Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-01-27
TUESDAY........JANUARY 81, 1885
A Day Wasted.

Mr. TIURD, Of Ohio, caused the
House Of Representative 10 lose day
last week. The debate upon his resolu-
tion denying that the Senate has the
right TO originate such bills as the
BLAIR bill was interesting but other
wise Improbable. In our opinion, he
failed to sustain his position. The ar
gument on the other side, amounted, as
Mr.. REED said, TO demonstration.
Mr.. IIURD was defeated Of reelection
to Congress last fall. He is no doubt
somewhat soured by that fact. He is
what might be called Free Trader
that is, he is in favor Of tariff for
revenue only, and would allow no GUS
toms duties to be levied if his theory
were carried out--and feels particularly
sensitive because it has been insisted
upon by so many people that his defeat
was caused by his vote in favor Of the
MORRISON bill of the last session of
Congress. Undoubtedly, Mr.. HURD is
an able man; but we suspect that he is
hcadstrong and self-willed, and does not
treat other persons opinions with the
courtesy they deserve.
The right Of the House of Repre-
sentatives TO originate all bills for
ssraising revenue" is settled by the
Constitution. Nobody disputes that.
The question is as to what the words
"raising revenue" mean. Mr.. HURD's
contention is that they mean all bills
for appropriating money as well as all
bills for collecting money. lie claims
that in England money to become reve-
nue. to the King must have been
granted to him by the Commons.
This is literally true. Parliament
used in certain sense to grant
money to the King, and yet it
was well known for what purposes it
was granted. But what follows from
Mr.. HURD's argument? 1t follows
that since Congress in this country ap-
propriates all the money raised by tax
alton directly to the object for which it
is to be expended, all such money be-
comes revenue by being deposited in
the Treasury. That is to say, if in
England the money became revenue
only when it was granted by law to the
King, and since we have no King i'll this
country, but Congress itself directs
how the money shall be used, Mr..
HuRD's argument cuts its own throat.
The view we have presented was, we
believe, not presented by any Of the
speakers who opposed Mr.. HURD's
resolution in the debate on it in the
House Of Representatives But it was
clearly shown that the trainers of the
Constitution rejected the proposition to
give the House of Representatives the
power to originate all "money bills
thus by implication refusing to give
that house the power to originate all
bills appropriating the revenues of the
Government.
We say day Of valuable time was
thus wasted. The question raised by
MIR. HURD was not new, but had been
raised in the House of Representatives
over and over again, and discussed ex-
haustively by the ablest constitutional
lawyers in that body. II does look,
therefore, as il Mr.. HURD had endea-
vored to kill the BLAIR bill by flank
movement. If so, he signally failed to
accomplish his purpose. The debate
showed clearly that that bill will pass
whenever the House Of Representatives
can be brought to vote upon it.
Mr.. HIscOCK, the Republican leader
in the House Of Representatives, voted
with Mr.. ilURD. But the House is not
divided by party lines upon the BLAIR
bill. OF the Virginia delegation, for
instance, Messrs. GARRISON, LIBBEY,
GEORGE u. WISE, JOHN 5. WISE,
CABELL., BARBOUR, and 0'FERRALL,
voted for the bill--that is, to lay Mr..
HuRD's resolution upon the table;
whilst Messrs. Bowen, HOOPER, and
TUCKER did not vote at all.