“Mr. Luther Martin [of Maryland] urged the question on the whole. He did not like many parts of it.… He was willing, however, to make trial of the plan, rather than do nothing.” “Mr. Gerry [of Massachusetts] did not approve of a reconsideration of the clause relating to _money bills_. It was of great consequence. _It was the corner-stone of the accommodation._”[35] At a still later stage Mr. Pinckney moved to strike out the section on money bills, “as giving no peculiar advantage to the House of Representatives, and as clogging the Government.” Mr. Gorham “was against allowing the Senate to _originate_, but was for allowing it only to _amend_.” Mr. Gouverneur Morris urged, that it was “particularly proper that the Senate should have the right of originating _money bills_. They will sit constantly, will consist of a smaller number, and will be able to prepare such bills with due correctness, and so as to prevent delay of business in the other House.” To all this Colonel Mason replied, in the strong language which seems to have been natural to him, that he “was unwilling to travel over this ground again. _To strike out the section was to unhinge the compromise of which it made a part._”[36] I might adduce other authorities; but here surely is enough to show that the provision was in reality one of the important compromises of the Constitution. * * * * * This brings me, Sir, to the precise meaning of the provision. The seeming indefiniteness of the term, “bills for raising revenue,” may alone furnish apology for the present debate. It may be argued, that, while the Senate is placed under certain restrictions, it may nevertheless originate “appropriation bills.” This, of course, is a question of interpretation. Does this interdict upon the Senate extend to bills by which money is appropriated to the support of Government, as well as to bills by which it is directly obtained? Are appropriation bills included under the term, “bills for raising revenue”? Now I cannot accord with opinions so confidently expressed by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER], and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TOOMBS], that it was clearly the intention of the Constitution to concede to the Senate the power of originating all appropriation bills; nor, on the other hand, do I assert that such exercise of power is in the strict sense unconstitutional. I approach the question as an inquirer anxious to find the real purpose. Several considerations seem to shed light on the path to our conclusion.