This is the earliest example of this exact practise I have found:
“...(S. 115) ‘‘To modify the act of the 14th of
July, 1832, and all other acts imposing duties on imports,’’ introduced by Mr. Henry
Clay, of Kentucky, February 12, 1833.6 Objection was made by Mr. John Forsyth,
of Georgia, and others, that the bill was not constitutional, as the Senate did not
have the power to originate such a bill.7 The bill was considered and carried to
a third reading, when, on February 26, it was laid on the table,8 the bill of the
House (H. R. 641) being received in the Senate at that time. This House bill had
originally been reported on December 27,9 but, on February 25, on motion of Mr.
Robert P. Letcher, of Kentucky, the Senate bill proposed by Mr. Clay had been
moved as a substitute and adopted, retaining, however, the House number10 This
bill passed the Senate and became a law.11”
... from Hind’s Precedents Chapter XLVII pg 943
The basis is that our constitution did not forbid modification of revenue bills by the ‘upper house’ as the British did= but specifically allows it.
I believe it was a mistake today, and by Henry Clay in 1833, to allow this but wonder whether a court will repudiate such a long practise.
“...(S. 115) ‘‘To modify the act of the 14th of July, 1832, and all other acts imposing duties on imports,’’ introduced by Mr. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, February 12, 1833.
6 Objection was made by Mr. John Forsyth, of Georgia, and others, that the bill was not constitutional, as the Senate did not have the power to originate such a bill.
7 The bill was considered and carried to a third reading, when, on February 26, it was laid on the table,
8 the bill of the House (H. R. 641) being received in the Senate at that time. This House bill had originally been reported on December 27,
9 but, on February 25, on motion of Mr. Robert P. Letcher, of Kentucky, the Senate bill proposed by Mr. Clay had been moved as a substitute and adopted, retaining, however, the House number
10 This bill passed the Senate and became a law.
11” ... from Hind’s Precedents Chapter XLVII pg 943
With deepest apologies for modifying your post for the sake of readability.
Thank you much for your excellent post!