When the bill for making the appropriation to pay for Alaska came before the House of Representatives, that body raised the question of
The contention of the
House of Representatives
in regard to its power
over treaties involving
the payment of money
by the United States.
The Senate, on the other hand, repudiated this doctrine, and rejected the bill with the preamble containing it as it came from the House of
The Senate's position
and the compromise.
The contention of the House was good political science, but it is still doubtful whether it is the constitutional law of the United States or not. The more recent constitutions of even the European states, such as those of Germany and France, make the consent of both houses of the legislature necessary to the validity of all treaties involving the appropriation of money, or the assumption of any financial obligation. This is as it should be; and the Constitution of the United States ought to be so amended as to establish clearly the same principle.
We have, in the preceding volume of this series, followed the history of the relations of the United States with Great Britain down to the
Irritation of the
American people
against Great Britain.