MASSACHUSETTS. 



523 



only for medicinal, mechanical, or manufac- 

 turing purposes ; and the third, the bill re- 

 lating to innholders' licenses. The important 

 section of the act relating to the transportation 

 of liquors is as follows : 



SECTION 1. No person shall bring into any town or 

 city in which licenses are not granted any spirituous 

 or intoxicating liquors, with intent to sell the same 

 himself, or to have the same sold by another, or 

 having reasonable cause to believe that the same is 

 intended to be sold in violation of law; and any 

 liquor transported contrary to the provisions of this 

 act shall be forfeited to the Commonwealth : pro- 

 vided, however, that this act shall not apply to the 

 transportation of spirituous liquors through a town 

 to places beyond. 



A law was passed making the tickets of one 

 street railway company in Boston good on 

 another. It went into effect on May 10th, and 

 the measure proved at once to be one of great 

 convenience to the public. The tendency has 

 been to increase the sale of tickets and dimin- 

 ish the cash fares. The words of the act are 

 as follows : 



SECTIOX 1. Package tickets issued by any street 

 railway corporation in the usual form of tickets sold 

 by such corporation 2 and good for a fare not exceed- 

 ing six cents upon its route from any point in the 

 city of Boston to any other point in said city in a car 

 run therein by said corporation, shall be received as 

 good for a passage between any two points in said 

 city by any other street railway corporation, in any 

 car wherein a fare not exceeding six cents is re- 

 ceivable ; and every such corporation shall, once in 

 a week, redeem all such tickets issued by it which 

 shall be presented by any other such corporation, 

 by paying therefor at the rate of five cents in money 

 for each ticket so presented. 



SEC. 2. Any street railway corporation refusing to 

 receive as above provided any such ticket issued by 

 any other such corporation, or refusing to redeem 

 as above provided any such ticket of its own issue, 

 shall forfeit for each ticket which it shall so refuse 

 the sum of one dollar, to be recovered in an action 

 of tort by the person or corporation presenting the 

 same to hia or its own use. 



A disagreement arose between the .two 

 Houses on the question, " Is a bill appropriat- 

 ing money a money bill" within the meaning 

 of that clause of the Constitution which re- 

 stricts the origin of a money bill to the House 

 of Representatives? The Speaker of the lower 

 House argued that it was simply a question 

 whether the broad term, "all money bills," 

 is limited to bills levying money, or includes 

 also bills granting the same money directly out 

 of the public purse. If the latter, then the 

 right to originate such a bill was never in the 

 Senate at all, and it yields no right in recog- 

 nizing its own constitution, no matter what 

 the usage .has been. If the former, then the 

 right to originate such a bill is in the Senate, 

 and the House yields no right in recognizing 

 the constitution of its coordinate. He refers 

 to the elaborate opinion rendered by Speaker 

 Jewell in 1868, and adds the suggestions that 

 no broader term could have been used than 

 " all money bills," and the fact that one of the 

 articles of the Constitution rejected contained 

 the clause that " bills and resolves levying or 



granting money or other property of the State, 

 which shall originate in the House of Repre- 

 sentatives only," indicates that the term " all 

 money bills" was then distinctly, and in com- 

 mon parlance and by authority understood to 

 cover tax bills, supply lills, and appropriation 

 lills, bills both for " raising and for appropriat- 

 ing money." The same authority that is jealous 

 of the power to lay taxes for tilling the purse, 

 must be quite as jealous of the right of spend- 

 ing the money so raised. A grant by the State 

 is more sacred than the promise of the indi- 

 vidual ; and to suppose that it was thought 

 important to guard the raising of money, and 

 not the spending of it, is not consistent with 

 the reason which led to the adoption of the 

 provision in question. On the other hand, by 

 giving to the House the sole power to originate 

 money bills, and to the Senate the function of 

 passing on them and criticising them, with, 

 perhaps, more disinterestedness and conser- 

 vatism than if it also had the power of origi- 

 nating them and of submitting them in turn 

 to its coordinate, the Senate was at once made 

 an additional check and safeguard upon the 

 public benevolence, without in any way en- 

 larging the outlet thereto, which, with the then 

 lively sensitiveness on the subject of the money 

 levying and granting power, was reserved ex- 

 clusively to the popular branch. The Consti- 

 tution of the United States, in a similar article, 

 uses the phrase, " bills for raising revenue shall 

 originate," etc., which is a term more limited 

 than " money bills," and perhaps adopted be- 

 cause it had been found that the Massachu- 

 setts provision was too broad for a Legislature 

 where both branches were popular represent- 

 ative bodies. But, if more limited, then the 

 term "money bills" includes something more 

 than revenue bills. But it can not contain any- 

 thing more, unless it be bills granting money. 

 The Speaker adds : "I can not therefore doubt 

 that the term in our Constitution, * all money 

 bills,' includes bills appropriating money. As 

 to bills directly or indirectly involving the ap- 

 propriation or expenditure of money, it seems 

 to me that by bills directly involving such an 

 expenditure must be meant bills granting or 

 appropriating 'money; and if so, then, for the 

 reasons already given, they can originate only 

 in the House. As to bills indirectly involving 

 the expenditure of money, I take it the House 

 has never denied the power of the Senate to 

 originate them." 



Both branches asked the opinion of the Su- 

 preme Court, and cited for their use all the 

 precedents that could be found. The Court 

 rendered a decision, in which they say, "The 

 power to originate a bill appropriating money 

 from the State Treasury is not limited by the 

 Constitution to the House of Representatives, 

 but resides in both branches of the Legisla- 

 ture." 



The proposition to loan six millions of State 

 credit to the New York and New England 

 Railroad, in order to protect the interest of the 



