SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE USURPATION OF THE SENATE IN THE
ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS, FEBRUARY 7, 1856.
On the 11th of December, 1855, Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania,
introduced a resolution directing the Committee on Finance to
consider the expediency of reporting the appropriation bills
for the support of the Government. The resolution was allowed
to lie on the table till January 7, 1856, when it was called
up for consideration, and adopted. On the 4th of February, Mr.
Hunter, of Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Finance,
reported to the Senate the following resolution:--
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to
prepare and report such of the general appropriation bills
as they may deem expedient.”
The resolution was adopted by the Senate, February 7, but this
was all. Nothing was done under it.
This attempt was prompted by the protracted contest in the
organization of the House of Representatives, when, after one
hundred and thirty-three ballotings, Mr. Banks was chosen
Speaker, February 2, and the Slave Power received its first
check.
In the course of the debate, February 7, Mr. Sumner spoke as
follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--Whatever the Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD] touches
he handles with a completeness to render anything superfluous from
one who follows on the same side; but the opposition which his views
have encountered from the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and also
from the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS], as well as the intrinsic
importance of the question, may justify the attempt to state the
argument anew.
We are carried first to the words of the Constitution, which are as
follows:--
“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House
of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments, as on other bills.”
Under this provision, the annual appropriation bills for the Army,
Navy, Post-Office, and civil and diplomatic service, from the beginning
of the Government, have originated in the House of Representatives;
and this has always been so, I believe, without question. It is now
proposed to reverse the standing policy, and to originate such bills in
the Senate; and this proposition has the sanction of the Committee on
Finance.
The proposition is a clear departure from usage, and on this account
must be regarded with suspicion. A slight examination will demonstrate
that it tends to subvert well-established landmarks.
By looking at the debates in the Convention which framed the National
Constitution, it will be found that this clause was not hastily or
carelessly adopted,--that it was the subject of much discussion, and
was viewed as essentially important in establishing the system of
checks and balances peculiar to our Republic. It was, indeed, part of
the compromise between the small States and the large States.
After much consideration, the _equality of the States_ was recognized
in the Constitution of the Senate, and small States, like Delaware
and Rhode Island, were allowed, in this body, equal power with large
States, like Virginia and Massachusetts. But this great concession to
the small States was coupled at the time with a condition that “money
bills” should originate in the House of Representatives, where the
people were represented according to numbers. The language finally
employed was, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives.” This was adopted, as compensation to the
large and populous States for their comparative weakness in the Senate.
That I do not go too far, when I call it part of the compromise between
the great States and small States, I proceed to show, from the debates
in the National Convention, as reported by Mr. Madison, how it was
regarded there.
The provision owes its authoritative introduction to Dr. Franklin,
who moved it in the committee which subsequently reported it.[30]
Afterwards, in Convention, when the clause relating to _equality of
votes_ was under consideration, we have this report of what he said.
“Dr. Franklin observed, that this question could not be
properly put by itself, the Committee having reported several
propositions as _mutual conditions of each other_. He could not
vote for it, if separately taken, but should vote for the whole
together.”[31]
Colonel Mason, of Virginia, was of the same opinion, and desired “that
the whole might be brought _into one view_.”[32]
Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, followed up the idea of the mutual
dependence of the two propositions, remarking,--
“He would not say that the concession was a sufficient
one on the part of the small States; but he could not but
regard it in the light of a _concession_. It would make it
a constitutional principle, that the second branch were not
possessed of the confidence of the people in _money matters_,”--
Please, Sir, to mark the breadth of this expression.
--“which would lessen their weight and influence.”[33]