Kansas. University.

Seminary notes published by the Seminary of historical and political science online

. (page 9 of 62)
Online LibraryKansas. UniversitySeminary notes published by the Seminary of historical and political science → online text (page 9 of 62)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

nection with Seminary work— within reason-
able limits.

More than twenty gentlemen, prominent in
official and professional circles, have already
connected themselves with the Seminary, and
have rendered very acceptable service during
past years.

The officers and members of the Seminary
will gladly render all possible assistance to
any public officials who may desire to collect
special statistics or secure definite informa-
tion on such lines of public work' as are
properly within the sphere of the Seminary.

Any citizen of Kansas interested in this
work is invited to correspond with the Semi-
nary, and to be present at its meetings whpn








|a^HE Revolution of 1688 had firmly
^l established the principle that taxa-
tion in England must be controlled by
Parliament. The rallying cry of the Amer-
icans in 1776, of "No taxation without
representation," was but a claim, on the
part of the colonists, of a right to the pos-
session of political liberty equal in extent
to that which had been enjoyed by the
mother country for nearly a hundred years.
The men of England, and the men of the.
Colonies, were one in blood and spirit.
The establishment of constitutional liberty
in England must necessarily result in the
desire for an equal measure of liberty in
America, and the effect of the arbitrary
government of Charles I. upon the England
of 1640 found its counterpart in the effect
of the government of George III. upon
the America of 1776. The war of the
Revolution firmly established the principle
of self-taxation in America, but it was a
principle which had long been asserted in
Colonial charters and constitutions. And
in truth the history of the development of
the budget* in England is also the history
of the budget for America, for the United
States is but the child of England and the
citizen of the United States should be as
deeply interested in the Magfta Charta of
King John as is the citizen of England.
As in England, when the principle of

*The term budget is very.little used in the United
States and some confusion has arisen as to its exact
meaning. It is customary for writers on finance to
speak of the budget of the year as being the sum of all
laws which deal with the expenditure of public money
or with the methods of raising that money, but to con-
fine the meaning of the term budgetary legislation to
the provisions of the constitution, and the rules of
order of the two houses, which determine the manner
in which such laws shall be passed. But to one who
is merely writing the history of the budget, and its
position in the constitution, this distinction is not sat-
isfactory. If the statement is accepted that the
budget includes all laws of the year dealing with tax-
ation and expenditure, the better distinction seems to
be, to use the term budgetary legislation as applying
to these laws, and to call the provisions of the consti-
tution and the rules of order, budgetary rules, for
strictly speaking these latter are not legislation at all.

self-taxation was once firmly established,
the history of the budget is concerned
with the relations between the Crown,
the Lords and the Commons, and is to be
found rather in the standing orders of the
two houses, than in the statutes of the
realm, so in the United States, the history
of the budget is confined to the various
provisions pertaining to the origination of
money bills, and to the powers of the two
houses in regard to them. The clause in
the constitution, which provides that all
money bills shall originate in the House of
Representatives, is preceded in point of
time by various provisions in the state
constitutions. In 1776 eight of the states
adopted new constitutions, and of these
eight, five contained provisions that all
money bills must originate in the lower
house. Many of these provisions are sim-
ilar to that of Massachusetts, adopted in
1780, which reads: "All money bills shall
originate in the House of Representatives,
but the Senate may propose or concur
with amendments as on other bills; "(i) but
some of the state constitutions also contain
provisions which are intended to prevent
the lower house from abusing this privi-
lege by the tacking of riders to money
bills. (2) The idea that the lower house is

(1) Constitutions and Charters of the United States.
—Poore. Vol 1, p. 956.

(2) Article X , of the constitution of Maryland, which
was adopted in 177ti, declares that •' The House of Del-
egates may oi-iginate all money bills." Article XI.

provides: " In order that the Senate may not be

compelled by the House of Delegates, either to i-eject
a money bill which the emergency of affairs may re-
quire, or to assent to some other act of legislation, in
their conscience and judgment injurious to the public
welfare, the House of Delegates shall not, on any occa-
sion or under any pretence, annex to or blend with a
money bill any matter, clause or thing not immedi-
ately relating to and necessary for the imposing, as-
sessing, levying or aijplyiug the taxes or supplies lo
be raised for the support of the government or the
current expenses of the state ; and to prevent alterca -
tion about such bills it is declared that no bill, impos-
ing duties or customs for the mere regulation of
commerce, or inflicting flnes for the reformation of
morals, or to enforce the execution ol the laws, by
which any incidental revenue may arise, shall be ac-



more fit to discuss matters of taxation,
because its members are more directly the
representatives of the people than are the
members of the upper house, was undoubt-
edly an outgrowth of the principle of the
English constitution, that the Commons
should make all grants to the Crown. (i)
But its adoption by six states does not
prove that it was an idea fully accepted
by all the people, for other state constitu-
tions previous to 1787 had no such provis-
ion. More than that, when the same
question came up for discussion in the
constitutional convention, many of the
delegates coming from the states whose
constitutions contained such provisions
were opposed to the introduction of a sim-
ilar provision into the constitution of the
United States.

Article III., (2) of Pinckney's plan for a
federal union, submitted to the convention
jon May 29, 1787, provided that all money
bills of every kind should originate in the
House of Representatives, and should not
be altered or amended by the Senate. In
the first debate upon this question, the
opinions expressed by the leading members
of the convention were largely opposed to
giving any such exclusive privilege to the
House, and the article in question was
defeated by a vote of the states of seven
to three. (3) But on July 5 th Franklin
made a report(4) which contained three
principal points. First, that the members
of the House should be apportioned on the
basis of population. Second, that all
money bills should originate in the House.

counted as money bills ; but every bill assessing, levy-
ing or applying taxes or supplies for the support of
the government or the current expenses of the state.
or appropriating money in the treasury, shall be
deemed a money bill." — Bigeloiv, American Constitu-
tions, p. 222.

The constitution of Delaware also makes provision
against the same danger. Article II., section 14, reads:
" All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose
alterations as on other bills; and no bill, from the
operation of which when passed into a law, revenue
may incidentally arise shall be accounted a bill for
raising revenue; nor shall any matter or clause what-
ever, not immediately relating to and necessary for
raising revenue, be in any manner blended with or
annexed to a bill for raising revenue." — Americanos
Oaidefor State Constitutions, p. 187.

Third, that the states should have equal
representation in the Senate. Thus the
origination of money bills was made a part
of the struggle between the large and small
states over the question of representation,
and it would be but natural to expect to
find the large states in favor of, and the
small states opposed to, this proposition
of Franklin's. But many of the most in-
fluential members of the large states did
not believe in the wisdom of such a pro-
vision. Madison, (5) of Virginia, opposed
to it throughout, declared that the Senate
was as much the representative of the peo-
ple as was the House, and would undoubt-
edly be composed of a class of men more
capable of dealing with financial questions
than would the House. Of the same mind
with Madison were Morris(6) and Wil-
son, (7) of Pennsylvania, and William-
son, (8) of North Carolina, while the
members of the convention who were most
earnest in their support of the provision
were Gerry, of Massachusetts, Mason, of
Virginia, and Franklin, of Pennsylvania.
Gerry said "it would establish the consti-
tutional principle that the second branch
were not possessed of the confidence of the
people in money matters. "(9) Franklin
thought that those who were nearest the
people should distribute the people's money
on the principle that "those who feel can
best judge. "(10) On the question whether
the clause reading, "All bills for raising
revenue shall originate in the first branch
of the legislature, and shall not be amended
or altered by the second branch," the vote
stood: Connecticut, New Jersey, Dela-
ware, Maryland, North Carolina — yes, 5.
Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina —
no, 3. Massachusetts, New York, Geor-
gia — divided, 3.(11)

(1) Madison Papers, Vol. II , p. 855, Speech of Butler.

(2) Ibid., Vol. II.,p. 73<.

(3) Ibid., Vol. II., p. 858.

(4) Ibid , Vol. II., pp. 1,034, 1,036.

(5) Ibid., Vol. II., p. 8,58.

(6) Ibid., Vol. II., p. 1,041.

(7) Ibid., Vol. II., p. 1,041.

(8) Ibid., Vol, II., p. 1,043.
i:9)Ibid., Vol II-, p. 1,013.

(10) Ibid., Vol. II , p. 1,044.

(11) Ibid., Vol. II, p, 1,046.



• It is evident from this vote that the small
states were offering an inducement to the
large states, which the large states were
either unwilling to accept or did not regard
as wise. By a majority of the members
of the convention the matter was not
looked upon as a question of much consti-
tutional importance, but simply as a con-
venient subject upon which to base a com-
promise. Madison, in an explanatory
note, says of the situation: "Col. Mason,
Mr. Gerry and other members from large
States set great value on the privilege of
originating money bills. Of this the mem-
bers from the small states, with some from
the large states, who wished a high mounted
government, endeavored to avail them-
selves by making that privilege the price
of arrangements in the constitution favor-
able to the small states, and to the elevation
of the government. "(i)

The proof that the small states really
cared nothing for the restriction as a
constitutional principle is found in the
vote taken on August 8. By that time it
had been decided that the states were to
have equal representation in the Senate,
and this point once gained", the small states
were by no means so eager to support the
provision restricting the origination of
money bills to the House. Madison had
always been a consistent opponent of such
a measure, and he now attempted to have
the convention revoke its previous decis-
ion. On the question of striking out
article IV. , section 5,(2) of the report of
the committee on detail, the vote stood:(3)
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Geor-
gia^ — yes, 7. New Hampshire, Massachu-
setts,' Connecticut, North Carolina — no, 4.
This breach of faith on the part of the
small states, aroused the indignation of
those delegates from the large states who
were earnest in their desire to see the ori-
gination of money bills confined to the
House of Representatives. Randolph, (4)
of Virginia, said that if article IV., section
5, was not reinstated, he would oppose
equality of votes in the Senate, and in this

he was followed by Gerry, Franklin, and
others, who had voted for the section in
question. The determined attitude of these
men induced the convention, by a vote(5)
of 9 to I, to reconsider the matter, and a
speech by Gerry in which he argued that
the plan of the convention would inevitably
fail of acceptance by the people if the
Senate was no,t restricted from the origina-
tion of money bills, (6)finally led to the adop-
tion of the proposition in the form in which
it is found in Article I., Section 7, of the
Constitution: "All bills for raising revenue
shall originate in the House of Represen-
tatives, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments as on other
bills.."(7) The discussions of the conven-
tion indicate very plainly that the provision
was not generally regarded as an essential
constitutional principle. Many considered
it to be the most convenient ground upon
which to base a compromise, others
thought that its insertion was necessary to
the adoption of the constitution by the
people, while there were a few who were
either in favor of it, because of a firm
belief in the principle that the lower house
should control the purse, or were opposed
to it because of an equally firm disbelief in
the wisdom of such a provision. The
spirit of compromise finally predominated
and the provision was accepted with but
two dissenting votes — Maryland and Del-
aware. (8)

It was, however, of very little importance
that the majority of the framers of the
constitution did not regard the restriction
of the origination of money bills to the
House of Representatives as a great con-
stitutional principle, for the people did
regard it as such, and Gerry was right

(1) Madison Papers, Vol. II., p. 1,501.

(2) The section providing for tlie origination of
money bills by the House.

(3) Madison Papers, Vol. II., p. 1,367.
,(4; Ibid,. Vol. III., p. 1,270.

(.o)Ibid., Vol. III., p. 1,298.
(6; Ipid., Vol. III., p. 1,.<09.

(7) Ibid., Vol. Ill , p. 1.609.

(8) This is the moi-e remarkable as the two states
voting against the provision are the very states whose
constitutions previous to 1787 contain stringent pro-
visions in regard to iboney bills. (See ante., p. 50,



when he said that the presence or absence
of such a provision would have much to
do with the acceptance or rejection of the
constitution by the people. That this
provision has come to be regarded as a
constitutional principle is clearly shown by
the fact that nearly all the state constitu-
tions, which have been either altered or
adopted since 1787, contain sections, al-
most, and in many cases exactly, similar
to Article I., Section 7, of the Constitu-
tion of the United States. It cannot be
said that the principle of the English

constitution, that the lower house should
have entire control of money affairs, was
accepted as self-evident by the constitu-
tional convention and, therefore, placed
in our frame of government. But once
placed in the constitution it was accepted
by the people as what they were pleased
to call ''a self-evident truth," and it has
been believed by the American people,
ever since the adoption of the constitution,
that the people should, through their rep-
resentatives, control the extent and purpose
of taxation. Ephraim D. Adams.


^t/rUCH has been said of late with
(j^^ii; regard to the loss to industrial soci-
ety occasioned by the passing of prohibi-
tory liquor laws. The writer of this paper
does not believe that there has been any
such social loss. On the contrary, he is
of the opinion that, considering the state
as a unit in the maintenance of industries,
there is a positive loss involved in the man-
* ufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors;
in other words, that the maintenance of
the liquor traffic is not a paying investment
for society,' even if considered from a
purely business stand-point.

It is the purpose of this paper to attempt
to prove the preceding statement, but no
claim is made to have covered the entire
question, for the reason that the writer has
found it necessary to confine himself to a
few points of especial interest.

The first question to arise is whether the
liquor traffic creates a demand for farmer's
commodities which would not be furnished

In this connection Professor Ely, of
Johns Hopkins University, says: "It is
important to note that if the seven hundred
million dollars now spent for grain, in the
form of liquors, were expended for food

and other farm products to satisfy the ra-
tional wants of the thousands of families
who are rendered destitute by intemper-
ance, it would purchase at least seven
times as much grain in the form of flour
as it does in that of liquor, because it is
true with regard to liquor, as with all lux-
uries, that the amount of raw material u;sed
in their production is far less, compared
with their cost to the consumers, than it is
in any of the other products that satisfy
human wants. Thus we can see that those
farmers who think that the liquor industry
creates a demand for their commodities,
and those brewers and distillers who en-
deavor to instill this belief, are both
deciever and deceived. How much better
it would be if farmers could secure high
prices for their grain and other products
by ministering to those rational and higher
wants which strengthen human nature and
enable the consumers to produce in turn a
greater abundance of wealth, rather than
by satisfying the demands of base appe-
tites that degrade men and lessen the
community's wealth — producing power.
It is, of course, obvious that if men spend
less for liquors. . . .they will have so much
more to spend for other things, and the



opportunities for employment will not be
at all lessened. On the contrary, as other
expenditures are more likely to be produc-
tive, opportunities for employment will
inevitably be multiplied."

A few statistics will reveal more clearly
the fallacy of the argument, that the liquor
manufacture creates a market for farm
products. From the United States Agri-
cultural Report, 1889, the following tables
are taken, showing the product of grain of
the kind used in liquor manufacturies:


Corn I5987, 790.000

Oats 701,735,000

Wheat 415,868,000

Barley 63,884,593

Rye 28,412,011

Total 3, 197,689,604

The amount used in the manufacture of
intoxicants for the year ending June 30,
1889, was:


Barley 62, 821, 221

Corn 15,319,862

Wheat 48,279

K-ye 3,259,917

Oats 23,632

Total 81, 472, 911

Rating barley at forty-five cents per
bushel, corn at thirty-eight, wheat at eighty-
eight, rye at forty-two, and oats at twenty-
nine, the total value of the grain thus con-
sumed is a little less than thirty-six million
dollars. The estimated retail value of the
entire liquor product, based on the United
States Internal Revenue Statistics, pages
366-9, is:

Distilled liquors $588, 254, 720

Fermented liquors '. 695,879,194

l^otal ^1,279,133,914

After allowing more than twenty-one per
cent for the arts and sciences there still
remains a thousand millions of dollars ex-
pended for drink. It is obvious that all
this could not go to the purchase of farm
products, even if the liquor traffic were
wholly abolished; yet much of it would.
Assuming that not more than ten per cent
would be so expended — and this is a very

mild estimate — there would be one hundred
million dollars to be balanced against the
thirty-six million which the manufacturer
of liquors now pays to the farmer.

Such is the direct effect on the farmer's
market. The cost to him in taxes, made
almost double by the results of intemper-
ance, is a point yet to be considered.

Crime is an expensive thing to any state.
How much of crime is due to intoxicants?
What is the cost of jails and state prisons?

An examination of the authorities on the
relation between alcoholic drinks and crime
reveals evidence of the following nature:
J. B. Finley, chaplain of Ohio state prison,
says that nine-tenths of crime is due to
whiskey. Rev. L. Dwight, secretary of
the American Prison Disciplinary Society,
places the estimate at four-fifths. The
Bureau of State Charities, Massachusetts,
gives the same opinion. The Magistrate
of Toronto, Canada, says that nine-tenths
of the male and nineteen-twentieths of the
female prisoners are addicted to strong
drink. In answer to the question, "What
is the relation of intoxicants to crime?"
sent to the wardens of the state prisons,
there was comparative unanimity in the
reply. Mr. Pollard, of Vermont, echoed
the general sentiment: "My opinion is,
that if intoxicants were totally eradicated,
the Vermont state prison would be large
enough to hold all the criminals of the
United States."

Such are the estimates regarding crime.
On equally good authority it can be said
that about the same per cent of pauperism,
and, perhaps, sixty per cent of insanity, is
due to the same cause.

It is difficult to secure accurate penal
statistics for the United States, but the
report of the National Prison Association
gives the value of the state prisons in the
following table:

Real estate $14,000,000

Personal property 2,000,000

Cost of management


Total .$19, 000, 000

Income from labor 1,500,000



In addition to this there are two thousand
county jails, the value of which is not
given, but at a very moderate estimate it
may be put at fifteen million dollars. The
average annual cost of maintainence will

be based on the average of the jails of
Massachusetts. In the report of the Prison
Commissioners of Massachusetts, 1890,
page 261, the following table appears:



number of




State Prison

Reform Prison for Women ..
Massacliusetts Reformatory.
County Prisons















335,393 69





From this it will be seen that $598,720.62
is the net annual cost of the several prisons
of the state. At a low estimate three-
fourths of this expense, or $449,040.45,
represents the annual cost to Massachusetts
of crime due to intoxicants. This does
not include the police and court expenses,
which are several times as great as the
direct expense of caring lot the criminals,
nor does it take into account the interest
on the capital invested in the prisons and

The following table covers the whole
ground fairly well:


For paupers $1,731,000

Lunacy and charity 761,000

Alms houses 400,000

Police expenses 2,956,000

Courts, not including Super.

and Supreme 443,000

County and state pris. approx. 350,000

Total $6,641,000

There is one item which this table does
not include. The aggregate given as the
cost of the county and state prisons is the
net cost, that is, the value of the labor
done by the prisoners has been deducted
from the gross expenses. It will appear
then that the loss to the industrial interests
of the state must be increased by so. much
as the full value of the prisoners' time.

For a period of twelve years the average
number of prisoners in confinement in
Massachusetts was three thousand three

hundred and fifty-five. This number does
not include those in the state reformatory,
as no accurate statement of the average
number therein confined could be secured-
Estimating the earnings of each prisoner
at two hundred dollars per annum, the loss
to the labor product of the state is six
hundred and seventy-one thousand dollars.
From the above statement the following
summary is made:
Direct outlay for state institu-
tions $6,641,000

Loss from idleness of prisoners 671,000

Total $7,312,000

Seventy-five per cent of this is to be set
down in the account against the liquor

This is , $5,484,000

Licenses 1,175,000

Online LibraryKansas. UniversitySeminary notes published by the Seminary of historical and political science → online text (page 9 of 62)