Mr Butler saw no reason for such a discrimination. We were always following the British Constitution when the reason of it did not apply. There was no analogy between the H. of Lords and the body proposed to be established. If the Senate should be degraded by any such discriminations, the best men would be apt to decline serving in it in favor of the other branch. And it will lead the latter into the practice of tacking other clauses to money bills.
Mr Madison observed that the Comentators on the Brit: Const: had not yet agreed on the reason of the restriction on the H. of L. in money bills. Certain it was there could be no similar reason in the case before us. The Senate would be the representatives of the people as well as the 1st branch. If they sd have any dangerous influence over it, they would easily prevail on some member of the latter to originate the bill they wished to be passed. As the Senate would be generally a more capable sett of men, it wd be wrong to disable them from any preparation of the business, especially of that which was most important, and in our republics, worse prepared than any other. The Gentleman in pursuance of his principle ought to carry the restraint to the amendment, as well as the originating of money bills, since, an addition of a given sum wd be equivalent to a distinct proposition of it.
Mr King differed from Mr Gerry, and concurred in the objections to the proposition.
Mr Read favored the proposition, but would not extend the restraint to the case of amendments.
Mr Pinkney thinks the question premature. If the Senate shd be formed on the same proportional representation as it stands at present, they sd have equal power, otherwise if a different principle sd be introduced.
Mr Sherman. As both branches must concur, there can be no danger whichever way the Senate be formed. We establish two branches in order to get more wisdom, which is particularly needed in the finance business—The Senate bear their share of the taxes, and are also the representatives of the people. What a man does by another, he does by himself is a maxim. In Cont both branches can originate in all cases, and it has been found safe & convenient. Whatever might have been the reason of the rule as to The H. of Lords, it is clear that no good arises from it now even there.
Genl Pinkney. This distinction prevails in S. C. and has been a source of pernicious disputes between ye 2 branches. The Constitution is now evaded, by informal schedules of amendments handed from ye Senate to the other House.
Mr Williamson wishes for a question chiefly to prevent re-discussion. The restriction will have one advantage, it will oblige some member in the lower branch to move, & people can then mark him.
On the question for excepting money bills, as propd by Mr Gerry, Mass. no. Cont no. N. Y. ay. N. J. no. Del. ay. Md no. Va ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.[83]
[ [83] According to the Journal (121) Pennsylvania was among the noes.