The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-02
That Point.

The friendly disputatlon between the Sem
ate and the House OF Representatives over
the bf.l 70 reduce the internal revenue and
for other purposes involves point OF priv
ileee under the Federal Constitution which
Is not absolutely clear. The Constitution
declares that all revenue bills shall origi-
nate In the House OF Representatives, Dui
that the Senate may make or propose
amendments, as In the case OF other biiis'
In the case OF the bill in question, it is OBJ
iectcd BY the House OF Representatives
,hat since all Of the bill as il came back TO
the House from the Senate was new ex-
cent the title and the enacting clause, the
Senate had in passing such bill disre-
rarded the constitutional provision on the
subject.
Is the point good one? Did the Senate
exceed it, powcrss IL might seem SO at
the first glance; but further investigation
NAV result In doubt upon the subject.
FIRST, It is clear that the Senate has the
right TO amend every section OF every or
dlnary bill sent TO that body from the
House Of Representatives. There Is no
limit whatever upon It's powers. And the
language OF the Constitution In regard 10
revenue bills Is as follows:
"All bills for raising revenue shall origi-
nate IN the House OF Representatives; bui
the senate may propose or concur WIN
amendments as on other bills"
What IL the extent Of the Senafe's power
10 propose or concur with amendments on
.othcr bills - 1t Is unlimited, and il!imi-
table by law OF by the rules OF either House.
II can reject House bill as a whole. IL
can strike out every operative word III IT,,
and leave only the enacting clause-a pro-
ceeding which has sometimes been resorted
TO by the House OF Representatives as
method OF defeating a bill. The Senate
can amend every section, and every clause
OF every section, Of any "other biil.' why
then, cannot that body thus amend reye-
nue. bill?
We suppose that no question OF privilege
would have arisen between the two houses
ii the Senate had confined its amendments
10 such az affected only internal taxes; for
surely when the House Of Representatives
sends TO the Senate bill TO reduce the
taxes upon even a single article-for eX-
annie. tobacco-the Senate has the constl-
tutional right to amend the bill so rs
TO reduce the tax upon some other al
ficle, or even to raise the tax upon
some other article, since an increase OF the
tax upon one article might very reason
ably follow q reduction OF the tax upon
another. The right thus to amend any
"other bill " is not disputed; and the Con-
stitution confers upon the Senate the same
power to amend revenue bills which 1t pos
sesses 10 amend ''other bills" But in the
case under consideration the House of Rep
resentatives sent TO the Senate bill to re-
duce internal taxes and the Senate amend
ed it by incorporating into it large num-
Der Of provisions affecting the customs-du-
ties. As thus amended, the provisions in
regard to tariff were more numerous than
those in regard to the internal taxes.
Did the Senate thereby exceed its consti-
.utional power? We have not seen the
ARGUMENT of the House lawyers on the sub
iect; but it does not seem to us, in the light
in which the question presents itself to our
mind. that there is in the amendment OF the
Constitution any difference between enc
and another subject OF revenue. There is
10 reason that We know OF why a single bill
might pot provide for raising all the reve-
nues Of the Government. And if single
bill might thus be passed by the House OF
Representatives, il follows that the Senate
would have the same right to amend such
a bill as to amend "other bills" And
since il has, as we have said, the right to
amend every section and every clause OF
"other bills" its right to amend every sec-
ton and every clause OF a revenue bill
would appear to be provided for in the
Constitution itself.