202 KANSAS UNMVKRSITY QUARIFRI.V. 



bills for the payment of private claims, must stop introducing subsidy 

 bills to steamship lines or railroads, must stop creating offices, order- 

 ing forts or arsenals to be built, or anything of that kind."* Mr. 

 Sherman asked that the conference committee be granted without 

 debate, as there was other important business to be transacted. 

 However Mr. Williams even went beyond the House resolution, and 

 declared that not only was the origination of all revenue bills to be 

 confined to the House, but that the only amendments which the 

 Senate could rightfully make were amendments strictly germane f to 

 the subject matter of any revenue bill. In regard to the bill under 

 consideration, he said: "Now, sir, what is the difference between 

 originating a system of internal revenue, and originating a bill which 

 shall change and modify and entirely revolutionize that system, ".I 

 and in conclusion defined his position by stating that " whenever any 

 proposition is made substantially affecting the revenues of the country 

 one way or the other, changing, modifying, increasing, or reducing 

 the revenue system, such a bill ought to originate in the House of 

 Representatives, and be subject to amendment in the Senate." 5? 

 Mr. Williams agreed, however, to the appointment of a conference |( 

 committee, and Mr. Scott, Mr. Conkling, and Mr. Casserly were 

 named. On the same day the House agreed to a conference, and 

 Mr. Hooper, Mr. Allison, and Mr. Voorhees were appointed.** 



No agreement was reached by this committee, each side reporting 

 resolutions maintaining the position pre\iously taken. The House 

 committee made its report ft February 27, but the report was not at 

 once considered. The Senate committee made a report ;};| March 2. 

 The report defined at great length the Senate's idea of the constitu- 

 tional restriction, and the main points will be enumerated or quoted 

 here. The history of the principle of restricting the origination of 

 money bills to the lower branch is followed from the British constitu- 

 tion to that of the United States, but attention is called to the 

 distinction made in the constitutional convention between appropria- 

 tion and revenue, and between money bills and revenue bills. To 

 substantiate these statements letters of Gouvenor Morris are referred 

 to, and it is also noted that George Mason, who wished to give the 

 House e.xclusive control over money bills, refused to sign the draft of 

 the constitution because the Senate was given the power to amend. 



*Cong. Globe. 1770-71. pt. II. p. S41. 

 + Ibid., p. 8i.\ 

 tibia., p. 845. 

 § Ibid., p. 846. 

 i; Ibid., p. 846. 

 **Ibid.,p. 851. 

 ++Ibid., pt. III., p. 1717. 

 :*n)id..p. 1873. 



