Gazette of the United-States. — New-York [N.Y.], 1792-01-11 00:00:00, page 2

Mr. Sedgwick said, that it was impossible for
him to underhand on what principle the
man ft om South-Carolina, and his colleague, were
to give their votes, (contrary to their former ex
prefled opinion, excepting that they had disco
vered that the Senate concurred with them,
•which would not, he hoped, be generally consi
dered as a good ground for changing ; as it seem
ed to be embracing contradiction for the purpose
of contradiction ;) nnlefs, as the
declared, that at the time he formed his opinion
he did it on principle, by the abandonment of
which, he could acquire an undue weight to the
district of country from which he came, by de
parting from a just equality in repiefentarion.
Gentlemen had teemed to wish to obscure the
merits of the present controversy, by confulerinw
it as a contest between the larger and fmalle'r
states, and by supposing that the latter would be
compensated for their loss of weight and infhi
Mr. Benfon said, that if this business is in fu
ture to be made a lottery, let us at once declare
it—for if principle is entirely out of the qneftion,
it remains that we should declare explicitly the
truth. J
Mr. W. Smith said be had hitherto voted uni
formly in favor of a fnialler representation than
that which was contemplated in the bill, and in
doing so he bad atfted from principle, without
any reference to the do<slrine of fractions—as the
enumeration of his date was not yet known, it
must be evident to every gentleman in the House
that this was the cafe : but he now saw the necef
fiiy of changing his vote, since the bill had been
returned from the Senate, where it seemed there
was a disposition to modify every bill and every
proceeding of this Honfe jull as they pleased.
He thought it would have a very awkward ap
pearance to the world, if the House fheuld give
■way in all cases whatever, and more especially
in the present instance, where the Senate had
teen equally divided, and the question was de
cided by the vote of a single member of that bo
dy—the Vice-Prefident. For these reasons, and
the locality and fractions that had been intro
duced into the debate, lie would vote for an ad
herence to the former decision of the House, in
order to support that balance which ftiould be
preserved between the two branches of the legis
lature.
[The Senate had amended the bill by encreaftng the ratio Jrom 30,000
to 33,000 ; the tiouje haddjagreed to this amendment ; the Senate vv
ted to adhere. It was moved in the Houjc this day, that they Jhould re
cede Jrom their disagreement J
MR. FINPLEY. —From the various observa
tions which had been made on the fubjedt,
said it had become neceHary that a votelheuld be
given with due deliberation—such a vote as con
ltitutioual justice (hall require—on the ground
of constitutional justice, for as to general j ustice,
it is entirely out of the question—and indeed he
said that general justice could not be done on the
principles of any government under heaven.—
He adverted to the particular lituation of the re
fpetftive Hates, and iaid that this general justice
was not attainable in any one of them. We are
not to be moved by any threats ; we a>fi on prin
ciple, and will entrench ourselves in princi
ple— and this principle of constitutional equality
js all tUat we crfn pretend to. But it is objected
that the ratio will produce fra&ions—and to get
rid of this difficulty of fractions, we are to re
duce the representation of the people from the
constitutional number of one to every 30,000 —
that is, we are to strike off one sixteenth part of
the whole representation of the Union—he urg
ed that the representation on the ratio of 30,000
■would not be too great —he instanced the repre
sentation of Geneva, and other foreign states.—
If there fhouldarife any inconvenience from the
present ratio of 30,000, government were not
obliged to wait for the expiration of ten years to
remedy the defecfi ; it was always in the power
of Congress to order another census to be taken
at any time. For his own part he had not consi
dered fractions as an obstacle to the bill ; on the
contrary, he was rejoiced that the population of
the country increased so rapidly as to make those
fractions always quickly increase to an whole
number. To conclude, he was for going on ge
neral principles, which would certainly reftetft
the most honor on the proceedings of the legis
lature.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
DEBATE ON THE REPRESENTATION BILL
[Continued.]
PHILADELPHIA
MONDAY, December 19
CONGRESS.
cnce in this house, which would result from an
unequal apportionment of the representation,
by the undue influence which they poflefled in
the Senate. He himfelf came from a very large
and important state. Justice, however, ybliged
him to declare that this mode of conducting the
argument, only tended to divert the judgment
from the true merits of thequeftioti. What had
the distribution of the powers of the government
which by the constitution tfasadjufted tothein
terefts and sovereignty of the states, to do with
the apportionment of representation, as it re
speCted either its numbers or the various inter
elts which' Were to be secured by equality of in
fluence ? Was it possible that any mind should
be so weak as to discover that the constitutional
organization of the Senate was not wholly irre
lative to thole considerations which should influ
ence in the decision of the present question ?
In contemplating thefubjeCt before theHoufe,
he observed, that a vast variety of circutnftances
were entitled to deliberate consideration. A
mong others, the number of representatives com
pared with the number of inhabitants of the U
nited States. In determining which, the nature
and objeCts of the government we were adminif
tering, its machinery, the distribution of its
parts, the conftruCtioH of the other branch of the
legislature, and many other objeCts were to be
considered. That we had not on any of these
subjeCts the aid of experience, and that the go
vernment itfelf was a novel experiment. He
need not therefore that there were no data
from which any certain conclusion could be
drawn. All was uncertainty and conjecture.
Was an apportionment of a ratio of 30,000 eligi
ble ? as an abstraCt proposition he was disposed
to give it a preference to any other. But if he
was aflced wherefore, he could only answer, that
it was rather an inclination of sentiment, than
the result of rational reflection. He would not
therefore, because justice would not permit it,
facrifice to the efFeCt of conjecture, which might
be only the result of whim, the important and
indispensable duty he owed to respeCt the claims
of states to equality.
If an apportioment was made by a ratio of
30,000, the members would fee 7 more than if
the amendment of the Senate were adopted.
Which ever proposition was agreed to, would a
ny one venture to affirm that the liberties of the
people would be more or less secure, the House
a gg re g ate, y nore or less wife, or the due ba] ance
between the two Houses better or worse adjust
ed ? Considering thus the subjeCt, does not the
earnestness with which gentlemen contend for
the proposition of the House, appear perfectly
unaccountable ? But in thrprogi ess of this bnfi
nefs, it is discovered that an application of the
principle of the Houfe,gives a balance of weight
and influence to one part of the United States,
to which it is not entitled by the equal apporti
onment contemplated by the constitution, This
is agreed by all, it is demonflrated by figures.
Nor can it be denied that equality is am6ng the
most eflential principles of istprefentation, and
expressly provided for by the constitution, as far
as would consist with the state of our society,
having a due regard to our particular circum
stances. Yet all important as this consideration
is, it is to be facrificed with all the interests in
volved in it, to a fanciful idea of theory. The
ory unfanCtioned by experience.
For his own part, he believed that wife policy
would be found perfectly to coincide with, and
reconcile the various interests of this extensive
country. It could nor, however, have escaped
, vat '? n . °f erer y gentleman, that there
existed an opinion of an opposition of interests
between the northern and southern states. The
influence of this opinion had beer, felt in the dis
cussion of every important question which had
come under the consideration of the legislature.
The extreme anxiety of gentlemen on the pre
sent occasion, would render all other evidence
fu pern nous on this subject. Such a belief, he
raid, however ill founded, would as long as it
continued have the fame efFeCt as if it existed in
U • i eeh "g. the weight of this observation.and
the influence ir ought to have to give to everv
pair of the United States as nearly as might be
a due proportion of constitutional weight in the'
pub]ic councils, he was incapable of reconcil
ing the conduct of members who were disposed
to facrifice the most important interests of their
immediate constituents, to their ftrange:ideas of
conjectural perfection. It seemed to him that the
gentlemen who came from the north, and on
this occasion djdented from their neighbours
were disposed blindly to surrender all the iml
portant interests of their immediate constituents
to the arbitration of chose, the whole course of
whose. condnCt had demonstrated that they tho't
thole interests adverse to their own.
He concluded, by warning those who had hi
therto composed a majority on this fuUjeCt, to
reflect on the danger that would result from a
pertinacious adherence ro a mealure so produc
tive of the f o „ rC es of jealoufv. And he called
on their generofhy, magnanimity and justice to
respeCt the claims of the minority tow equal
294
p 1 : s tions o; Henry Skinner, Elizabeth Jones, Bar.
nabas Murphy, Aaron Stratton, James Shields,
A memorial of George Turner, ore of the
judges of the Western 1 erritory, was read, and
referred to a fe'etft committee, confiding of Mefll
Livermore, Lavvrance, White, Williamfon and
Smith, (S. C.)
A petition n r James Demir was read, and re
ferred to the Secietary of War—as 'vere also the
The Honfe then proceeded to fill up the blanks
—the blank for the term of the contract was fill
ed with u fin; years"—Penalty for obftrutfting
the transportation of the mail roo dollars For
negligence 011 the part of any ferry-man, by
which the mail may be delayed, 10 dollars for
every half hour—Advertisement for contract to
be publfhed 12 weeks—The blank for the Port-
Master General's salary was filled with 200 c dol
lars—that of the allirtant tooo dollars—The new
rates of portage to commence the 1 ft day of March
next—Penalty for exacfting a greater rate of port
age than that established by law 100dollars—-Pe
nalty for setting up ports for carrying letters,
&c. in opposition to the general port-office 200
dollars—for continuing so to offend, 200 dollars
per week—For the deputy port-mailer's neglect
ing to account with the post-master genera? for
way letters, 100 dollars- Penalty for unlawfully
opening, detaining or embezzling letters, pack
ets, &c. by any pet foil in the port-office depart
ment, 300 dollars, or imprisonment for fix months
—For quitting and deferring the mail so that ic
should nor reach its destination in season, 100
dollars—For carrying letters contrary to the pro
visions of the law, 50 dollars—The compensation
to any deputy polt-inarter not to exceed 20 per
cent on the portage, and in no one instance to
exceed dollars—1 500, 2090, and 2JOO dollars
were severally proposed to fill this blank ; after
Tome debate 2500 and 2000 were put ar;;] nega
tived— 1950 were then proposed, the debate on
the motion was renewed, and continued till the
time of adjournment, which took place without
a decision.
MONDAY, January 9, 1792.
The bill to establish pod-offices and port roads
in the United States, was brought in, engrofled,'
and read the third time—Mr. Murray moved to
recommit the bill, in order to amend the fertion
refpetfting newspapers, by reducing the portage
on them to an half cent—Some opposition was
made to this motion, and the queltion being put
it was negatived.
The motion to recede was negatived, as lias
already appeared.
Mr. Kitrera having at firft voted for 30,000, lie
thought it proper to offer a few reasons for al
tering his opinion.—He had voted for 30,000 be
canfe it would give the largefl representation—
but finding its nnjnfl and unequal operation, in
refpedt to a majority of the (tares, he had deter
mined to vote for the ratio of 33,000. —He then
noticed the remark of Mr. Findley, that the in
juflice may be corrected by an enumeration atan
earlier period than that proposed in the consti
tution—he obferred that this was in efFecft faying,
let ns do injnftice, and wait a number of years,
and then justice /hall he done. Why not do jus
tice now,as far as is in our power ?—Mr.Lawrance
had said, why not ndopt a ratio that would leave
less fractions than 33,000? —He said this was in
effect faying, that because we could not do com
plete justice, we would not do it to any degree
whatever--The superior degree of equality which
would result from the amendment of the Senate,
had been so fully demonstrated, that he ftjould
now vote to recede from the disagreement of the
House to it.
Mr. Lawrance said he had always advocated a
large reprefenration, without any reference to
the part of the Union frqm which the members
are to come—3o,ooo will give the num
ber that we can get —he conld have wilhed it had
been larger—but as it could not, he should vote
againlt 33,000, which would diminish the num
ber—and this was the principle he acted upon.
If an equality is the objert, is there not a num- s
ber which will produce a (till greater equality
than that proposed by the Senate—if there is,
there is 110 principle in the ratio of 33,000, for it
ought to be carried to the full extent to make it
perfectly equal. He was sorry that the discussion
of the qneftion had excited those dif.igreeable
reflexions which had been made, and that the
discussion of general principles was dwindled in
to a debate on fractions, and on the interests of
the northern and southern parts of the Union.
He was persuaded this would rot be the proper
mode of obtaining the end, which ought to be in
view, but would only tend to diflurb the tran
quility and harmony that ought to cxift in invefc
tigatingand determining this fnbjetft.
weight in the government, on the principles of"
the constitution.
Mr. Gerry made Tome reply to his colleague,
Mr. Sedgwick, respecting locality of imerelts,
and declared that he never would agree to a re
duction of the people's representation.
TUESDAY, January io,