cedents which they professed
to be following, they were actuated by a desire to minimize the direct
influence of the people. If the Constitution had been framed in complete
accord with the doctrine of checks and balances, the lower house of
Congress as the direct representative of the people would have been
given a veto on the entire policy of the government. But this, as we
have seen, was not done. The more important powers were placed under the
exclusive control of the other branches of the government over which it
was believed public opinion would have but little influence. This
deprived the people of the unlimited negative to which they were
entitled even according to the theory of checks. Richard Henry Lee did
not greatly exaggerate then when he said: "The only check to be found in
favor of the democratic principle, in this system, is the House of
Representatives, which, I believe, may justly be called a mere shred or
rag of representation."[121] Nor was Mason entirely mistaken when he
referred to the House of Representatives as "the shadow only" and not
"the substance of representation."[122]

It may be thought, even though the Constitution does not give the House
of Representatives a direct negative on all the important acts of the
government, that it does so indirectly through its control over the
purse. An examination of the system with reference to this question,
however, reveals the fact that the control of the House over taxation
and expenditure is narrowly limited. A revenue law is subject to no
constitutional limitation, and when once enacted remains in force until
repealed by subsequent legislation. Assuming that a revenue system has
been established which is sufficient for the needs of the government,
the House can exercise no further control over income. It can not repeal
it, or modify it in any way without the consent of the President and
Senate.

Turning now to the matter of expenditure, we find that the Constitution
allows permanent provision to be made for the needs of the government,
with the single exception of the army, for the support of which no funds
can be appropriated for a longer period than two years. The policy of
permanent appropriations has not yet been applied to the full extent
permitted by the Constitution, but it has been carried much further than
a consistent adherence to the doctrine of popular control over the
budget would warrant. The practice could easily be extended until eve