igS KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. 



Vn. Thirty-fifth Congress, rS^g. House objects to Senate amend- 

 ment to Postofficc Appropriation Bill. Bill and substitutes offered 

 fail to pass. 



During the latter part of the second session of the thirty-fifth 

 Congress a postoffice aj^propriation bill, involving about $7,000,000, 

 jjassed the House. The Senate, having added an amendment chang- 

 ing somewhat the rates of postage and in some cases increasing them, 

 passed the bill and returned it to the House March 1, but two days 

 before the close of the session.* Xo debate seems to have arisen in 

 the Senate over the constitutional privilege of the House to raise 

 revenue, although the House and Senate had already in this session 

 been in controversy over a Senate amendment to a House appropria- 

 tion bill, by which the sum to be apj^ropriated had been increased. 

 When, however, the amended postoffice bill was received in the 

 House, attention was directed to the nature of the amendment, 

 and on March 2 Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, acting upon an arrange- 

 ment with the chairman of the Ways and Means committee, Mr. 

 Phelps, offered a resolution reading, "Resolved, that House bill 

 No. S72, making appropriations for defraying the expenses of the 

 postoffice department for the year ending the 30th of June, i860, 

 with the Senate amendments thereto, be returned to the Senate, 

 as the thirteenth section of said amendments is in the nature of a 

 revenue bill."| The next day the resolution came up for consid- 

 eration, § but at that date there was not time to debate it at length. 

 Mr. Phelps made the only important statement against its adop- 

 tion, while Mr. Grow gave the only argument in its favor. Mr. 

 ("irow said "I do not rise to argue the question, but merely to state 

 my point. This thirteenth section proposes to increase the present 

 rates of postage to five cents and in some cases to ten cents; which 

 would increase the taxation on those who use the mails. "|| Mr. Phelps 

 in reply saitl the amendment did not come within the meaning of the 

 constitutional restriction, "*"* but after some hesitation agreed to permit 

 a vote upon the resolution and it was adopted by a vote of 117 to 76. 

 It is not likely that the House, in this instance, realized that a great 

 constitutional privilege was in danger. Some members were undoubt- 

 edly in earnest in maintaining the privilege of the House; others may 

 have wished to delay the bill until the close of the session and by thus 

 preventing its passage to embarrass the President, for House and 

 President were not in harmony; others may have desired revenge for 



* Cong. Globe, 1858-59. p. 15C0. 

 t Ibid., p. 1600. 

 UbiJ., p. 1666.' 

 (Ibid., p. 1666. 

 •♦ Ibid., p. 1«66, 



