The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 2Madison, James
History
The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 2
Madison, James
Constitutional law -- United States; Constitutions -- United States; United States. Constitution
it bore in the original propositions of M^r Randolph and at the time
when no objection whatever was hinted ag^{st} its originating money
bills. Or if in consequence of a loss of the present question, a
proportional vote in the Senate should be reinstated as has been urged
as the indemnification the permanency of the Senate will remain the
same.--If the right to originate be vested exclusively in the House of
Rep^s either the Senate must yield ag^{st} its judgment to that House,
in which case the Utility of the check will be lost--or the Senate will
be inflexible & the H. of Rep^s must adapt its money bill to the views
of the Senate, in which case, the exclusive right will be of no
avail.--As to the Compromise of which so much had been said, he would
make a single observation. There were 5 States which had opposed the
equality of votes in the Senate, viz, Mass^{ts}. Penn^a Virg^a N.
Carolina & South Carol^a. As a compensation for the sacrifice extorted
from them on this head, the exclusive origination of money bills in the
other House had been tendered. Of the five States a majority viz. Penn^a
Virg^a & S. Carol^a have uniformly voted ag^{st} the proposed
compensation, on its own merits, as rendering the plan of Gov^t still
more objectionable. Mass^{ts} has been divided. N. Carolina alone has
set a value on the compensation, and voted on that principle. What
obligation then can the small States be under to concur ag^{st} their
judgments in reinstating the section?
M^r Dickenson. Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us.
It was not Reason that discovered the singular & admirable mechanism of
the English Constitution. It was not Reason that discovered or ever
could have discovered the odd & in the eye of those who are governed by
reason, the absurd mode of trial by Jury. Accidents probably produced
these discoveries, and experience has given a sanction to them. This is
then our guide. And has not experience verified the utility of
restraining money bills to the immediate representatives of the people.
Whence the effect may have proceeded he could not say: whether from the
respect with which this privilege inspired the other branches of Gov^t
to the H. of Co[~m]ons, or from the turn of thinking it gave to the
people at large with regard to their rights, but the effect was visible
& could not be doubted--Shall we oppose to this long experience, the
short experience of 11 years which we had ourselves, on this subject. As
to disputes, they could not be avoided any way. If both Houses should
originate, each would have a different bill to which it would be
attached, and for which it would contend.--He observed that all the
prejudices of the people would be offended by refusing this exclusive
privilege to the H. of Repres^s and these prejudices sh^d never be
disregarded by us when no essential purpose was to be served. When this
plan goes forth it will be attacked by the popular leaders. Aristocracy
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account