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]
Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, followed, saying,—
“He thought it evident that the concession was wholly on one side, that of the large States; the privilege of originating money bills being of no account.”[34]
At a later stage of the debates the subject was resumed, and the two propositions still appear together.
“Mr. Rutledge [of South Carolina] proposed to reconsider the two propositions touching the originating of money bills in the first, and the equality of votes in the second branch.”
“Mr. Sherman [of Connecticut] was for the question on the whole at once. It was, he said, a conciliatory plan. It had been considered in all its parts.”