415.) I repeat, then, according to the reason of the rule, the great appropriation bills must be embraced by the prohibition.

Secondly. There is a second consideration, founded on the familiar use of the term money bills throughout the debates in the Convention, as applicable to the bills which the Senate cannot originate. I need not occupy time by reference to instances; but whoever takes the trouble to investigate the matter in Mr. Madison's Reports of the Debates, and also in the report of the Virginia Convention, will find that this term is universally employed, unless, indeed, where Mr. Gouverneur Morris uses the broader term "money plans," (Ibid. p. 282,) and Mr. Gerry "money matters." (Ibid. p. 283.) Now, all of these phrases are clearly applicable to "appropriation bills," by which the Government is carried on; and the inference seems irresistible, that the parties who used them must have had such bills in mind.

In the Virginia Convention objection was made by Mr. Grayson "to the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to money bills." He pronounced this "a departure from that great principle which required that the immediate representatives of the people only should interfere with money bills. The Lords in England had never been allowed to meddle with money bills. He knew not why the Senate should." - Eliot's Debates, vol. i. p. 375.

Thirdly. And this brings me to a third consideration, founded on the example of England, which was obviously in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter,] is clearly mistaken on this point. It was often adduced

in debate in the Federal Convention, and, as we have

just seen, in the Virginia Convention also.

In Eng

As early

land, the rule is explicit and of ancient date.
as the 3d of July, 1678, the Commons resolved:

"That all aids and supplies, and aids to his Majesty in Parlia ment, are the sole gift of the Commons; and all bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons; and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Com mons to direct, limit, and appoint, in such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords." May's Law of Parliament, p. 407.

In pursuance of this rule, the estimates for the annual expenditure are submitted by the Ministry to the House of Commons, sitting as a committee of supply. This process is explained as follows:

"The member of the Administration representing the department for which the supplies are required, first explains to the Committee such matters as may satisfy them of the correctness and propriety of the estimates, and then proceeds to propose each grant in succession, which is put from the Chair in these words: That a sum not exceeding be granted to her Majesty,

for the object specified in the estimate.' *** The Committee of Supply votes every sum which is granted annually for the public service - the army, the navy, the ordnance, and the seycral civil departments." — Ibid. pp. 415 and 418.

And at the close of the session all the grants are embodied in a bill, which is known as the "appropriation bill; and which, as it is kindred in character to that under our system, doubtless has given its name to ours. This bill is thus described :

"It enumerates every grant that has been made during the whole session, and authorizes the several sums, as voted by the Committee of supply, to be issued and applied to each service.” - Ibid. p. 425.

Thus, on three accounts — first, by the reason of the thing; secondly, by the familiar usc of the descriptive term, "money bills," in all the debates; and thirdly, by the example of England - the conclusion seems irresistible, that "appropriation bills," by which the Government is carried on, are within the spirit of the interdict upon the Senate, and that this body cannot originate such bills without a violation of a well-established principle, inherited from English jurisprudence, and also without unhinging, according to the language of Colonel Mason, in the Federal Convention, that compromise, by virtue of which the small States are admitted to an equality of representation on this floor.

I am not unmindful of the fact, on which the Senator from Virginia has dwelt so emphatically, that the Senate has been in the habit of originating pension bills, bills for the payment of private claims, and kindred measures. I was glad, to-day, in voting for the bill. originating in this body for the relief of our late distinguished Minister at Constantinople. But, against this usage, which is exceptional in character, and which has probably attracted little attention, from its considerable convenience and little importance, may be opposed the uniform usage, that the great bills providing for the necessities of the Government have always originated in the House of Representatives. And you will bear in mind, sir, that the question is now on these bills.

Mr. President, it is a received maxim, that it is the part of a good judge to amplify his jurisdiction; but it will hardly be accepted, that it is the part of the American Senate to amplify its powers, particularly in derogation of the popular branch. And it surely cannot escape observation, that the present effort is

launched at a moment when the popular branch prom ises to differ from the Senate on important question of national policy. I am not insensible to the publi convenience which has been pressed in this debate but permit me to say, that should this convenienc require the proposed departure from our standing pol icy, you will be wise, sir, if you hearken to the coun sels of the Senator from New York, and refrain from any innovation, unless assured of the consent and co operation of the other House.

THE ABROGATION OF TREATIES.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 6TH MARCH, 1856,

MR. SUMNER. A week ago, I laid on the table of the Senate a resolution relating to the Danish Sound dues. I have watched every day since for an opportunity to call for its consideration; and, if agreeable to the Senate, I now ask that it may be taken up.

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, which is in these words:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations be directed to consider the expediency of some act of legislation, having the concurrence of both Houses of Congress, by which the treaty with Denmark, regulating the payment of Sound dues, may be effectively abrogated, in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution, under which every treaty is a part of "the supreme law of the land," and in conformity with the practice of the Government in such cases; and especially to consider if such legislation be not necessary forthwith, in order to supply a defect in the notice of the purpose of the United States to abrogate the said treaty, which the President has undertaken to give to Denmark, without the authority of an act of Congress, and in disregard of the function of the House of Representatives, in the abrogation of all existing laws.