction of this bill. 

 He had previously asserted that the sole object of the committee in 

 reporting the resolution was to obtain the opinion of the Senate in 

 regard to the right of origination, and it followed that the committee 

 desired to prevent the Senate from discussing the tariff itself. The 

 Chair, however, decided f that the entire subject matter of the bill 

 was open for discussion, and under this ruling little attention was 

 paid to the constitutional objection, although the debate was renewed 

 nearly every day from January 19 to May 31. In the beginning it 

 was confined largely to the substance of the resolution, and Mr. 

 Huntington went even further than Mr. Evans, saying that there was 

 " an important distinction between the general meaning of the words to 

 raise revenue, and the particular meaning of the word raise as applied 

 to the increase of anything. To raise revenue signified io provide an 

 income, now generally applied to an income for government. | " On 

 the other hand Mr. Woodbury did not believe that there was any 

 constitutional restriction in the case before the Senate: " The only 

 limitation with regard to the Senate was in regard to bills for impos- 

 ing taxation for revenue, and then the origin of such bills must be in 

 the other House. It is only the imposition of a new tax, or duty, 

 or the increasing of duties already existing, that the Senate is pro- 



*Cong. Globe., I. Sess. 28 Coug., p. 159. 

 t Ibid., p. 159. 

 t Ibid., p. 161. 



