St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-01-24
flag to be displayed within the walls of con-

flag to be displayed within the walls of con-
gress.
Mr.. Hurd, as privileged question, offered
preamble and resolution, reciting that Ger
tain bills appropriating money from the
treasury, originating in the senate, are now
on the speakers table, to-wit: The Blair
educational bill and many others, and that
it is asserted these bills are in violation of
the privilege of the house to exclusively orig
mate bills for raising revenue, and directing
the judiciary committee to inquire into the
power of the senate to originate bill appro-
priating revenue, and report to the house
any time.
Mr.. Hurd said for many years he had
viewed with apprehension the increasing
mum Der of appropriation bills originating in
the senate When confined to matters of
personal or local interest he hal not seen fit
to interpose an objection, but when the sem
ate originated bill appropriating 800, 000,-
600, and affecting great public purpose,
the time had arrived when the question
should be determined whether the senate
possessed the power which it claimed TO
exercise. The question directly presented
was whether the bills appropriating money
from treasury were bills Tor raising the rev.
enue, and he upheld the affirmative PROPOSE
ton. A bill for raising revenue included
a bill appropriating money, and until an ap-
preparation had been made, it was not a
revenue to the government.
Mr. Herbert inquired whether in the con-
stitution any distinction could be found be-
tween the power of the senate TO or.ginate
bills appropriating specific sum for spe-
cifc object, and bills appropriating a specific
sum for general purpose, as in the case of
the Blair bill.
Mr. Hurd denied the power of the senaet
to originate a bill of either character.
He believed the adoption of the doc
tripe contended for by the senate would be
utterly destructive to the object sought by
the founders of the government, which object
was to give represen tatives power over the
peoples money. This power Was the most
potent instrument against entertainments
of the executive power. Liberty could only
be preserved by preserving its muniments.
and Of all these he knew none greater than
that of power over the peoples money by the
peoples representatives. (Applause).
The debate continued at great length,
several mem bers supporting the constitutional
powers of the senate in the matter.
Mr.. Wise said this privileged question
was direct attack or what he conceived to
be the most important measure before con-
gress.
Mr.. Willis regarded the resolution as an
unusual and extraordinary one. The aim it
had in view was to call in question the con-
stitutiOnality of the educational bill. The
point would have been better made
against some bill less worthy
than this. From month TO month he had
been trying TO get action on this bill, which,
under the infamous system Of the house
rules, was buried on the speakers table.
Mr.. Willis moved to lay the motion on the
table. Agreed 10. Yeas, 1877; nays, 1913.
Before the announcement of the vote,
Warner, of Ohio, changed his vote from the
negative to the affirmative, for the purpose of
moving a reconsideration. the motion to
reconsider was tabled. Yeas, 14l; nays, 113.
Mr.. Mcmillan moved that the house go
into committee of the whole on the pri-
vatc calendars. This was antagonzed by
Mr.. Townshend with the Mexican pension bill
and the motion was lost. Yeas, 103; nays,
1913.
A recess was taken until s. The evening
session is for consideration Of pension bills.