Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, suggested that the
section should lie over informally for the pre-
sent.
Mr. SCHLEY suggested to the gentleman to
withdraw his amendment for the present.
Mr. STEWART withdrew his amendment, (in-
tending to offer it again.)
Mr. SPRIGG also withdrew his amendment,
with the intention to offer it again in a different
place.
Mr. DORSEY moved a reconsideration of the
vote on the sixteenth section, with the view to
offer an amendment.
Mr. D. explained that his object in offering the
amendment, was to prevent a double or doubtful
construction of the phraseology of the section,
and from a desire that the Constitution, in all its
parts, should be as clear and explicit as possi-
ble.
Mr. BROWN was in favor of the reconsidera-
tion, and said that if the motion should prevail,
he would move to substitute the language of the
old Constitution,
The vote on the adoption of the section was
reconsidered.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend said action, by
striking out, in the first line, the words "the en-
acting clause of every bill shall be," and inserting
in lieu thereof, the words "that the style of all
laws run thus."
Mr. SCHLEY moved to amend the amendment
by striking out the words "run thus," and substi-
tuting in lieu thereof, the words "of this State
shall be."
Mr. BROWN accepted the modification.
The amendment of Mr. SCHLEY was agreed to.
And the sixteenth section, as amended, was
adopted.
The seventeenth section of the bill was read
as follows:
Sec. 17th. Any bill may originate in either
House of the General Assembly, and be altered,
amended or rejected by the other, but no bill
shall have the force of a law until it be read on
three different days in each House, unless in case
of urgency three-fourths of the House, where
such bill is depending, shall dispense with this
rule.
Mr. PHELPS moved to amend said section, by
striking out in the first line, the words, "any
bill," and inserting in lieu thereof the follow-
ing:
"Bills for raising revenue or levying taxes,
shall originate in the House of Delegates, but the
Senate may alter, amend or reject them as other
bills.
Mr. PHELPS said:
In offering the amendment just read, he felt no
particular personal interest. He had done so,
because he regarded the section, as reported by
the committee, as unusual, and contrary to the
well recognized principles, in the legislation of
the whole country.
The origination of what is familiarly called
"money-bills, "is confined to the immediate repre-
sentative branch of the Legislature, in most, if

not all, the States of the Union. In fact, in all
the States, so far as he had examined. The same
principle was recognized in the Constitution of
the United States.
This is the case, also, in the Parliament of
Great Britain. The House of Commons has the
sole right of levying taxes, and of proposing
measures of revenue. This principle, in this
country, was doubtless borrowed from the Con-
stitution of England, and as public opinion, had
so long sanctioned it, he saw no reason for de-
parting from it now.
This amendment confined the origination of all
bills for levying taxes, or raising revenue, to the
House of Delegates, but authorizes the Senate to
alter, change, or amend, all such bills. This is
a departure from the principles of the present
Constitution of Maryland. The tenth section of
the Constitution, gives to the House of Delegates,
the right to levy taxes, &c., and the eleventh
goes on to define, what may, and what may not,
be regarded as money-bills, so as the one House
should not infringe upon the rights of the other.
The construction given to these sections in the
Maryland Senate, was always very strict, and
denied to that body the right to make the slight-
est modifications, Or the most trifling alteration,
in any bill which had for its object, the levying of
taxes, or the disposing, in any manner, of the
public revenue.
Long experience in the Senate, had convinced
him, that there should be. at least, some enlarge-
ment of power upon the subject. Bills often
came to that body from the House, and for want
of power to make perhaps some slight alteration,
or amendment, the bill failed to become a law,
when the main features of the bill were approved
by the Senate.
Mr. PHELPS said, in order to avoid the two
extremes, he had proposed this amendment, and
if it be engrafted upon the Constitution, the Senate
may amend money bills, although they may not
originate them. It will doubtless be said, if the
Senate possess the power to amend a bill of this
character, that they may so change the features
of the bill, as to some extent, to conflict with the
design of the House, in its origination. If so,
when returned to the House for its subsequent
action, the House can but reject the amendment,
and adhere to the original proposition. The
power to amend money bills exists in the Senate
of the United States, and is frequently exercised
by that body, without injury, so far as he knew,
to the public service.
The theory, Mr. President, of our Government
is, that in the construction of our legislative
bodies, one house should be regarded as the po-
pular branch, reflecting the popular will, whilst
the other, is farther removed from the people,
and should be more independent, and more con-
servative in its character. It is true this princi-
ple, in these later days, have been much infring-
ed upon, and to some extent at least, both Houses
have been merged into popular branches. The
subsequent history of the country, will develop
the fact, whether this be, or be not, an improve-
ment. For his part he was free to say, he would
like to see the Senate what it was designed to