be, by the fathers of our country, a highly inde-
pendent and conservative branch of the Gov-
ernment.
But, Mr. President, although this principle, as
before remarked, has to some extent been in-
fringed upon, yet we still recognize two distinct
branches of our Legislature, and the House of
Delegates is regarded as the popular branch of the
Government and, therefore, more immediately
responsible to the people for their action,
For this reason, lie said, he preferred to con-
fine to the House of Delegates, the power of levying
taxes, and of raising revenue, and was unwilling
to give to the Senate powers not delega-
ted to it by any other State Constitution, so far
as he knew in the whole Union, and not recognized
either, in the Constitution of the General
Government.
Again, if we admit for the sake of the argu-
ment, that both branches of the Legislature is
equally popular, and equally dependent upon the
people for their power; if we admit that both
branches are elevated to their position from the
same source, and are equally dependent upon the
people for their continuation in office; still he
preferred the House of Delegates should exclu-
sively exercise this power. They were emphati-
cally the popular branch of the Legislature.
They were elected for a shorter term, and were
more immediately, and more distinctly responsi-
ble to the people; and besides they were more
numerous.
The Senate as now organized, is composed of
twenty-one members, and the House of Delgates
would therefore, in his estimation, more fully
and more truthfully represent the opinions and
the wishes of all class of the community, than
would the Senate. The power of levying taxes,
is perhaps one of the highest prerogatives of a
free Government, and should therefore be pro-
perly guarded. He was unwilling for his part,
to see long established usages in this respect de-
parted from without good and sufficient reasons.
Mr. MERRICK said, he thought the bill had bet-
ter remain as it was. This notion of denying to
the Senate the privilege of originating money-
bills, was an obsolete idea. It was behind the
times, and originated in a jealousy of an aristo-
cratic branch. There was such a branch in
England, and probably there had been similar
branches here. But things were all changed.
Here we were now all democratic. He saw no
necessity for prohibiting one branch of the legis-
lature, any more than the other, from originating
laws. Both branches must concur in passing a
bill—and both branches ought to have the privi-
lege of originating all such bills, as in their opin-
ion, the interests of the people might require.
Let us not keep up obsolete usages, when the rea-
sons which called them into being had ceased to
exist.
Mr. DORSEY was opposed to the amendment. He
did not think that, in view of what would be the
organization of the Legislature of the State of
Maryland, or, in fact, of what that organization
now was, that such an amendment ought to pre-
vail.
He referred to the principle upon which the

restriction as to money-bills had been originally
placed in the Constitution, (which was, that the
House of Delegates, being then the territorial
branch of the Legislature, should alone levy
taxes on the people,) and to the inconveniences
and delays in legislation which he had himself
witnessed from the practical operation of the re-
strictive clause. He was satisfied that, in this
State, there was no necessity for a restriction in
either branch. Bills could not become laws ex-
cept by the concurrence of both Houses; and
there was no fear that the legislation would not
be equal and impartial.
Mr. PHELPS directed the attention of the Con-
vention to the article of the old Constitution,
placing restraint upon the Senate in regard to
money-bills. Mr. P. agreed with the gentleman
from Anne Arundel, [Mr. Dorsey,] that great in-
conveniences had arisen under that particular
clause; and to get rid of that difficulty, he [Mr.
P.] had offered his amendment giving to the Sen-
ate the power to change or amend such bills.
It was said, that this restriction was an obso-
lete idea But he found that it had been adopt-
ed in various new constitutions of different States,
within a few years past, [in all of which the Sen-
ate was elected by the people.] He thought it
highly proper that the immediate representatives
of the people should have the sole power to ori-
ginate money-bills—but that the right to alter, to
change and amend them should be given to the
Senate. It was not yet certain that the House of
Delegates would not remain the territorial branch
of the Legislature. The basis of representation
had not yet been settled. The Convention, how-
ever, could dispose of the amendment as it thought
proper. He should be satisfied with the decision,
whatever it might be.
Mr. DORSEY suggested that the same reason
existed for giving to the Senate the power to ori-
ginate, that gave them the power to alter or
amend; and that, to be consistent, the Conven-
tion must adopt the principle of the old Constitu-
tion, and leave them no power to do either.
Mr. PHELPS. I will only say, that the Senate
of the United States have the power to alter and
amend money-bills, and so have the Senates of
nearly all the States.
The question was then taken and decided in the
negative.
So the amendment of Mr. PHELPS was reject-
ed.
Mr. WELLS moved the following amendment,
to come in after the word "House," where it first
occurs, in the fourth line, the words:
"Nor shall any bill originate in either House
during the last three days of the session."
Some conversation followed, as to the construc-
tion to be given to the section as thus amended,
when
Mr. DORSEY, [on behalf of Mr. Wells, not at
the moment in his seat,] changed the position on
the amendment so as to make it come In at the
end of the section.
Mr. SPENCER said he should vote against the
amendment because we were to have biennial
sessions. The legislature must be entrusted with
some discretion--and an emergency might arise