In 1905 the Senate tried to originate revenues by amendment to the postoffice appropriation bill. That amendment was very similar to the “rider” of Mr. Hitchcock. I will here reprint it:
“That hereafter the rate of postage on packages of books or merchandise mailed at the distributing postoffice of any rural free delivery to a patron on said route shall be three cents for each pound or any fraction thereof. This rate shall apply only to packages deposited at the local postoffice for delivery to patrons on routes emanating from that office, or collected by rural carriers for delivery to the office from which the route emanates, and not to mail transmitted from one office to another, and shall not apply to packages exceeding 5 pounds in weight.”
The House brought that measure to conference and flatly _refused to recognize the power of the Senate in the premises_. The Senate receded and the amendment was killed.
“Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives” is a recognized authority. In Chapter XLII, Vol. 2, under the caption, “Prerogatives of the House as to Revenue Legislation,” Mr. Hinds cites many instances in which the House had invariably insisted upon the _exclusive exercise of its rights as defined in Section 7, Article 1, of the Constitution_.
Mr. Hinds cites in all one hundred and twenty-five precedents, each of which raises the same point of order as was raised in debating Mr. Hitchcock’s late “rider” and on each of which the House _maintained its right to originate all bills for raising revenues_.
In view of the fact that some of Mr. Hitchcock’s supporters were men of experience, skilled parliamentarians, in view of the fact that some of them were trained lawyers, and in view of the further fact that the works both of Mr. Hinds and of Mr. Gilfry are on file in the reference libraries of the Senate and House and probably in most of the departments, how, I ask, in view of the above facts, can either Mr. Hitchcock or any of his supporters enter a valid plea of _ignorance_ of the fact that their attempt to put over that rider was contravening the constitutional rights and prerogatives of the House?
No, they were not ignorant. In my judgment, as based upon the reports which have reached me, that “rider” was a deliberate frame-up and its architects were a few conspirators who sought by means of that rider either to put certain periodicals out of business or _force them to print what they were told to publish_.