,. 

1174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

Mr. McDONALD. Undoubtedly. These gentlemen ought to have a chance to vote. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I should like to have the Chair read the rule. 

Mr. BLAINE. I should be glad to be informed of the rule before 

the Chair enforces that order. I should like to have the rule read, if 

it be in order, under which that is to be done. 

Mr. HOAR. I desire to inquire of the Chair whether he did not 

himself just now raise the question of the presence of a quorum, by 

announcing that no quorum was present as he announced the number 

of the vote. If that be true, does not the second rule operate upon 

that condition of things f 

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is perfectly clear. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, is it too late to vote now! I was simply out of the Chamber for a moment during the call, and I ask 

that I may be allowed to vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot vote now. The 

result of the vote has been declared. 

Mr. BURNSIDE. I move that the·Senate adjourn. 

Mr. WHYTE. I ask that the roll be called in pursuance of Rule 2. 

Mr. BURNSIDE. I have moved to adjourn, which I think is in 

order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island moves that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

Mr. WHYTE. Now I a.sk for a call of the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second rule of the Senate is 

thatIf either at the commencement of any daily session of the Senate, or at any 

time during its daily sessions, a !luestion shall be raised by any Senator as to the 

presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll of Senators, and shall announce the result to the Senate ; and these 

proceedings shall be without debate. 

The Chair therefore directs the call of the roll of Senators. 

The Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators answered 

to their names: 

Anthony, Davis of illinois, Johnston, 

Baldwin, Davis of W.Va., Jonas, 

Bayard, Dawes, Jones of Florida., 

Beck, Eaton, Jones of Nevada., 

Blaine, Edmunda, Kernan, 

Blair Farley, Kirkwood, 

Booth, Garland, Lamar, 

Bruce, Groome, Logan, Burnside, Hampton, McDonald, 

Butler, Hams, :McMillan, 

Call Hereford, .McPherson, 

Cam'eron of Wis., Hill of Georgia, Morgan, Cockrell, Hill of Colorado, Pendleton, 

Coke, Hoar. Platt, 

Conkling, Ingalls, Pugh, 

Ransom, 

Rollins, 

Saulsbury, 

Saunders, 

Slater, 

Teller, 

Thurman, 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Walker, 

Wallace, 

Whyte, 

Windom. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty-eight Senators are present, 

being a quorum. 

Mr. WHYTE. Now the vote is to be taken again. 

Mr. McDONALD. I ask that the following rule be enforced: 

When the yeas and nays shall be called for by one-fifth of the Senators present, each Senator when his name is called shall, unless for special reasons he be ex- cused by the Senate, declare openly, and witbont debate, his assent or dissent to the question. 

I ask that those Senators who were present, whom the call shows 

to have been present when the yeas and nays were taken, be now called. 

Mr. INGALLS. I hope before any action is taken the Senate will 

hear the seventeenth rule read, which provides that all these methods 

for enforcing a senatorial vote shall be taken before the announce- ment of the result. The vote has already been declared. 

Mr. THURMAN. I ask that the vote be taken again. The question now before the Se:aate is, Shall the resolution pass T 

Mr. McMILLAN. I move that the Senate adjourn, and I ask for 

the yeas and nays on that motion. 

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. DAWES, (when his name was called.) I am paired, as I have 

already stated, for the afternoon, on all questions of this character, 

with the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. WILLLU:IS.] 

Mr. RANSOM, (when his name was called.) If I were not paired, 

I should vote" nay." 

Mr. WALLACE, (when his name was called.) I am paired with 

my colleague, [Mr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania.) 

The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announcedyeas 19, nays 31 ; as follows: · 

Anthony, 

:Baldwin, 

:Blaine, 

Blair, 

Booth, 

Bayard, 

Butler, 

Call, 

Cockrell, 

Coke, 

Davis of W. Va., 

Eaton, 

Farley, 

YEAS-19. 

~rnce, Edmunds, 

Burnside, Hill of Colorado, 

Cameron of Wis., Hoar, 

Conkling, Jones of Nevada, Davis of Dlinois, Kellogg, 

NAYS-31. 

Garland, 

Groome, 

Hampton, 

Hams, 

Hereford, 

Hill of Georgia, Johnston, Jonas, 

Jones of Florida, 

Kernan, 

Lamar, 

McDonald, McPherson, 

Morgan, 

Pendleton, 

Pugh, 

McMillan, 

Rollins, 

Saunders, 

Windom. 

Sanlabnry, 

Slater, 

Thurman, 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Walker, 

Whyte. 

ABSENT-26. 

A.ll.ison, Ferry, Morrill, 

Bailey, Grover, Paddock, 

Beck, Hamlin Platt, 

Brown, Ingalls,' Plum.bJ 

Cameron of Pa., Kirkwood, Randolph, Carpenter, Logan, Ransom, 

Dawes, Maxey, Sharon, 

So the Senate refused to adjourn. 

Teller, 

Voorhees, Wallace, 

Williams, 

Withers. 

Mr. MORGAN. I am satisfied, from the condition that we are in 

this evening in the Chamber, tha.t it is probably impossible to dispose 

of the resolution to-day. I think it is due to the democrats, who are paired with republicans on the other side, that they should at least 

be relinquished from their pairs, in order to make a quorum and 

thereby save time in the transaction of the public business. That is 

all we desire to do; but inasmuch as there seems to be an indisposition of that kind, inasmuch as there seems to be no disposition here 

to allow democrats to vote, we having a quorum here and able to 

carry the measure if we were not under the obligation of pairs, I move that the Senate adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and (at five o'clock and fifteen minutes 

p.m.) the Senate adjourned. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

THURSDAY, Feb?•ttary 3, 1881. 

The Honse met at eleven o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, 

Rev. W. P. HARRisoN, D. D. 

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. 

BUSINESS BY tlliA..li.""IMOUS CONSENT. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I ask by unanimous consent to introduce a proposition touching tho order of business in the House, for reference to 

the Committee on Rules. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Resolved, That during the remainder of the present session sixty minutes shall be set apart each day immediately following the "morning hour," or upon its sus- pension, during which Members and Delegates shall have an opportunity to ask for 

unanimous consent to consider and· pass bills. The roll of States shall be called 

and members recognized in the order thereof. Each Member or Delegate shall have 

bnt one opportnnityt() ask for such consent until after all other memllers have been 

called ; nor shall debate on any: one bill exceed five minutes. This order may be 

suspended upon the same conditions as the "morning hour." 

There was no objection, and the resolution was received and re- ferred to the Committee on Rules. 

ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY. 

Mr. BLA.CKBUR.....~, by unanimous consent, presented the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Printing: 

Resolved by the House of Representatives, (the Senate concurring,) That there be 

printed at the ~vernment Printing Office 15,000 copies ea()h of the second and 

third annual reports of the Director of the Bnrean of Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution. with the necessary illustrations; 7,000 copies or which shall be for 

the use of the House of Representatives, 3,000 copies for the nse of the Senat~, and 

5,000 for distribution by the Bureau of Ethnology. 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO NORTH Al\IERICAN ETHXOLOGY. 

Mr. BLACKBURN also, by unanimous consent, snl;>mitted the following concurrent resolution; which was refe:cred to the Committee on Printing: 

Resolved by the House of Representatives, (the Senate concurring,) That there b" 

printed at the ~vernment Printing Office 6,000 copies each of volumes 6, 7, El, 9, 

and 10 of Contributions to North American Ethnology uniformly with the prooed- ing volumes of the series, with thl' necessary illustrations; 3,000 of which sl.J.all be 

for the nse of the Honse of Representatives, 1,000 for the nse of the Ser.ate, and 

2,000 for distribution by the Bureau of Ethnology. 

COXTESTED-ELECTION CASES. 

1\Ir. BRIGHA.M. I ask by unanimous consent to submit the followin[ resolution for reference to the Committee on Rules. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Resolved, That the first section of Rule XI be amended so that the first clause 

and section shall read as follows : "All proposed legislation shall be referred to the c<>mmittees named in the pre· 

ceding rUle, as follows, namely: ''Subjects relating to the election of members; to the Committee on Elections, 

with whom all papers and records in contested cases must be filed within ten days after the announcement of said committee by- the Speaker: Provided, That ninety days shall have elapsed since the service of the answer of the contestee on the con- testant as required by law; otherwise such papers and records sball be filed with 

said committee immediately after the expiration of said ninety days if Congres 

be in session· if not, immediately after the opening of the next succeeding sea ion. 

"The com:ruttee shall proceed at once to the consideration of such contested cases in the order of their submission, holding daily sessions, and shall pre. ent their reports thereon in the order of consideration to the Honse within thirty days from the time of filing said papers and records. "Said reports shalf receive the consideration and final action of the House to 

the exclusion of all other business." 

1\Ir. O'NEILL. Just one word about that. I want to make this 

suggestion--

Mr. BRIGHA.M. I hope the House will give me a single moment 

to state a fact. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the resolution f 

Mr. BLAND. I object unless it be referred. 

• 

' 
• 

. 

;I 

1881 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1175 

Mr. BRIGHAM. But a moment. If the organization of this Honse was effected at all, it was etlected on the 18th of March, 1879; bnt. 

sir, as we all know--

Mr. ~LAND. I object to debate, and will object to the resolution 

unless it be referred without debate. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair hears no objection to the reference of 

the resolution, and it is accordingly referred to the Committee on 

Rules. 

Mr. O'NEILL. I wish to move an amendment to the resolution. 

The SPEAKER. It is not before the House for amendment. 

Mr. BRIGHAM. I wish to move instructions to the committee. 

The SPEAKER. Nor is it before the Honse for instructions. It 

has been referred to the Committee on Rules. 

CE..."''TE:l\~AL CELEBRATION OF BATI'LE ON GROTON HEIGHTS. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Iaskbyunanimous consent that the Committee 

of the Whole House on the state of the Union be discharged from 

the further consideration of a bill (H. R. No. 5097) appropriating 

money toward the expense to be incurred in the centennial celebration of the battle on Groton Heights, and for other purposes, and 

that the same be now put upon its passage. 

The bill was read, as follows : 

Whereas the battle of Groton · Heights was one of the clo:sin~ events of the 

American Revolution, preceding the final surrender of the British torces at Yorktown, in Virginia, only one month and thirteen days, and is logically and historically connected with that great event; and 

Whereas the State of Connecticut has already commenced preparations for the 

centennial celebration of this battle, the massacre attendant upon the capture of 

Fort Griswold, and the burning of New London-all scenes in the bloody drama of 

September 6, 1781 ; and 

Whereas the peoyle of the other States of the Union, proud of the part which 

their fathers took m a{)hieving American Independence, and actuated by the feeling of a. common brotherhood. must desire to unite with the people of Connecticut 

in paying a proper tribute to the patriotism, dauntless courage, and heroic sa.crifice 

of the noble band of men who fought valiantly against superior numbers of British 

troops, and chose death rather than surrender their homes to the brutality and lust 

of the invaders: Therefore, Be it tmactecl, ct;c., That the sum of $5,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropri- ated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended by the centennial committee of the Groton Monument Association, nnder the direction of the Secretary of War, for the purpose of aiding to defray the expenses which will be incurred in celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of the battle 

and massacre at Fort Griswold, on Groton Heights, and the burning of New London, on the 6th day of September, 1781, in such manner as shall befit the historical 

significance of that event, and be indicative of the present power, prosperity, and 

greatness of tho United States as a nation. 

SEc. 2. That the further sum of $5,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of the money in the Treasury not otherwise a.ppN:priated, for the purpose of thoroughly repairing the granite monu- ment erected m 1826, on Groton Heights, and to-be disbursed under the direction 

of the Groton Monument Association. 

SEC. 3. That the centennial committee of the Groton Monument Association are hereby authorized to enter upon and use the battle-field on Groton Heights at such 

times and in such manner as may be necessary for the centennial services. , 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of 

the bill f The Chair hears none. The Chair desires to state that the 

Committee on :Military Affairs reported unanimously in favor of this 

bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and 

being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

:Mr. JOHNSTON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was pa-ssed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH PUBLIC LANDS IN RICHMOND COUXTY1 N.Y. 

Mr. KETCHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to discharge the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union from 

the further consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 6229) to grant the 

right of way for railroad purposes through certain lands of the United 

States, in Richmond County, New York, and ask that the same be put 

upon its passage. This bill has the unanimous indorsement of the 

Committee on the Public Lands. 

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Speaker, I shall object to giving unanimous con- sent for the further consideration of any of these measures at this 

time. A resolution has been introduced and submitted to the Committee on Rules by which business may be reached in a regular way. 

I must object. 

PUBLIC DOCtThlENTS TO SOLDIERS' HOMES. 

?!Ir. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I wish ta make a privileged report from 

the Committee on Printing in reference to Sena.te bill No. 1573. 

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Be it enacted, cl-c., That section 4837 of the Revised Statutes of the United States 

be, and the same is hereby, repealed andre-enacted to read as follows: "The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall cause to be 

sent to the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, at Dayton, in Ohio at 

Augusta, Maine, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Hampton, in Virginia, and the soldi~rs' home at Kni~htstown Springs, near Knightstown, in Indiana, each one copy of each 

of the foll?wmg documents: The .T ournals of each House of Congress at each and 

every sess1ont all laws of Congress, the annual messaaesof the President with ac- companying aocuments, the daily CONGREBSIOXAL REcORD, and all other d~cuments or books which may be J,Jrinted and bound by order of either House of Congress. And ~e Public Printer 18 hereby authorized and directed to furnish to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of R-epresentatives the documents referred to in this section." 

The SPEAKER. The report will be . read. 

The report is as follows : 

The Committee on Printing have considered the accompanying bill (S. No. 1573) and respectfully report the same book to the House without amendment and recom- mend that the same do pass. The change proposed in existing law by the bil 

simply includes the daily edition of the CONGRESSIO!iALRECORD among the documents 

to be furnished the institutions named, and authorizes the Public Printer to supply the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House with facilities to comply with the law. 

The bill was ordered to be read a third time ; and was accordingly 

read the third time, and passed. 

REPORT OF THE Sl\llTHSONIA..."'{ IXSTITUTION FOR 1880. 

:Mr. HAYES. :Mr. Speaker, Idesirealso to report from the Committee on Printing the following Senate concurrent resolution referred 

to that committee. 

The SPEAKER. The resolution will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows : R.esoZvecl by the Senate, (the House of Representatives concurring,) That 15,560 

copies of the report of the Smithsonian Institution for the year 1&!0 be printed; that 2,500 of which shall be for the use of the Senate, 6,060 for the use of the House 

of Representatives, and 7,000 for the use of the Smithsonian Institution. 

Mr. HAYES. The committee recommend the adoption of this reso- ' 

lution. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

:l\"'EW DISCOVERIES IN FISH-CULTURE. 

Mr. HAYES. I desire also to report from the Committee on Printing the joint resolution (H. R. No. 372) authorizing the Public Printer 

to print reports of the United States Fish Commissioner upon new discoveries in regard to fish-culture, with amendments. 

The SPEAKER. The resolution will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

RaoZvecl, cf:c., That the Public Printer be, and he is hereby, instructed to print and stereotype, from time to time, any matter furnished him by the United States 

Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries relative to new observations, discoveries, and 

a:pplications connected with fish-culture and the fisheries, to be capable of being distributed in parts and the whole to form an annual volume or bulletin not ex- ceeding five hundred pages. The extra edition of said work shall consist of 5,000 copies, of which 2,500 sliall be for the use of the House of Representatives, 1,000 for the use of the Senate, and 1,500 for the use of the Commissioner of Fish and 

Fisheries. 

The report is as follows : The Committee on Printing having considered the a{)companying resolution (II. R. No. 372) report the same back to the House with the following amendments: 

"In line 4, after the words ' from time to time,' insert the following : • the regu- lar number of 1,900 copies of.' In line 10 strike oat the word 'extra.' In the same line, after the word 'said,' insert the word ' annual.' " 

With these amendments the committee recommend that the resolution do pass. 

The amendments were agreed to. 

The joint resolution as amended was ordereu to be engrossed and 

read a third time ; it wa-s accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

DISTRIBUTION OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 

Mr. WILSON. 1\Ir. Speaker, I wish to make a privileged report 

from the Committee on Printing in reference to House joint resolution 

No. 'J77 providing for the distribution of the daily CONGRESSIONAL 

RECORD to the representatives of foreign governments in Washington, 

District of Columbia. 

The SPEAKER. The joint resolution will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

R.esoZvecl by the Srnate ancl House of lleprestmtati'Des of the Unitecl States of America 

in Oongress asse-mbled, That it shall be the duty of the Publio Printer to mail one copy of the daily COYGRESSIONAL RE(:ORD, as tb.e same may be :printed, to each of 

the representatives of foreign governments in the city of Washington, District of 

Columbia. 

Mr. WILSON. TheCommitteeonPrintingrecommend the adoption 

of this resolution. 

Mr. REAGAN. I wish to ask if that resolution comes in by unani- mous consent. · 

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not think that this is a matter 

touching the privilege of the Cominittee on Printing under the rules 

to report at any time. 

:Mr. REAGAN. If it carries unanimous coRsent, then I must object. 

Mr. O'NEILL. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a. matter of cour- tesy to the representatives of foreign governments here, and is as high as a question of privilege. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not think that this is a matter 

which comes within the privileges allowed to the Committee on Printing to report. 

Mr. DAVIDSON". 

ilege. 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privThe SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

:Mr. DAVIDSON. I regret that circumstances make it necessary 

for me to ask the indulgence of this Honse, even for a few moments, 

to speak to a question of privilege. 

In the daily RECORD of the 1st instant, there appears a speech purporting to have been delivered by Hon. HoRATIO BISBEE, jr., of Florida, in the House of Representatives, Saturday, January 29, 1881. In 

that speech, and on the eighth page of that issue of the RECORD, Mr. 

BISBEE is reported to have said: "In this congressional district," 

(meaning the first district of Florida,) "in 1878, the names of republi- can voters were corruptly stricken from the registration books and 

their votes were refused or destroyed by fraud to the extent of 3,000; 

and thus two democratic congressmen were counted in and certified 
.'I 

1176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

elected, from the State of Floridar-and one of them stili occupies a seat on this floor." 

Mr. KEIFER. I rise to a point of order. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. KEIFER. I think that it has been disclosed, from what the 

gentleman has already said, that there is no attack up'on him. 

:Mr. DAVIDSON. You have not heard me yet. 

Mr. KEIFER. If the .u:entleman says there is an attack upon him, 

of course the point of order is not well taken. 

:Mr. DAVIDSON. Just hear me through, if you please. 

Mr. KEIFER. If the gentleman insists there is a direct attack 

upon him, I will withdraw the point of order. 

:Mr. DAVIDSON. I beg the gentleman to permit me to proceed 

and be will see that I am making a personal explanation, which I am entitled to make under the rules of t.he House. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has stated that he rose to make a personal explanation. 

Mr. KEIFER. If the gentleman says there is an attack upon him, 

of course I withdraw the point of order. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will proceed in order. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. 'fhe gentleman goes on to say," neither of whom 

had :my more right to it than the captain of a privateer has to the 

plunder which his piratical crew have captured and stolen from their 

innocent and helpless victims." Had these words, Mr. Speaker, been 

uttered in this House, I think that I should have heard them. I did 

not hear them, and therefore conclude that they most have gotten 

into the RECORD under the "leave to print additional remarks" which was granted by the House to the member from the second district of 

Florida. And they were evidently intended for me, for I am the 

only democratic congressman who occupies a seat in this Hall from 

the State of Florida. The allegation is a grave and serious one. Wanton and unprovoked it was, and utterly base and absolutely 

untrue it is. 

I am here, sir, as a member of Congress in accordance with the con- stitution and laws of the State of Florida, and of the United States. 

My credentials are the sealed certificate of the governor of my State 

aud the wishes of a large majority of the voters of my district ex- pressed at the ballot-box. 

Should I admit, for argument, that to be true, which is false, 

namely, that republican votes in my district ''were destroyed by 

fraud to the extent of 3,000," even then, I would have been legally 

elected, for in the contest in that district in 1878 my vote exceeded 

that of ex-Senator Conover, the republican candidate, more than 3,200. 

Mr. BISBEE knows that notwithstanding the whole political mg.-

chinery of the State was in the hands of the republican party in the 

campaign of 1876, and notwithstanding fraud, intimidation, and tis- sue ballots, yet I was elected to Congress. He knows that it was publicly predicted by a leading republican in the very convention that 

nominated my opponent in the contest of 1b78 that I would defea.t 

him. He knows, moreover, sir, that the recent census shows that 

there are nearly sixteen thousand more white people in Florida than 

there are colored, and that the State is emphatically and without 

doubt democratic. He knows that as far back as the year 1870 :Niblack, a democrat, beat Walls, a republican, for Congress in the State 

of Florida. Niblack was wickedly and criminally counted out by a republican State canvassing board, but a republican Congress gave to 

him his seat. And so it was at the same election the democratic can- didate for .lieutenant-governor was counted out by the same can- vassing board, but so justly and clearly was he entitled to the office 

that the supreme court of the State, composed of a majority of republicans, gave it to him. 

It comes with ill grace from Mr. BISBEE to speak of political frauds 

committed by democrats in Florida. I assert it here as a fact that but 

for the iniquitous wrong-doings of republicans the State of Florida 

would have been under the control of democrats long before 1876. 

The gentleman from the second district is thoroughly acquainted 

with the means which republicans-Florida republicans-used to 

thwart the wishes of the people of that State. He well remember~, 

no doubt, when he was the United States district attorney for the 

northern district of Florida how even a court of justice was made an engine of persecution, and not only men but feeble women were arrested upon false charges. 

Mr. CONGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. I trust the gentleman will not interfere with me. ' 

Mr. CONGER. I wish the gentleman to stop until we get a ruling 

from the Chair. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will stop the gentleman if he is going 

beyond what the Chair believes to be his right. 

Mr. CONGER. I ask the Chair to stop the gentleman now, and I was about to assist him in stopping him. I submit the gentleman 

from Florida. is going far beyond what the privilege of this House 

allows under the title of personal explanation. The SPEAKER. The Chair was advised that the gentleman from 

Florida desired to obtain the :floor or intended to claim the :floor for 

the privilege of making a personal explanation, on the ground that 

there had been inserted in the RECORD a personal assault upon himself which was not uttered in the Hoose, and therefore the Chair 

recognizes him in consequence of that statement. The Chair thinks 

that on the statement of facts alleged by the gentleman from Florida, 

if a personal assault had been made upon him in the manner stated, 

it is his right to be heard upon the floor in response to any personal 

assault. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. It is but fair and right that I should have that 

privile"e under the circumstances. 

Mr. CONGER. I have submitted one point of order on which I 

would like to have the ruling of the Chair, and I hope the gentleman 

from Florida will wait the judgment of the House before he attempts 

to proceed. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. I shall submit, sir, of course, to the decision of 

the Chair. ' 

Mr. CONGER. The point I make is that in his self-defense, in his 

personal explanation, he is going outside of it to attack this House, to 

attack the republican party of this Union, to attack the republicans 

of Florida, and to attack worse than he was atta~ked by the gentle- man of whom he complains. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Not worse; not worse. Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir; in the very last sentence the gentleman 

uttered. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida will confine ])is reply 

to matters of a perRonal character. 

Mr. COX GER. I think it is the duty of the Chair whenever a mem- ber passes beyond a reasonable personal explanation, without a point 

of order being raised, to call him to order. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. I will proceed, sir. 

And he has not forgotten, I am sure-- The SPEAKER. The Chair will enforce the rule. The attention 

of the Chair was not directed particularly to the language of the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. CONGER. If the Chair had heard it he would have stopped 

him and not left it to me to make the point of order. 

The SPEAKER. What is the language the gentleman from. Michigan complains off 

Mr. CONGER. I complain of his attack upon the republican party 

of the United States in this Honse--

Mr. DAVIDSON. I am not attacking the republican party. 

Mr. CONGER. Upon the republican party in this House, in thiB 

country, and especially in the State of Florida. I complain of his 

attack on his fellow-member here, a worse attack than he charges 

upon him. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair is unable to run in between the gentlemen and decide which is the worst attack, both being bad. 

[Laughter.) 

Mr. DAVIDSON. I wish the gentleman from Michigan would hear me through, and he can then see whether I am transgressing the 

rules. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida will confine himself 

strictly to what is personal. The Chair will undertake to prevent any 

transgression of the rules of order. 

Mr. DAVIDSON . .And I am sure the Chair will not prevent me replying to the attack w hioh has been made upon me. Mr. HOUK. I rise to a question of order. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. HOUK. I make the point of order that to attack a member of 

this House for what he did as a judicial officer or in some other ca- pacity eight or ten years ago does not come within the purview of a personal explanation. It is a violation of the rnles and privileges of 

this House to raise any such personal wrangle under the plea of a personal explanation. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida said there had been 

inserted in the RECORD an a-ssault upon him not uttered in the House; 

and the Chair felt it to be his duty to recognize the gentleman that 

he might have an opportunity to reply. But the gentleman from 

Florida must confine himself to what is legitimately a personal ex- planation. 

l\ir. DAVIDSON. I shall endeavor to do so. I am replying to a charge which was made against me. And be has not forgotten, I am sure, how a judge of the circuit court 

of the State was taken I may almost say from the bench, indicted 

and prosecuted for having pronounced an honest and correct opinion 

in reference to a political matter, adversely to the interest of therepublican party in Florida. 

And it has not escaped the recollection of the member from the sec- ond district of Florida, I am satisfied, that when he was United States 

district attorney democratic State senators-elect were arrested by a United States marshal and taken from the capital of the State two 

hundred miles away to Jacksonville, out of the judicial division in .. which they resided, just as the Legislature was about to convene, so that a democratic majorityin.the senate might be destroyed and the 

republicans be oo.abled to or"anize that body. 

Mr. HOUK. I think the 8hair will see that the gentleman from 

Florida is not confining himself to the question at issue. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida will confine himself 

to what is legitimately a. personal explanation. 

1\Ir. DAVIDSON. I am endeavoring to do it. My colleague is not 

complaining, and I think it comes with a bad grace from the gentle- man from Tennessee to interfere. 

Mr. HOUK. I have not conferred with the gentleman's colleague, 

bot I know what are the rules of the House. 

Mr. CALKINS. That the gentleman's colleague is not complain-. 
. 

1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1177 

ing is not the question. The question is, if the gentleman's explanation goes into that wide range, where will it end f 

The SPEAKER. The Chair has more than once stated to the gentleman from Florida that he must contine himself to the personal 

explanation. 

:Mr. DAVIDSON. I will do so. But time would fail me to tell of 

all the infamous wrongs which in days gone by were committed by 

Florida republicans, and in which my coTieague was no doubt a particeps c-rimini&. 

The SPEAKER. '.l;'he gentleman must not speak to the injuries perpetrated by Florida republicans, but to the injuries he has himself 

experienced. [Laughter.] 

Air. DAVIDSON. Now, sir, as evidence of his bitter, indecent 

partisanship I beg you and this House to note the fact which appears 

in his speech that he was not willing to content himself with slandering me, but went from this Hall to the Senate Chamber to misrepresent and traduce a distinguished member of that body. Of the 

thirty-nine counties in the State of Florida the republicans have ma- jorities in only seven or eight. Is it surprising, then, that a democratic Senator should be elected from that State t And now. Mr. 

Speaker, in conclusion I must say that the attack made on me and 

the democrats of my State by :Mr. BISBEE was altogether unwar- ranted. Why did he make it 7 It could not have been made for the 

purpose of aiding Mr. Martin, for the remarks were not relevant or pertinent to his case. Was it made to celebrate his advent into this 

House, to which he has so recently been admitted by democratic 

votes Or was it made with the hope that gentlemen here might be 

induced to prejudge contested-election cases which may arise in the 

next Honse 'I Whatever his motive was, Mr. Speaker, I have but to 

say that the tmkind, bitter, and malignant spirit evinced by the 

member from the second district of Florida must have emanated from a heart which is never moved or influenced by the kinder, nobler, and more generous impulses and feelings of our nature. 

Mr. 13ISBEE. I had no notice whatever that my colleague from 

Florida would rise thls morning to make a personal explanation, much 

less to make a personal attack on me for acts performed, or alleged 

t o have been performed, by myself in the capacity of United States 

district attorney eight and ten years ago. I did not have the pleas- ore of listening to his introductory remarks, bot I understand the 

gravamen of them was that something has been inserted in the REc- ORD--

Mr. DAVIDSON. Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him 

for a moment Y 

Mr. BISBEE. Yes, sir. 

:Mr. DAVIDSON. The gentleman says he did not hear a part of 

my remarks. I sent for him to the rooms of the Committee on Elections and knew he was in the Hoose when I rose. Mr. BISBEE. The gentleman sent for me to the committee-room, as he l:rtates, but he did not inform me for what purpose he wished 

to see me. I supposed it wa.s with reference to a consultation re- garding the bill now pending before the House. 

I wish to state that I had leave to print that portion of my remarks 

which were not delivered in the Hoose for the want of time. I disclaim any intention either of >iolating the roles of this Honse or of 

reflecting personally upon the gentleman from Florida. I have not 

done either. No proper construction of any portion of my remarks 

will warrant that conclusion. I have stated facts which have oc- curred; I have stated acts which have been performed, crimes that 

have been committed upon the purity of the ballot-box by the party 

and the members of the party to which the gentleman has the honor 

to belong. I think there is some hope of the gentleman from Florida, 

and of the members of the party to which he belongs, when I see him 

showing here some sensitiveness upon that point. "While the lamp 

holds out to born, the vilest sinner may return." 

A. MEMBER. Yon live yet. 

Air. BISBEE. At the proper time and in the proper place I shall 

be ready, as I am ready now if the Hoose desires to listen to the con- troversy, to defend the republican party and its whole record in the 

State of Florida. 

I did while United States district attorney prosecute to conviction 

two citizens of the county of Gadsden, where the gentleman resides, one of them an ex-governor of the State, of a conspiracy to prevent 

republican electors from casting their ballots on election day. That 

ex-governor was justly convicted, was sentenced, and he served his 

term in prison and paid the fine. Because weak men signed a petition for his pardon, and because I Md pluck enough at that time to 

prevent his pardon being granted, I have been pursued by the democracy of that State with relentless scorn and contempt. I have so far 

ootli>ed it. 

I will not burden the patience of the House at this time by going 

into any extended argument to vindicate my administration whilo I was district attorney in that State. I wish a better state of things 

existed in Florida now than does exist. I think it is proper in reply 

to the general remarks of the gentleman from Florida that I should 

state a fact which shows the condition of the democracy in the county 

in which the gentleman lives. 

A citizen of that county, formerly from Kentucky, a republican, was recently sobpmnaed before the United States court to testify in 

regard to election frauds in the late election. He obeyed that sobpama, and because he obeyed it his house has been visited by armed 

men, democrats, and his wife and five little children have been threatened that he, the husband and father, would be killed the moment 

he returned to his home because-he obeyed that snbpmna. Thart is. 

the condition of the democratic party in the very county in which 

the gentleman himself resides. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Let me say to the gentleman that I have never- before heard anything of that. 

ORDER OF BUSL~SS. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. I move that the morning hour of today be dispensed with. 

The motion was agreed to, two-thirds voting in favor thereof. 

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. ATKINS. I am instructed by the Committee on Appropriations to report back the bill (H. R. No. 6969) making appropriations. for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, and for 

other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to recom- mend that certain amendments be concurred in and certain otheramendments be non-concurred in. 

The SPEAKER. The report of the committee will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

The Committee on Appropriations, to whom was referred the bill · (H. R. No~ 

6969) making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year ending Jnne30, 1882, and for other pnrposes, together with the Senate amendments thereto, 

beg lea.ve to r eport as follows : C..::oncurrence is recommended in the amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 2,. and6. 

Non-concurrence is recommended in amendments numbered 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 ~ 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will direct the amendments in which 

the Committee on Appropriatians recommend concurrence to be first 

read. 

Mr. ATKINS. I believe I can say to the House that there is virtually an entire concurrence of the Committee on Appropriations in 

the report just read. If members desire any explanation in regard 

to the amendments, I can make it. But as the report is virtually 

concurred in by the whole committee, I suppose such explanation is. 

not necessary. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair would suggest that the vote be first 

taken on those amendments in which concurrence is recommended;. 

and then on those in which non-concurrence is recommended. 

Mr. ATKINS. That will be satisfactory. 

The first amendment in which concurrence was recommended was,. on page 2, line 18 of the bill, after the words ''commission and interest," to insert the words "transportation of fonds." 

The amendment was concurred in. 

The next amendment was, on page ·5, line 4, to increase the appropriation for drawing, engraving, and printing charts, &c., from 40,000• to $45,000. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

The last amendment in which the committee recommend con- currence was, on page 10, in line 25, to insert before the words "converting the ships Brooklyn and Lancaster into flagships" the worda-

"repairing and.'' · The amendment was concurred in. 

The SPEAKER. The amendments in which non-concurrence is 

recommended will now be reported. 

The first amendment in which non-concurrence was recommended 

was, on page 7, line 15, to increase the appropriation for equipment of· vessels, &c.1 from $800,000 to $850,000. 

The amendment of the Senate was non-concurred in. 

The next amendment in which non-concurrence was recommended 

was, in the paragraph making appropriations for contingent expenses. of the Bureau of Equipment and Recruiting, to increa-se the appropriation from $55,000 to $60,000. 

The amendment was non-concurred in. 

The next amendment in which non-concurrence was recommendedwas, on page 10, line 25, for the Bureau of Construction and Repair,. to increase the appropriation from 1,500,000 to 1,600,000. 

The amendment was non-concurred in. 

The next amendment in which the committee recommended non-· concurrence was, to strike out in line 11, page 11, in the first paragraph relating to Bureau of Steam Engineering, the word "eight,. and insert "nine; 11 so as to make the appropriation $900,000. 

The amendment was non-concurred in. 

Mr. CONGER. I do not know whether the Hoose desires or not 

to act on these amendments without knowinu what the propositions. are. Non-concurrence would seem to be an indication that the House· is unwilling to make these amendments; yet I venture to say there are not three men in the Honse who understand the effect of the 

amendments. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. ATKINS] who. 

makes the report stated that the committee were unanimous in their 

recommendations. 

Mr. ATKINS. I have stated two or three times that if the Honse· desired me to make an explanation I would do so. As no such request· has been made I did not volunteer any further explanation. As I 

have already stated, although there were some differences in the com- mittee, we have agreed to the report now made. 

Mr. CONGER. Unanimously 7 

Mr. ATKINS. Yes, sir; unanimously. I hope, however, the gentleman will understand that remark. I stated that there were some> 

I. 
f178 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

differences of opinion as to the ultimate and :final determmation of 

these amounts, but the report is a unanimous report. The committee 

1Ulanimously agreed to these concurrences and non-concurrences. Mr. CONGER. I do not make any further point. The next amendment in which the committee recommended non- concurrence wa.a, on page 11, at the end of line 11, to add to the first 

paragraph relating to Bureau of Steam. Engineering the following : 

P-rO'IJ'iiWL, That $75,000 of this amount shall be immediately available for the purpose of repairing and converting the ships Brooklyn and Lancaster into flag-ships. 

The amendment was non-concurred in. 

The next amendment in which the committee recommended non- concurrence was, to strike out after the word "California,'' in line 6, 

page 16, the words "and for two private horses for commanding offi- cer at the same place, seven hundred and fifty;" and insert H :five hundred;" so as to make the paragraph read as follows: 

For forage for three public horses, one for messenger to commandant and staff, 

Washington, District of Colambia, and two for general use at marine barracks, 

:Mare Island, California, $500. 

The amendment was non-concurred in. 

The next amendment in which the committee recommended non- concurrence was, to add the following as a new section : 

SEC. 2. That sections 1418, 1419, and 1420 of the Revised Statutes, relatin~ to -enlistment of minors in the naval service, be, and hereby are, amended by striking out the word "sixteen" and inserting in its stead the word "fourteen." 

The amendment was non-concurred in. 

Mr. ATKINS moved to reconsider the several votes concurring and 

non-concurring in the amendments respectively; and also moved that 

.the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

SEMI-MONTHLY Th'DEX OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 

Mr. SINGLETON, of :Mississippi. I am directed by the Committee on Printing to report back, without amendment, the joint resolution .(S. R. No. 146) to provide for printing and distributing the index of 

the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD semi-monthly. 

The joint resolution was read, as follows: 

Be it resolved, &c., That the .r oint Committee on Printing be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to make the necessary provisions and arrangements for 

"hereafter issuing the index of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD semi-monthly during the sessions of Congress, beginning with the next ensuing session. 

That the Public Printer be, and he is hereby, directed to print and distribute the same number of copies of said semi-monthly index as he prints and distributes of 

the daily issue of the RECORD, and to the same persons and in the same manner. That the Public Printer shall employ such person to prepare said index as shall 

be designated by the .Toint Committee on Printing, who shall also fix and regulate the compensation to be paid by the Public Printer for the said work and direCt the 

form and manner of its publication: Provided, lwwever, That the compensation .allowed for preparing said semi-monthly indexes, including their compilation into a session index, shall not exceed the average total amount now allowed by the .r oint 

Committee on Printing for compiling the session index. 

The report was read, as follows : The Committee on Printing, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. No. 

146) to provide for printing and distributing the index of the CONGRESSIONAL 

.l.tECORD semi-monthly, report that they believe that the purposes for which the 

RECORD was desi~ed can only be fulfilled by making its contents available for 

daily use by the LSsue of current indexes. They find upon examination that by the adoption of a proper system of indexing semi-monthly indexes can be furnished -.at the same cost as the Eresent session inuex. As a most needed reform and im-

~;g;;:~~~ c~~U:~~e ~ a:~s=~~s~!~~~ any increase of expenditure, they 

Mr. SINGLETON, of Mississippi. This resolution so clearly ex- presses its objects that explanation is scarcely necessary. The REc- ORD is published daily during the session in order that it may be 

available in conducting the business of Congress, afford members information necessary for their guidance, and furnish the public with .an official statement of the daily proceedings. It is obvious that so far as those purposes are concerned the large amount of money ex- pended in the daily publication of the RECORD is almost absolutely 

rwasted. After Congress has been in session a few weeks the accumu- lated numbers of the RECORD are nearly valueless, as they present 

such a bulk of matter, and the task is so hopeless, that no member 

attempts to use them to learn the condition of any business pending. 

It is evident that the daily issue of the RECORD can only be made 

valuable by publishing indexes periodically during the session. 

The present session indexes have grown to such enormous propor- tions that the committee find that by introducing proper system of 

indexing, semi-monthly and session indexes can be prepared at the :same cost as now paid for the session index alone. 

Since the first session Forty-third Congress the Joint Committee on Printing have directed the Public Printer to contract for preparing_ the 

index and pay for it by the thousand ems. This system has produced 

.bad results. It is obvious that this system simply offers a premium 

to making as large an index as possible, and that method, system, . phraseology of entries, form of arrangement, and everything neces- sary to be considered to making a good index, would naturally be 

sacrificed to producing as many thousand ems of printed matter as possible. This is the key to all the defects of the index of the RECORD ·that are now so generally complained of. . To illustrate this point: RECORD of :first session Forty-third Con- .gress contained 5,954 pages, and the index was contained in 366 pages. 

REcoRD of last .session (second session Forty-sixth Congress) con- tained 4,976 pages, and the ~ndex amounted to 1,083 pages. ~h~re has been no change m the form or system of the index: during 

.this t1me to account for or justify this increase in size, but simply an 

increased experience and ingenuity in making the entries as prolix as possible. 

T~e committee propose to change this system and either pay ac- cording to the nnm ber of pages of the RECORD, or to fix a definite price 

which the Public Printer shall be allowed to pay, not exceeding the 

present total. 

The resolution provides that the Public Printer shall not allow 

greater compensation than is now allowed, and the committee are assured that under a proper system of indexing this compensation 

will be ample. 

In regard to the printing it is evident from what we have stated. 

that at 1east six hundred superfluous pages have been added to the 

index of a single Congress, which have not only made the indexes 

superlatively bad, but also entailed a very serious waste of money. 

From one of the reports of the Public Printer (Senate :Miscellaneous 

Document 23, third session Forty-fifth Congress, pa~e 17) we learn 

that the cost of printing and publishing 7,279 pages of tne REcoRD was as follows: Composing-room, $60,787.32 ..z press-room, $53,9'24.18; folding-room, ~;!5,057 .93; stereotype-room, ;n;2,969.24; bindery, $25,278.53; 

miscellaneous items, $3,351.13. Omitting the cost of binding and 

miscellaneous items as expenses that would not be materially affecte(l 

by the number of pages, we :find that the direct cost of the superflu- ous pages has been 18.23 a page. Making a full allowance for ex- penses that would not be reduced by reducing the number of pa17es, 

it would appear to be a moderate estimate to say that the cost of 

printing and publishing the superfluous pages of the index is not less 

than $5,000 a year. In other words, the amount of money saved in 

printing the session index will pay for printing the semi-monthly 

mdexes. 

The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading, was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. SINGLETON, of Mississippi, moved to reconsider the vote by 

which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the mo- tion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

DELAY IN PRIN~G PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. 

Mr. SINGLETON, of Mississippi, from the Committee on Printing, reported back the following resolution : · 

Resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States in Oongrus asse-mbled, That the Public Printer inform this House of the cause of delay in printing certain 

re:ports necessary for the information of Congress; and why the same were not prmted and furnished at the commencement of the present session of Congress, namely, report on foreign relations, of Chief Signal Officer, Navy and Interior De- partments, Chief of Ordnance, and report on fuiances. 

The SPEAKER. This resolution is accompanied by a report from the committee, which will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

The Committee on Printing, to whom was referred the following resolution of 

inquiry in regard to the delay in publication of certain reports therein set forth, respectfully report the same back to the House with the accompanying letter from 

~~b~;~~:Jo~ ft:~~~l~ to the subject, and ask to be discharged from the 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC PR!m'ER, 

Washington, January 26, 1881. 

Sm: I have the honor of acknowledging the rooeipt of your letter inclosing a copy of the following resolution, referred by the House on the 24th instant to the 

Committee on Printing: "Resolved, That the Public Printer inform this House of the cause of delay in 

printing certain reports necessary for the information of Congress; and why the same were not printed and furnished at the commencement of the_ present session 

of Congress, namely, report on foreign relations, of Chief Signal Officer, Navy and 

Interior Departments, Chief of Ordnance, and report on finances." 

The following are the reasons why the reports named in the resolution "were not printed and furnished at the commencement of the present session of Con- gress:" 

at f~:~~ of the copy for the report on foreign relations has not been received 

be~:;~~~iv~: a~~~~~m~e:he copy for the report of the Chief Signal Officer has 

Third. All of the copy of the report of the Secretary of the Navy was not furnished until the lOth of last month. It will contain a greater number of pages 

than any report heretofore printed. It is nearly all in type, and will be printed as speedily as possible. 

Fourth. The letter-press of the report of the Chief of Ordnance was completed on the lOth of last month. It will contain manv lithographic and other illustra- tions, (executed by contractors,) which were not delivered until the 16th instant. It 

will be completed within a few days. Fifth. The usual number of the report on finances was delivered to the docu- ment-room on the 25th instant. 

Sixth. The report of the Secretary of the Interior will make three large vol- umes. The first volume contains the reports of the Land and Indian Bureaus. The 

report from the Commissioner of the General Land Office will contain an unusual 

number of pages. It will be finished in about two weeks. . 

th;r~ld~ehS:;~~i·b~:~f=:~:.noous reports, has been printed, but the copy for 

The third volume is on education, but no portion of the copy has been furnished 

this office . Very respectfully, yours, &c., 

Ron. 0. R. SIXGLETOX, Ohairman of the Committee on Printing. 

JNO. D. DEFREES, 

Public P·rinter. 

The SPEAKER. The Committee on Printing ask to be discharged from the further consideration of this resolution and that it be laid on the table. If there be no objection, that order will be made. 

There was no objection. 

HAYDEN'S ATLAS OF COLORADO . 

Mr. SINGLETON, of Mississippi. The Committee on Printing, to 
1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1179 

whom was referred with Senate amendments a resolution of the House 

directing the Public Printer to furnish 3,000 copies of th~ Atlas of 

Colorado, by F. V. Hayden; have directed me to report back as a substitute for that resolution a joint resolution. 

Thejointresolution reported by the committee was read, as follows: 

Joint resolution (R. R. No. 388) to print 3,000 copies of the Atlas of Colorado, by F. V. Hayden. 

Resolt•ed by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Public Printer be, and he is hereby, directed to furnish 3,000 copies of the Atlas of Colorado, by F. V. Hayden, provided the same can be supplied in sheets in every way equal in style and quality to the edition 

i>Ublished by order of the Department of the Interior, for a sum not exceeding 

$3.50 per copy ; and provided also, that the necessary corrections be made in the same up to date; 800 copies of which shall be for the use of the Senate, 1,515 for 

the nse of the House of Representatives, and 685 for the use of the Department of 

the Interior; and the sum of $10,500 is hereby appropriated for the purposes of 

this resolution. 

The joint resolution was read a first and second time, ordered to be 

engrossed for n. third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

Mr. SINGLETON, of Mississippi, moved to reconsider the vote by 

which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the mo- tion to reconsider be laid on the tn.ble. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

DISCIPLINE AND ~STRUCTION AT WEST PO~T ACADEMY. 

Mr. SINGLETON, of 1\fississippi. The Committee on Printing has 

also directed me to report back, with a recommendation that it be 

concurred in, a resolution of the Senate to print the report of the 

joint commission appointed under the act of June 21, 1860, to exam- ine into the organization, discipline, and instruction at the West 

Point Academy. The resolution was read, as follows : Resolved by the Senate, (the House of Representatives concur-ring,) Tb.at there be 

printed 1,000 copies of the report of the joint commission appointed under the 

eighth section of the act of Congress of June 21, 1!?60, to examine into the organization, system of discipline, and course of instruction of the United States Mil· 

itary Academy at West Point, submitted December 13, 1660. 

The SPEAKER. The report of the Committee on Printing accom- panying this resolution will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows : The Committee on Printing having considered the a{lcompanying resolution, re- spectfully report the same ba{lk without amendment, and recommend that the same do pass. The cost will be about 890. 

The resolution was adopted. 

:Mr. SINGLETON, of Mississippi, moved to reconsider the vote by 

which the resolution was a-dopted; and also moved that the motion 

to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

Th""DIAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 

:Mr. WELLS. Mr. Speaker, I am directed by the Committee on Appropriations to report back the amendments of the Senate to the 

bill (H. R. No. 6730) making appropriations for the current and con- tingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty 

stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the year ending June 30, 

1882, and for other purposes ; and I ask the report be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The Committee on Appropriations, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 

6730) making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian 

Department, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, for 

the year ending June 30, 1882 and for other purposes, together with the amend- ments of the Senate thereto, having C{)nsidered the same, beg leave to report as follows: 

They recommend concurrence in the amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 28, 29, and 32. Thev recommend nou.concurrence in the amendments numbered 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 

1!1, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and 31. 

The SPEAKER. The question will be taken first upon the amendments of the Sell'ate in which concurrence is recommended. 

First amendment: 

Page 1, line 6, strike out "sixty-seven" and insert "sixty·six;" so it will read: 

"For pay of six~·six agents of Indian affairs at the following-named agencies, 

11.t the rates respectively indicated, namely." 

1\Ir. CONGER. What agency is left out T 

Mr. WELLS. Malheur agency. We have consolidated some of the 

agencies. The committee recommend concurrence in that amendment. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Second amendment: :Strike out the following: 

"At tbe Malheur agency, at $1,000." 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Third amendmeht: 

Strike out •· ninety-seven " and insert "ninety-six ;" so it will read: 

"At the Moquis Pneblo agency, at $1,300; in all, $96,800." 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments: 

Strike {)Ut 11 seven" and insert "six;" after 11 Umatilla" insert "and;" strike 

o()Ut ••and ~eur," and strike out 11 two thousand one" and insert "one thousand ~ight; " so it will read: 

"Six for the tribes in Oregon, namely, two for the Klamath, and one each for Grand 

Ronde, Siletz, Umatilla, and Warm Springs agencies, at $300 per annum each 

11,800," • I 

The amendments were concurred in. 

Eighth and ninth amendments: 

Strikeout "six" and insert" seven," and strikeout "one thousand eiaht" and 

insert "two thousand one;" so it will read: "' · " Seven for the tribes in Washington Territory, to be· assigned to such agencies • .as the Secretary of the Interior may direct,. at $300 per annum each, $2,100." 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, is it necessary to read all of these amendments¥ 

The SPEAKER. These are amendments of the Senate, which have 

to be acted upon in the House. The committee recommend concur- rence in these two amendments. 

The amendments were concurred in. 

Tenth amendment : 

After the word "Interior " insert " and for special interpreters, when neces- sary: " so it will read : " For additional payment of the said interpreters, to be distributed in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, and for special interpreters, when necessary, $4,000; in all, $26,500." 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Eleventh amendment: 

Strike out "fifteen" and insert "fifty;" so it will read: 

"For subsistence and civilization of the Arapahoes, Cheyennes, Apaches, Kio- was, Comanches, and Wichitas who have been collected upon the reservations set apart for their use and occupation, $350,000." 

The SPEAKER. The committee recommend concurrence in this 

amendment. 

1\Ir. WELLS. This is an increase of $35,000 over the appropriation as recommended by the Honse. The Committee on Appropriations 

recommended $315,000, and so the bill went to the Senate, but the 

Senate have increased the appropriation to $350,000. I will state to 

the Honse that we have assurances from the Indian Department it 

will be necessary to have this increased appropriation. Last year we appropriated $305,000, and the DepartmeBt has asked for a deficiency 

of $5,000. We are informed that upward of ten thousa.nd Indians are upon these reservations, and are short of rations. They are warlike 

tribes, and we must feed them, or they will go upon the war-path, and 

then we shall have to fight them. This increased appropriation is 

necessary, and is recommended by the Department. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence in this appropriation. 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Twelfth amendment: 

Strike out "fifteen" and insert "twenty; " so it will read: 11 For support and civilization of Joseph's band of Nez Perces Indians in the 

Indian Territory, $20,000." 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Thirteenth amendment: 

Strike out "fifteen" and insert "twenty;" so it will read: 

"For support and civilization of Shoshone Indians in Wyoming, $20,000." 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Fourteenth and fifteenth amendments: 

After 11 Yalrnmas" insert" and all Indians removed from Malheur reservation," 

and strike out "twenty" and insert "thirty.two;" so it will read: 

"For subsistence and civilization of the Yakamas and of Indians removed from 

1\Ialheur reservation, including pay of employes, $32,000." 

The amendments were concurred in. 

Twenty-eighth amendment: 

Insert the following : · ''And out of this sum the Secretary of the Interior may make and pay such allow· ance, not exceeding the rate of $l,Oi0 a year, as he shall think just, to Captain R. 

H. Pratt, in charge of the school at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, from and after the 

passage of this act." 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Twenty-ninth amendment: 

Insert the following: 

"For this amount, to assist the Creek Nation of Indians in rebuilding the 'TaJla.. 

hassee mission school building,' destroyed by fire December 19, 1880, $5,000. " 

The amendment was concurred in. 

Thirty-second amendment: 

Strike out the following: . 11 SEC. 6. All advertisements for contracts involving the expenditure of money herein appropriated shall be made atleast sixty days before any such contract shall 

be awarded." 

The amendment was concurred in. 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will now read the amendments in 

which non-concurrence is recommended. 

The Clerk read the amendments. 

Sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twentyfirst, twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh amendments: 

Strike out in ea-ch of ihe following paragraphs, after the words "Indian service," 

the words "including traveling expenses of agents and transportation of supplies ; " so the paragraphs will then read as follows : 

''GENERAL IXCIDENT.AL EXPENSES OF THE INDIAN SERVICE. 

"Incidental expenses of hdia.n service in Arizona: For general incidental ex- penses of the Indian service, support and civilization of Indians at the Colorado 

River, Pima and Maricopa, Bild .Moq~s Pueblo agencies, $20,000, and pay of em- ployes at same agencies, 16,000; in au, $36,000. 

"Incidental e:wenses of Indian service in California: For general incidental ex- penses of the Indian service, support and civilization of lndiltns at the Round Valley, Hoopa Valley, Tule Rive: .. and Mission agencies, $23,000, and pay of employes at same agencies, $9,000; in au. $32,000. 

"Incidental expenses of Indian service in Colorado: For general incidental ex- penses of the Indian service and pay of employes, $4,000. 

"Incidental expenses of Indian service in Dakota: For general incidental ex:- 'penses of the Indian service and pay of employes at eight agencies for the Sioux, 

10,000. 

"Incidental e.xpenses of-Indian service in Idaho : For general incidental expenses of the Indian service, 1,000, and pay of employes at Lemhi agency and additional 

employes at Fort Hall, Idaho, $3,000; in all, $4,000. 

"Incidental expenses of Indian service in Montana: For ~eneral incidental ex- penses of the Indian service and pay and expenses of detectives, $5,000. 

"Incidental e:wenses of Ind.iari service in Nevada: For general incidental ex:· penses of the lndtan service, support and civilization of Indians located on the 
1180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

Pi-Ute, Walker River, Western Shoshone, anil Pyramid Lake reservations, e7,000, and pay of employes, same agencies, $6,000 ; in all, 13,000. 11 Incidental expenses of Indian service in New Me:rico: For general incidental 

expenses of the Indian service, support and civilization of Indians at Abiquiu, Pueblo, and Mescalero agencies, $10,000, and pay of employes at same agencies, 8,000 ; in all, 18,000. · 11 Incidental expenses of Indian service in Oregon: For general incidental ex- penses of the In ?Jan service, support and civilization of Indians, at !Jrand Ron~e 

and Siletz agencies, 16,000, and pay of employes at the same agen01es, ,000; m all, S24,000. ''Incidental expenses of Indian service in Utah: For general incidental expenses of tbe Indian service, support and civilization of Indians, at Uintah Valley agency, ~.ooo, and pay of employes at said agency, $3,000; in all, $11,000. "IncidenW expenses of Indian service in Washington: For general incidental 

expenses of the Indian service at seven agencies, and pay of employes, and the 

support and civilization of Indians at Colville and Nisqually agencies, 20,000. ' Incidental expenses of Indian service in Wyoming: For general incidental 

expenses of the Indian sen-ice and pay of employes, 2,000." 

the expenditures of the contingent fund of the said Department ;: 

which was referred to the Committee on Expenditures in the Navy 

Department, and ordered to be printed. 

1\'EW ROCHELLE HARBOR. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House- a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting report of the survey 

of New Rochelle Harbor; which wag referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

SA..."'i JOAQUIN RIVER. 

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the Houa& a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting the report of the 

survey of the San Joaquin River; whic.h wat -referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printea.. 

The SPEAKER. The Committee on Appropriations recommend IXVALIDATED LA...~D-PATE~""TS. 

non-concurrence in all of these amendments. The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the HouseThe amendments were non-concurred in. a letter from the Secretary of the Interior: transmitting papers re- Thirtieth amendment: lating to land-patents set aside by the courts, with the draught of the 

Strike ont the following: bill for the relief of patentees; which was referred to the Commit-

"That all laws and .Parts of laws creating or authorizing the commission of ten tee on t.he Public Lands. • citizens provided for m the act of AprillO, 1E69, be, and the same are hereby, re.:. pealed." ~ APPORTIO~~~ OF REPRESE~TTA.TIOX. 

Mr. WELLS. The committee recommend non-concurrence in that Mr. COX. I now ask, Mr. Speaker, to present an amendment t()< 

amendment. thg original bill in reference to apportionment, which I ask to have 

Mr. CONGER. Is tha.t subject to the point of order 7 printed. I offer it as a pending amendment . . 1\fr. WELLS. The gentleman cannot raise the point of order upon The SPEAKER. Without objection, the amendment will be printed 

this amendment, as it is au amendment which comes from the Senate. in the RECORD . .Mr. CONGER. Is it a Senate amendment The proposed amendment is as follows: 

The SPEAKER. The amendment of the Senate is to strike out the Be it enacted, cl:c., That after the 3d of March, 1883, the House of Representa-- words which have been read, which are a part of the text of the bill. tives shall be composed of three hundred and s~ven members, to be appo~on~ 

Mr WELLS The House adopted this portion of the bill and sent among the several States as f~llows: ..A.labama, eight; .A.rkans~, five; Califo~ · · ' ill h b d fr h S t five; Colorado, one; Connecticut, four; Delaware, one; Flonda., two; Georgm, It to the Senate, and the b now as een retnrne om t e ena e nine. Illinois nineteen. Indiana twelve· Iowa. t~n. Kansas six. Kentucky, ten ., with an amendment to strike out the words which have just been Louisiana, s~; .Maine,' four; :Mkyland,' six; :Massachusett;, el~ven; Michlgan; 

read by the Clerk. The Committee on Appropriations recommend ten; Minnesota, five; Miss~ssippi, se"'"en; Missouri, thirteen; Nebras~. three;. non-concurrence in that amendment of the Senate to strike out the Nevada, ono i New; Hamp~hire, two; New Jersey, seven; New ~ork, thirty-two;. 

h North Carolina, nme; Ohio, twenty; Oregon, one; Pennsylvama, twenty-seven;. paragrap · . Rhode Island, two; South Carolina, six; Tennessee, ten; Texas, ten; Vermont, 1\Ir. CONGER. I should like to have a vote on concurrence m that two; Virginia, nine; West Virginia, four; Wisconsin, eight. 

amendment of the Sena;te. :Mr. SHERWIN. Mr. Speaker, it is needless for me to state the imThe. SPEAKER. It IS competent for the gentleman to make such portance of the bill now before us. Whenever apportionment bills 

a motiOn. . . . . have been before Congress in past years for discussion they have al-· Mr. CONGE~. I. WI~h~old the pomt of order at th1s time, Mr. ways afforded a theme for warm and animated debate. They have 

Speaker, and 'Yl-ll rru.se It if necessary when the matter comes before often partaken of a partisan nature. They have been governed la.rgely 

the House agam on the conference rep?rt. in their consideration· by the interests of the constituency of mem- Th~ amendment was non-concurred m. bers of the different States and of the different sections of the conn try~ 

Thirty-first amendment: For that reason it has been a difficult question, and the result of it ~sert the followin_g: . . . . has been that, with one exception, the apportionment bas not been .. Expense~ of ~diaD comm1Ss1o~ers: For: the expenses of. the COmmlSSlon of made until the second year after the census has been taken. c1tizens, servmg-mthout compensation, appomted by the President under the pro- . . . . ll visions of the fourth section of the act of ApriliO, 1869, 10,000." I cannot s!3e, su •. any reason why this apportionmen~ s~ . not beThe SPEAKER. The Committee on Appropriations recommend made at this. session of Co?gress. The data.. upon wh1~h It 18 to I?e 

made are all m our possessiOn. The calculatiOns on which the ba.s1s. non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. 

Mr. WELLS moved to reconsider the votes just taken, and also 

moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

DISTRICT OF COL"C'Ml3IA BUSIXESS. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I desire to call up at this time 

the privileged report made by the Committee on Rules, and ask the 

Clerk now to read it for present consideration. 

The SPEAKER. The resolution will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows : Ruolved, That upon the expiration of the morning hour on Monday, the 14th of 

February, the Committee for the District of Columbia shall be entitled to the fioor 

for the consideration during the remainder of that day of business for the District as may be called up by saia committee. 

Mr. BLACKBURN. 1\Ir. Speaker, in view of the work upon the 

hands of the House now, I trust that this will lead to no extended 

debate. This is a unanimous report from the Committee on Rules, 

adopted in view of the fact that under the Calendar system, adopted 

by the present Con~ess in its new rules, which cut off the District 

day, the consideratiOn of legislation for the District of Columbia has 

not had perhaps a fair chance. 

:Mr. CALKINS. Is it contemplated that that resolution shall apply 

only to the remainder of this Congress Y 

Mr. BLACKBURN. It applies to only one day, Monday the 14th 

instant. Mr. HAYES. 

priation bills '1 

'Vould it interfere with the consideration of approThe SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that it would interfere, but 

that the question of consideration might be raised if desired at that 

time. This is the opinion of the Chair after a casual reflection, without, however, going into the merits of the question. The resolution was agreed to. · Mr. BLACKBURN moved to reconsider the vote by which the reso- lution was agreed to; and also moved that the motion to reconsider 

be laid on the table. • The latter motion was agreed to. 

CON~GENT F~,NAVY DEPART~""T. 

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a letter .from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting a statement of 

of apportionment shall rest have all been made and are before us. They are clear, and every gentleman, by the expenditure of a few hon:rs'". time, can ascertain what ratio will be most just to the different States 

and sections of the country, and which should therefore be adopted 

by us in this bill. 

I was pleased to listen in the speech of the gentleman from New 

York [Mr. Cox] to his eulogium upon our representative system; to 

the fact that it is a crowning glory of our Government and that it 

is only exhibited in its perfection in this country. My pleasure in 

listening to him was equaled by the fact of the unanimity with which 

his sentiments were applauded by the members upon this :floor and 

the general praise his eloquence received from all sides. But there is another question, Mr. Speaker, connected with this 

important matter of representative ·government which I should havebeen glad if the gentleman had referred to, and I should have been 

pleased if he had brought the force of his generalization and the gifts 

of his eloquence and pictured it before this House. That is that not 

only is it made the duty of Congress to adopt a representat~ve system 

adequate to the needs of the country and distributed properly among 

the people of the cOlmtry, but that they shall also see that every man who by law has a right to vote for the members so provided for shall be 

free to vote and exercise all the privileges which thela w gives him without restraint or molestation; otherwise, our enactmments here are- futile and our laws are vain. We should not be content, Mr. Speaker, 

until every man, be he rich or poor, white or black, whether he live$ 

among the bayous of the Yazoo or the pine groves of North Carolina ;. 

whether he lives upon the prairies of Illinois or the hills of New 

England, shall be free to caBt his ballot unawed and unalarmed by 

fear of personal injury or social ostracism, and that the officer wh()< 

receives his ballot on the day of election shall be fearless to honestly 

receive ancl honestly count it and make au honest return. When that 

shall obtain there will be a grander theme for eloquence than thegentleman has yet touched upon, for we will have attained to thesummit of the representative system, and when shall be addeq to that 

the purity and intelligence of tlie individual voter, it would seem that we had reached the perfection of good government under therepresentative system. · Some gentlemen have said that this apportionment is easy to be 

made because it is a mere question of arithmetic. Now, it is more- than a question of arithmetic. It is a redistribution of political) 
1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSR 1181 

power. To be sure, this distribution is made upon arithmetical prin-

-ciples. But it is not a question of arithmetic only; if it were we could 

bring in our boys who have ciphered as far as long division and let 

them make the figures. We could give them anum ber to be divided. 

We could give the dividend and they could draw curved lines to the 

right and the left of it; but the important question would be what :shall be the divisor. To determine what that divisor shall be is a political act. That is a political question. But having given the 

.(li-visor, then tihe processes of arithmetic proceed. The boy can find 

the quotient; but that quotient when it is found represents the potent 

integers of political power. 

Now, then, the change of a divisor from three hundred and one to 

three hundred and eleven or three hundred and nineteen may change 

the political status of this Honse. It may change the political or- ganization of the electoral college, and therefore it does assume a political aspect. I can say, with the gentleman from New York, that 

I could wish as he wishes, that there could be no partisan feeling in 

this matter; that we could get rid of this ogre of partisanship. But 

looking at the facts as they exist to-day, as sensible men, we know we cannot get rid of it, because it is a political question, a redistribution of power that will not affect this Congress, but that will affect 

'.five Congresses hereafter to be elected, that will extend for five Con-

;gresses to come, and that shall not only affect them but shall affect 

t he next two presidential elections. Not only that, but it will affect 

the legislation in those next five Con~resses. It will affect your tariff ·laws or legislation. It will affect your legislation on the monetary 

matters of this country. It will affect your legislation upon educacation. It will affect your legislation 'upon all great questions that 

.(livide the parties of this country. These questions are only reached 

through parties ; and as they are reached through parties this apportionment is of necessity a party question and assumes a political 

..a.spect from its very nature and object. • Now, this is the way that !look at this matter, and I shall discuss 

it from that stand-point; not referring to parties in any invidious ·sense; not referring to sections or States in any odious sense; but as a matter to be got at practically, I shall accept the existing situation, .and discuss the question from that point of view. 

There have been three bills introduced before this Honse : t~ bill 

.Of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Cox,] providing for three 

hundred and one members; the bill of the majority of the committee 

providing for three hundred and eleven members; the bill that was presented by myself, and is sustained by the minority with but one ·exception, providing for three hundred and nineteen members. Now 

in discussing these ratios, all the principles involved in this subject · can be seen and understood. The same method of arriving at the 

-conclusions can be applied to any one of the numbers that is applied 

to these. 

Having the views on the subject which I have expressed, I propose ·briefiy to examine the two bills before this House, and the one of 

<the gentleman of New York, [Mr. Cox,] which be proposes to offer ..as an amendment. These bills propose a HQuse of three hundred 

and one members upon a ratio of 1 : 164,018, a House of three hun- ·dred and eleven members upon a ratio of 1: 158,745, and a House of 

three hundred and nineteen members upon a ratio of 1: 154,764, re- :,spectively. · I will first examine the effect of the different ratios upon the repre- -sentation of the States as compared with their present representation. 

Upon the basis of three hundred and one representatives each of 

the following-named States gain one member: Arkansas, South Car- olina, Mississippi, West Virginia, California, Iowa., and Michigan; 

Nebraska and l\finnesota each gain two, Kansas three, and Texas 

four-a gain of eighteen in all, of which the democratic States have -eight and the republican States ten. - The losses upon a basis of three hundred and one are one each for 

the States of Florida, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Penn-

..sylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont, and two in New York, of which 

losses the certainly democratic States sustain two and the republican 

States eight, making a net gain to the certainly democratic States of .six and to the republican States which are sometimes democratic of 

two. The eighteen States not named neither gain nor lose. 

Upon a basis of three hundred and eleven members fifteen States 

gain altogether twenty-two members, namely: Arkansaa, California, ·Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Virginia.' and West Virginia gain one each; Minnesota and 

Nebraska two eacn; Kansas three, and Texas four; of which gain the 

certainly democratic States have twelve and the other States ten. 

Four States, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, each 

lose one, leaving the net gain to the certainly democratic States twelve 

and to the republican States six. The other nineteen States neither 

gain nor lose. 

Upon a basis of three hundred and nineteen, the bill of the minorrity, twenty-one States gain twenty-nine members, namely, Arkan- .. sas, California, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 

lllinois, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, :Massachusetts, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia each one; Nebraska, Minnesota, and Michigan each two; Kansas three, and Texas four; of 

which number the certainly democratic States gain thirteen and the 

-other States sixteen. 

:Jpon the basis of three hundred and nineteen, three States, Maine, 

.New Hampshire, a-nd Vermont each lose one, making the net gain to 

-the certainly democratic States thirteen, and to the_other States thirteen, and producing an equality of gains between the States certainly 

democratic and the other States. 

To recapitulate :·Upon a basis of three hundred and one, the cer- tainly democratic States have a net g!'!in of 6; the other States have a net gain of 2. Upon a basis of three hundred and eleven, the cer- tainly democratic States have a net gain of 12 ; the other States ha-ve a net gain of 6. Upon a basis of three hundred and nineteen, the cer- tainly democratic States have a net gain of 13; the other States ha've a net gain of 13. 

Fewer States (only three) lose upon the last basis than upon either 

of the others. 

Fewer States (fourteen) stand still without gain or loss than upon 

the other rates. And four of these fourteen States, namely, Oregon, 

Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware could not gain upon any practicable 

ratio, thus leaving only ten States stationary. 

The gains and losses under the different ratios are owing to the 

change of divisor and consequent change of fractions. Upon the 

basis of three hundred and one, the number of Representatives upon an even division would be but two hundred and eighty-two, and the 

twenty highest fractions are therefore each given a Representative 

to make the number three hundred and one. Upon a basis of three hundred and eleven, and also three hundred 

and nineteen, members are given to eighteen fractions. The States 

which gain a member upon a fraction at three hundred and nineteen 

which do not have them at three hundred and eleven are Illinois, 

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and California. 

The basis of three hundred and twenty-two would give a net gain 

of thirteen to the States certainly democratic and sixteen to the other 

States. But in the interest of fairness the minority chose three hundred and nineteen instead of three hundred and twenty-two. 

I do not contend that the different sections of the country should 

necessarily gain equally in their representation. Of course that must 

depend upon the population of the States and sections. But as will 

be seen by the examples I have given, there is quite a latitude 

within which changes may be made, and within those limits is the 

field of dispute, over which is waged the war of debate, upon which 

also are sought to be gained advantages which could not be secured 

upon a division based upon whole numbers only and not partly upon 

fractions. This being so, we must recognize the fact and select that 

number for a ratio which will be most fair and equitable in its operation. 

In my opinion that number is the one that gives ns three hundred 

and nineteen members. It is in accordance with the mathematical 

principles used in making apportionments. It leaves fewer States 

with their representation decreased. :More States gain in that num- ber than either of the others. Fewer States are stationary. It distributes the gains more generally over the country than the other 

numbers. And happily it gives no advantage to one section er party over any other section or party. The other numbers fail in all these 

particulars, and therefore should not be adopted. A great injustice 

will be done if either of them shall be selected. 

The number three hundred and nineteen approaches nearest mathematically to an accurate apportionment as between the groups of 

States under discussion. The population of the Southern States is 

.3748 per cent. of the whole representative population of the United 

States. At three hundred and one those States have .3722 per cent. 

of the representation; at three hundred and eleven they have .3794 

per cent. of the representation; at three hundred and nineteen they 

have .3730 per cent. of the representation, the latter number being 

the nearest of any of the ratios in question. 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] and others have asserted 

that dividing the country into three sections, namely, the Northeast, 

comprising the New England States, with New York, New Jersey, and 

Pennsylvania; the Sout~, comprising the sixteen old slave States; 

and the West , embracing all the other States, the number three hundred and one would be most nearly accurate of any of the other 

numbers. He is mistaken in this as, at the risk of being prolix, I 

will show by the follO'Wing statement: The NortheaRtem States men- tioned contain .2938 per cent. of the representative population. At 

three hundred and one they would have .2956 per cent. of the representation; at three hundred and eleven they would hava .2926 per cent . of the representation; at three hundred and nineteen they 

would have .2946 per cent. of the representation, showing again that 

three hundred and nineteen is the nearest to accuracy. 

The Western States mentioned have .3313 per cent. of the representative population. At three hundred and one these States have 

.3322 per cent. of the representation; at three hundred and eleven 

these States have .3279 per cent. of the representation; at three hundred and nineteen these States have .3322 per cent. of the representation, showing once more that no number is more nearly accurate. 

In the Southern States it is shown, according to the table given 

above, that three hundred and nineteen is the nearest. 

My excuse for entering into what might seem an over refinement 

of figures is to demonstrate that that number, three hundred and 

nineteen, which upon its face is most just as between the Southern 

and the Northern States is also the most accurate. And further, 

that by grouping the States into three sections, Northeast, West, and 

South, that accuracy is still upon the side of three hundred and nineteen. 

Another point worth observing is that all the gains on present representation between the numbers three hundred and one and three hu.n-

' 
1182 I - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

dred and eleven fall to the Southern States, the South, as I have before 

pointed out, at the latter number having a. net gain of six; while between the numbers three hundred and eleven and three hundred and 

nineteen all the gains but one are in the Northern States, and havihg 

arrived at three hundred and nineteen the gains between North and 

South are equal. Another thing to be observed is that the greatest 

loss which the New England and Central States sustain actually and 

relatively is at three hundred and one. The Central States do not 

hold their own until they pass three hundred and eleven. 

Can any member in this Honse, in the face of these figures, vote 

for either of the numbers three hundred and one or three hundred and 

eleven! The only reasonable excuse for so doing is that three hundred and nineteen makes the House too large. It is but eight larger 

than three hundred and eleven. Who can say an addition of eight or eighteen would be at all perceptible iu this Honse! 

Besides, I do not think that three hundred and nineteen is too 

large a House or too great an increase. At the last apportionment the 

House was increased by the addition of :fifty members, while the representative population had increased but 6,936,484. This amendment 

proposes an increase of but twenty-six, while the representative 

population has increased 11~214,090. The question of the size of the 

Honse has been much discussed at each apportionment. Many of 

the wisest statesmen of our country have favored a larger Honse than 

this amendment proposes. Such statesmen as Ed ward Everett, John 

Quincy Adams, and Thomas H. Benton have contended for a high 

number. I will not enter into any argument upon that point, as it 

is after all largely a matter of opinion. But we know that the lower 

house of the Massachusetts Legislature formerly contained six hundred 

and forty members, and experience showed that its legislation at that 

time was conducted carefully and well. The fault of whatever con- fusion there may be in this Honse may be more in our rules and in 

ourselves than in the size of the body. The minority has incorporated in its amendment a provision that the Representatives apportioned to the different States shall be elected by districts, and that 

those districts shall be composed of contiguous territory. This was a part of the law of 1872 and of 1842, and should be retained in this 

and in all future apportionment laws. 

It is claimed by some gentlemen upon this floor that it is a needless 

and unconstitutional interference with State rights. It is said that 

the States are free under the Constitution to choose the method by 

which their Representatives in Congress shall be elected; that they are free to construct districts as to them shall seem best, whether of 

contiguous territory or otherwise, or to abandon the district system 

and elect their Representatives upon one general ticket. This claim 

is not new. It has been asserted here before. So long ago as in 18~3 

a. select committee was appointed in the Honse of Representatives for 

the purpose of "inquiring into the expediency of recommending to 

the several States the propriety of amending the Constitution of the 

United States in such manner that the mode of electing the members 

of the House of Representatives in Congress may be uniform throughout the United States," and for other purposes; and that committee, 

of which Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, waa chairman, made a very 

able report upon the subject. Many States at that time elected their 

Representatives upon a general State ticket. It was seen that by that 

system the voice of a minority could be suppressed. That New York, 

for instance, could send a delegation to Congress which would be 

solidly democratic or solidly republican, and that too by a small ma- jority of the popular vote, instead of one which should represent vari- ous interests and constituencies as now under the district system. It was also seen that a State might be gerrymandered in the interest of 

the party in power, by making one district of contiguous territory 

and another separated into parts; by constituting one district so that 

it should elect two or more membera and another one member;· that one district should have too great a population and another too small. 

That committee in its report submitted a plan which proposed 

"that each State shall be divided into as many districts as will equal 

the number of Representatives to which the State may be entitled in 

Congress, and that each of the said districts shall elect one Representative." The committee further say: 

I t is susceptible of demonstration that the elections might be so arranged by a party in power that a small minority of the people would elect a majority of the 

national Representatives. The mode of operation would be various according to >arying circumstances. Sometimes the object would be accomplished by changing the district into the general ticket system, sometimes by an.artificial arrangement of districts, and sometimes by a sk:i1i.ful CQmbination of both. 

With a view to give strength and durability to the essential bonds of union, it is 

of the utmost consequence that the local minorities in the several States and vari- ous geographical divisions of our extensive country should have a fair and full 

representation in Congress. In periods of deep I>Olitical excitement nothin"' is 

better calculated to allay sectional animosities and subdue the angry spirit of ¥action than the mediatorial influence of such Representatives. 

The committee proposed an amendment to the Constitution which . should make it imperative upon the States, without any legislation 

by Congress, to divide their State into districts, each of which should 

elect one Representative. Again, in 1842, the question was before Congress and gave rise to a long and able debate. It arose upon an amendment to the bill for 

apportionment then pending in the House, and was offered by Mr. 

Halstead, of New Jersey, by direction of the Committee on Elections. 

The amendment was in these words : 

And be it further enacted, That each State shall be divided by the Legislature · thereof into as many districts composed of contiguous territory as shall be equal 

to the number of Representatives to which said State may be entitled in the House. of Representatives of the United States, and that each of said districts shall elect one Representative. 

At that time there were seven of the twenty-six States which 

elected their Representatives upon a general ticket. The point was- raised by Mr. Atherton, of New Hampshire, as to whether the amendment was germane to the bill or not. The chairman decided that it 

was, and overruled the point of order. After several days' discussion 

the amendment was adopted in the Honse, and it was afterward 

adopted in the Senate and became a part of the apportionment law 

of 1842. The point most fully discussed was as to the power of Congress to direct that the States should elect by districts under that 

clause of sec~ion 4 of the Constitution ~hich declares that Congress 

may at any t1me m~e or a~ter regulatiOns as to the times, places,. and ma~er of boldmg elections for Senators and Representatives. 

It was 11_11842 also, that t~e representation of minorities ~eater 

than a mOiety was first provtded for. In the year 1832 Daniel Webster had attempted to provide for the representation of moieties and 

made a report upon that subject distinguished for the strength and. 

clearness which always characterized his efforts. He was defeated. 

at that time, but his principles were adopted in 1842 and have con- tinued in operation ever since. 

Mr. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, in discussing this district system said that- ,. 

I~ seemed evident to~ Congres.shad the power, undertbisclauseof the Constitution, to make regulations respecting the elections, totally and wholly as to alter 

the Sta.~ regulations * * * he was astonished that any man who c~ed to be • State-rights man should come forward and advocate the general-ticket system. 

Mr. Arnold, of Tennessee, said: 

They had a right to intedere in this, and it was their duty to do it ·now. 

Again he said: 

It was a question of expediency entirely. It involved no constitutional question~ 

Mr. Barnard, of New York, said: 

In his opinion the time had come when in consequence of the manner in which· some of ~e Sta~ of ~e Union had performed this duty, it was the duty of Congress to mterfere m this matter. 

Mr. William Cost Johnson, of Maryland, said: 

He believed Congress bad full and ample power to pass such a law. 

Mr. PENDLETON, of Ohio, said: 

He was amazed that there should be any difference of opinion as to the power- of Congress t~ adopt the amendment. 

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said : 

He had always c~m~der~d that if there was any question spttled by the expresi!J.. terms of the Constitution, 1t was the !lOWer of Congress over this whole subject. 

In the Senate Mr. Rives, of Virginia, conceded that ConO'ress had 

the power, but he opposed its exercise on grounds of expedi~ncy. Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, also asserted the power of ConO'ress 

and advocated its expediency and necessity. o 

I do not understand the opposition to this section of the amendment. Are we still within the shadow of the extra session f Do we.. still breathe its atmosphere f Must the National Government aO'ain 

be warned from trespassing upon the sacred precincts of a State o and. 

forbidden to suggest even that the States shall elect members of Congress by d!-stric~s and th;a~ those districts sha U be con tiguons f I can- ~ot explam this oppos1t~on upon any ~ypothesis, except au unwillmgness to concede any rtght or power m Congress to legislate upon~ 

the subject of the election of members of Congress. 

I commend gentlemen to the words I have read of the State-riO'hts. statesmen of the country upon this subject_. If we have the right, as those statesmen concede we have, to legtslate upon the subject 

why not a?cept this amend!fient! Can it be that there are :my State~ which desire the opporturutv to return to the general-ticket system 

to crush out some troublesome minoritv¥ Is it because of a desir~ to make districts of territory not contiguous~ It seems to me to be . the duty of Congress to retain control of this matter in the interests. of fair elections. I am not ready to wipe out this faint vestiO'e of 

national control over them. o 

I think the bill of the minority should commend itself to every gent~eman in this House who desires a true, just, and equitable ap- portionment. 

1\lr. NEW. I wish to ask the gentleman from Illinois a question ~ 

Is it not true that the number 319 will leave a. larger unrepresented. population than the number 301, or 307, or 311 f 

Mr. SHERWIN. It leaves a slightly larger aggregate of fraction 

throughout the whole country unrepresented than 301 or 311. I am not informed as to 307. 

Mr. NEW. I have made some calculations with care, and according to the results of my figuring; 319 would leave a larger number ol 

people unrepresented than either of the other numbers. 

Mr. SHERWIN. It does so apparently, as compared with two of 

the numbers. But the gentleman ought also to understand that, com- paring the numbers of fractions unrepresented between the two sec- tions of the country, in one section we have sixteen States and in the· other we have twenty-two States; so that, in reality, as applied to 

the population of the country, this number is nearer the true mathe- . matical representation than any other we can get. Also it gives us a. greater representation for all of the States which gain at all, and . fewer States lose at that number than at any other; so I cannot see- how the fractions are unrepresented. 
1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1J83 

Exhibit showing the gains in Rep,·esentatives of the Nm·the,•n aml Southern 

States over thei1· present 1·epresentation 11pon tl!e diffeJ•ent numbe1·s proposed from 293 to 325, inclusit·e. 

Under the census of 1870 the Southern States now have .•••••..•........•••••• 106 

The Northern States ..•..••..•• . .....•.•..............•......•...••••.••••••.. 187 

Under the censes of 1880, at 293 members, the Southern States .•••••.•••••.••. 108 

The Northern States .•................ ...••........••.••.•••.•...•.•...•....•• 185 

The South gaining two, and the North losing two on present representation. 

.At 294 members, the South .•.....•...•......•...••••••••.••.••.••••••••••••••. 108 

At 294 members, the North, (Massa{lhusetts) .......•..•••.•••.........•.••.••. 186 

The South gaining two on present representation, and the North losing one. 

At 295members, the South, (Louisiana) .•••....•••••••.•.••••••.......••.•..... 109 

At 295 members, the North .•••••.•.•••.•.•...•••••••••••••••••.......•••••.... 186 

The South gaining three on present representation, and theN orth losing one. 

.At 296 members, the South .......••......••••..••••••.••••••.•••..•.•....••.• 109 

.At 296 members, the North, (Pennsylvania) ..•..•••••••••...••••...•••.•..•.•• 187 

The South gaining three on present representation, and the North losing none. 

At 297 members, the South, (Maryland) •••.•••••.........••••••.••.•••.••.•.. 110 At 297 members, the North .......•••••••••.•.•...••••••.•.•.••••.••...•.•.••• 1a1 

The South gaining four on present representation, and the North none. 

.At 298 members, the South .....•....••••••••.••.•••••••••• , •.......••••.•••••• 110 

.At298members, the North, (NewYork) •••.•••••• . .•••••..••.•••.•...••....••. 188 

The South gaining four on present representation, and the North gaining one on present representation. 

.At 2!)9 members, the South, (Alabama) ••••.••.•••.••••••••••.••••••••••••••••• 111 

At 299 members, the North .•..•.••.•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••• 188 

The South gaining five on present representation, and theN orth gaining one on present representation. 

.At 300 members, the South, (.Alabama. loses one, and Texas gainsone) •••••.•••. 111 

.At 300 members, the North, (illinois) .••••••..••••.•••••••.••.••••••.••••••••• 189 

The South gaining five on present representation, and the North gaining two on present representation. 

At 301 members, the South, (.Alabama) .•••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.••.•••. 112 

.At 301 members, the North ....••.•.••••••••••.•..•..•....••••••.•...••.•••••• 189 

The South gaining six on present representation, and the North gaining two on present representation. 

.At302members, the South, (Florida) .•••••••••••••.••••.•••••••••.••••••••••• 113 

At 302 members, theN orth . • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • . • • • . . • • . • • • • . . . . . 189 

The South gaining seven on present representation, and the North gaining two on present representation. 

.At 303 members, the South .•....•.••••••••••••.•••••••..••.•••••••••.•.•••••• 113 

At 303 members, the North, (Ohio) .•••••••••••••••.•••.....•.•••••.•.•••••••.• 190 

The South gaining seven on present representation, and the Nerth gaining three on present representation. 

.At304members, the South, (North Carolina) .••••••••••••.....••..••••••••••• 114 

.At 304 members, the North ..•.•••..•..•••••.•••.•.••••••...•.•...••....•..••. 190 

The South gaining eight on :present representation, and the North gaining three on present representation. 

.At 305 members, the South, (Tennessee) .••••••••••••••.••••••••••.•.•.••••••• 115 

At 305 members, the North .••••••••••••••••.••••••••••.•.•••••..•.. --···· ..•. 190 

The South gaining nine on present representation, and the Xorth gaining three on present representation. 

.At 306 members, the South .•...•••••.•••.•.•...••••••••••••••••••••..•.••••••• 115 

At306members,theNorth, (Pennsylvania) . .•.....•••••.••..•.•.....•••••..•. 191 

The South gaining nine on present representation, and the :North gaining four on present representation. 

.At 307 members, the South .•...•.••.•..•••••••••••.••••••••••••••••.••.•...••. 115 

.At307members,theNorth,(NewYork) .•••••••••••••••••..•..•••••••.•••.••. 192 

The South gaining nine on present representation, and the North gaining five 011 present representation. 

.At308members, the South, (Georgia) ••••••••••.•••••...••••••••...•••••...••• 116 

.At 308 members, the North .•••••••••.••..•••.•••••••.•.•.•...........••..••.. 192 

The South gaining t.en on present representation, and the North gaining five on present representation. 

.At 309 members, the South, (Missouri) .•..•••..•••.•.•. ..••.••••••.••••..••••• 117 

At 309 members, the North ....•...••.•. ·······---~- .•••••.•.•.•......•.•••••• 19-2 

The South gaining eleven on present representation, and the North gaining five on present representation . 

.At 310 members, the South, (Virginia) ••••••••••••.••••••••••••.•.•••.••••.••. 118 

At 310 members, the North ...•••.••.............••.•.•.... ...••..•. .••••.•••. 192 

The South gaining twelve on present representation, and the North gaining five on present representation. 

At 311 members, the South .....•.•••.••..•••.•..••••...•.••••...••.•••.•••••• 118 

At 311 members, the North, (Indiana) ••••.•.••••••.••••••.••.•....•••••••.••. 193 · . The South gaining twel~e on present representation, and the North gaining su:: on present representation. 

At 312 members, the South •..•.•.••..•..••....••..•••••.•••••••.......••••••• 118 

At 312 members, the North, (California) ..•••••••.••••••.•••••...•....•.•••••• 194 

The South gaining twelve on present representation, and the North gain- ing se-.en on present representation. 

At 313 members, the South •...••.....•.....•.••••••.••..••.•••..•••••••••••.• ll8 

At 313 members, the _Torth, (Illinois) ..........•••••••••...•.••..••.••.•••..•. 195 

The South gaining twelve on present representation, and the North gaining eight on present representation. 

At314 members, the South, (Kentucky) ....•...••.••••.•.••...•..•..•••.•••••• 119 At 314 members, the North ..•......•.•.......•••.••••••..•••.•....•••••••••.. 195 

The South ~aiDing thirteen on present representation, and the North gain- ing eight on present representation. 

At315members, the South .....•.•••••.•.••.•.•••••.•.•••.•••••..•••••.•..••. 119 

At 315 members, the North, (Michigan) .........•••..•••••........••.••••••••. 196 

The South gaining thirteen on present representation, and the North gain- ing nine on present representation. 

At 316 members, the South ..............•..••.•••••.••.••••••••••••.••••.•••• 119 

..dt 316 members. the North, (:New York) .•••••.•••••••••••.•••••..•••.•••..••. 197 

Tho South gaining thirteen on present representation, and the North gainina- ten on present representation. "' 

At 317 members, the South .....•..••••••....••..••..•••••.•••••••••••..•..••. 119 

At317members, the North, (Ohio) .......•.•.••.••••.•.•••..•••..•.•....•.•••• 198 

The South gaining thirteen on present representation, and the :North gain- ing cle-.en on present representation. 

At 318 members, the South ......••••••..•..•.•••••..•••••.••......•••........ 119 

At 318 members, the :Korth, (Pennsylvania) .......••••••••••....•..•... ..••..• 199 

The South gaining thirteen on present representation, and the North gain- ing twelve on present representation. 

.At 319 members, the South •••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.•••• 119. At 319 members, the North, (Massachusetts) ••••••••..••.•••••••••.•••.•••••• 200 

The South gaining thirteen on present representation, and the North gain- ing thirteen on present representation. 

.At 320 members, the South ••••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••...•. 119· .At320members, the North, (Iowa) ••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••••••..•..•....•• 201 

The South gaining thirteen on present representation, and the North gain- ing fourteen on present representation. 

.At 3!!1 members, the South ••••.•••••••••••.•••••.••••••.•••••••••••••••••.••. 119 

At 321 members, the North, (Wisconsin) ••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••.•••.•..•.. 202 The South gaining thirteen on yresent representation, and tbe North gain- ing fifteen on present representation. 

.At 322 members, the South ..••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.. 119 

At 322 members, the North, (Kansas) ..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 203 The South gaining thirt.een on :present representation, and the North gain- ing sixteen on present representation . 

.At 32:1 members, the South, (South Carolina) .••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••• 120 

.At 323 members, the North •.••.•••.••••.•••••.•••.•••••••••.•••.•..•••.•...•. 203 

The South gaining fourteen on yresent representation, and the North gain- ing sixteen on present representation. 

.At 324 members, the South, (Texas) .••••••••......••..••...•.•••••••••.••••.• 121 

.At 324 members, the North .•••••.•.••.••.•••.••.•••••••••••••...••••.•.•••..•. 20:r: The Sonth gaining fifteen on present representation, and the North gaining sixteen on present representation . 

At 325 members, the South ...•.••••••.••..•••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••••••••• 121 

.At325 members, the North, ~ewYork) .•••••...•••.••...•••..••.•••••••••.•• 204 

The South gaining fifteen on present representation, and the North gaining seventeen on present representation. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. CLYMER.) To whom does the 

gentleman from Illinois yield the balance of his time 7 

Mr. SHERWIN. I yield it to the gentleman from New York, [MrCROWLEY,] or as much of it as he desires. 

RIVER AND HARBOR BILL. 

Mr. REAGAN, from the Commitee on Commerce, reported a bill 

(H. R. No. 7104) making appropriation for the construction, comple-· tion, repair, and preservation of certain works on rivers and harbors, 

and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, re-- committed to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. 

MESSAGE FROl\1 THE SE~A.TE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. BURCH, its Secretary,, informed.. 

the House that the Senate had passed a concurrent resolution relative to the counting of electoral votes for President and Vice-President of the United States, in which the concurrence of the Honse, was requested . The message further announced that the Senate had passed the ·bill" 

(S. No. 2054) toremove the political disabilities of Richard Fatherly, 

of Little Rock, Arkansas, in which the concurrence of the House was requested. APPORTIO~"'ME::IT OF REPRESEI:I.~ATIO~. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, no measure coming before Congress can be more important than the one under discussion. It is to determine for ten years to come the representation of each State in this 

House . 'fhe first question which meets us at the threshold of this debate 

is as to the wisdom and policy of increasing the numbers of Representatives. From sixty-five members fixed by the Constitution in 

1789, we have grown to two hundred and ninety-three members in 

eighty years ; and it is now proposed by every measure before this· Honse to still further increase its membership. We stand to-day, not 

including New Hampshire, the eighth largest legislative body in the· world. Hungary, but a portion of the Austrian Empire, has a chamber of magnates of 731, and a house of representatives of 444; and 

yet no one will claim that there is greater wisdom and deliberation 

in the Parliament of Hungary because of this large representation. 

England, which legislates for nearly three hundred millions of human 

beings, has a Honse of Lords of 497, and a Honse of Commons of 652, . and yet I am informed that the daily average attendance upon the 

Honse of Commons is less than the daily average attendance upon 

this House of Representatives. . France, in her Corps Legislatif, has a Senate of 300 members and a Chamber of Deputies of 532; and yet so noisy is that Chamber of 

Deputies that it cannot claim to be a deliberative body. 

Italy has a Senate of 220 members and a Chamber of Deputies of 

508; Prussia has an upper house.of 302 members and a lower house 

of 434; Austria has an upper house of 191 members and a lower house 

of 383. And the German Empire, where are gathered all the German. States, has in its upper branch only 59 members and in its lower 397. 

Next comes the American Congress. And let me say that from the 

numbers of this House it is noisy and confusing and unwieldy also. 

It is disorderly and at times turbulent. This calendar which I hold 

in my hand, containing over twelve hundred bills, shows that it 

cannot act with dispatch upon all the measures coming before it. The 

roll-call of the members of this House upon the average now takes 

upward of one-half hour. We have adopted a system of rules, com- plex, arbitrary, and apparently tyrannical, for the purpose of enabling us to dispatch business :mel to aid in the deliberations of this.- body. 

Sitting or standing in this outer circle where many of us are located, it is now impossible, from the size of this Chamber, for us to 

know what is being daily transacted here. We are compelled to look 

into the RECORD of the next morning for the purpose of accurately 

learning what is daily transpiring in our very presence. My observation is that a strong voice, an interesting subject, long experience, 

·-
1184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

<Or great reputation only can arrest, command, and hold the attention 

of this Honse constituted as it is. 

Let me say, in speaking of the size of a legislative body, it is in-

·terestinoo to turn back for a short time to the century's experience of 

the workings of this House of Representatives, to hear what was ·said by the founders of the Government concerning it when they 

.framed it, and what has been said by the great commentators who 

have spoken concerning its organization and workings since that 

time. It was feared by many of the fathers of the Constitution that .a small legislative body would not possess a proper knowledge of the 

local circumstances of their constituents; that a small number would 

be an unsafe depository of power and would be taken from those who 

would not sympathize with the feelings of the people. Story, in his 

>Commentary on the Constitution, written forty years after its adop- tion, speaking of the objections urged against a small legislative 

body, says: 

Time and experience have demonstrated the fallacy of some, and greatly impaired if they ha>e not utterly destroyed, the force of all of these objections. The 

fears {vhich were at that period so studiously cherished; the alarms, which were so fo~cibly spread; the dangers to liberty, which were so stran~~ly exaggerated; and the predominance of aris~ocra~cal ~d ~xclu ~ve power, wuich w~s so COD:fidently predicted, have all vamshed mto rur, mto thin arr. Truth has silently dissolvea the phantoms raised by imaginations heated by prejudice or controversy; and at the distance of forty years we look back with astonishment at the laborious 

reasoning which was employed to tranquilize the do~bts ~d as uag~ the jealous- ies of the people. It is fit, however, e>en now, to brmg this reasonmg _nnder re- view, because it inculcates upon us the important lesson, how little r~ce .cap 

be placed upon mere theory m anY: matters ?f goverJ?IDent; and ~ow diffi.c~t 1~ lS 

to vindicate the most sound, practical doctrmes agamst the spec1ous questionmg .-of ingenuity and hostility.- Story on the Oonstitution, section 648. 

I will read no further from that section, but turning now to the 

subject of the numbers which Bhould compose the House of Repre- ·Bentatives, I beg leave to call attention to what he said: 

But the question itself, what is the -proper and convenient number to compose :a representative legislature, is as little susceptible of a precise solution as any which can be stated in the whole circle of politics. There is no point upon which 

..{tifferent nations are more at variance; and the policy of the American States 

themselves, on this subject, while th~ were colonies, and since they have become 

independent, has been exceedingly discordant. Independent of the differences arisin~ from the population and size of the States, there will be found to be great diversities among those whose population and size nearly approa<lh each other. 

* * * * * * * It is by no means true that a large representation is necessary to underst:md 

the interests of the people. It is not either theoretically or practically true that a. knowledge of those interests is augmented in proportion to the increase of rep-

-resentatives. The interests of the State of New York are probably as well under· ,stood by its sixty-five representatives as those of Massachusetts by its three or four hundred. in fa<lt, higher qualifications will usually be sought and ~uired 

-where-the representatives are few than where they are many. And there will also 

be a. higher ambition to serve where the smallness of the number creates a desirable distinction than where it is shared with many, and of course individual im- ,porta.nce is essentially dimini.shed.- Ibid., sections 651, 653, 6::8. 

And Kent, speaking upon this subject, well expresses the principle 

which should guide in the formation of a House of Representatives: 

A due acquaintance with the local interests of e>ery part of the Union ought 

1o be carried into the House, and a sufficient number collected for all the plll'];lOses 

of information, discussion, and diffusive sympathy with the wants and wishes of 

the people. When these objects are obtained any further increase neither pro- motes deliberation nor jncreases the public safety. All numerous bodies of men, although selected with the greatest care, are too much swayed by passion, and too impatient of protracted deliberation.- ! Kent, 232. 

The history and policy of our American Congress in the main has 

tended to an increase of its representation. The older States, for the 

purpose of not losing Representatives, for the purpose of not losing 

political power, and to keep pace with the more rapidly growing 

States of the West and Northwest, have always favored such apportionment of representation as would save to them the number of Representatives which they had whenever the question of apportionment came up. 

The first apportionment act passed in 1i92, three years after the 

Constitution went into operation, fixed one member for every 33,000 

people, and gave us a House of 105 members. · In 1802 the same ratio was maintained, which gave us a House of 141 members. In 1811 the 

ratio of one member for every 35,000 population was adopted, which 

gave ns a House of 181 members. In 1822 the ratio of 40,000 was adopted, which gave us a House of 212 members. In 1832 the ratio 

of 47,700 was adopted, which gave us a House of 240 members. In 

1842 we dropped for a decade, and in the apportionment bill of that 

year the ratio of representation was 70,6 0, which gave us a House of 

223 members. In 1850 the ratio was 93,420, which gave us a House 

of 233 members. In 18G2 the ratio was 126,823, whic.h gave us a House 

of 241 members. And in 1672 the ratio was 131,425, which gives us the present House of 293 members. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, is it policy, is it wisdom, to increase still further 

the membership of this House f Have we not reached a limit where 

we should pause for awhile l Will business be dispatched more rapidly 

by increasing our numbers? Will more wisdom mark our delibeTations ¥ Will there be more order ? Will roll-calls take less time f 

Will it be less expensive'? Under our Constitution the Senate of the 

United States must pass upon every bill which passes this House; it 

must adopt the same legislative methods upon every measure. In 

.addition to that it must act upon every nomination sent to it by the 

.Executive- no inconsiderab1e duty of late years. The Senate is also .a part of the treaty-making power of the nation, and is the sole court 

:for the trial of all impeachments. Yet, with these additional duties, w ho will say that the Senate of the United Stat-es, with only seventysix members, does not dispatch business with as mnch promptness 

and with as much wisdom and deliberation as this House, with its 

two hundred and ninety-three members "I 

Let me take one illustration more as to the policy of an increase. 

The State which I have the honor in part to represent, New York, an empire in itself- with all the industrial and material interests which 

go to constitute a great commonwealth- has never found it political 

wisdom to increase the size of its Legislature. From 1789, when its 

population was only 340,112, down to 1821, the numbers constituting 

its legislative bodies were substantially the same. In 1821, when its 

population was 1,372,812, it created a Legislature whose senate con- sisted of thirty-two members, and an assembly of one hundred and 

twenty-eight membe1'8 only. Although, in 1846, when its population 

had increased to 2,604,495, it changed its constitution and held a constitutional convention- in 1867, and a.fterward, a constitutional 

commission, when its population had doubled. Yet New York, in its 

wisdom, is to-day transacting its public business with a Legislature 

of the size fixed in 1821; and now, with a population of 5,0 3,810, adhering to a Legislature created sixty years ago, who will say that 

New York is not as rich, great: prosperous, and populous, and as well 

governed, as any of her sister States or as this Union, which, by its 

Congress, has increased its representation at every decade. 

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to apportionment at this session of Congress. In section 2 of article 14 of the amendment to the Constit u- tion it is provided that-

:Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their 

respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of 

electors of President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives of 

Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legi.sl.a,. ture thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty- one yean of a$e and citizens of the United States, or in any way abrid~ed, except 

for _-participanon in r ebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein 

shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shnJJ. 

bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 

Every apportionment bill pending in this House bases representation upon numbers only. That was the principle of the old Constitution, under which nine censuses were taken and nine apportionments made; but under section 2 of the fourteenth amendment voters rrs well as numbers may be taken into the account in apportioning 

Representatives among the respective States; and when any State 

denies to any of its qualified male citizens, being twenty-one years of a.ge, the right to vote for any of the officers specified in the fourteenth 

amendment, in my judgment that State should be denied representation in this Honse in the proportion which it denies the right of voting 

to any of its m:hle citizens otherwise qualified. [Applause.] 

Turn.ing to the constitutions of the States, we find that Massachusetts and Connecticut disqualify citizens on edncatio!lal grounds. I am not going to criticise the wisdom of those States. I am not standing here to·attack either of those States or any others; and let me say in pa-ssing that the question of education is becoming one of the 

paramount questions of the present time. Thoughtful men; who are anxious for the perpetuity of our institutions, who are looking to theo 

future welfare of this Republic, are scanning closely the Constitution 

to find whether or not there are any powers in it authorizing Congress to take control of the whole subject of education for the nation 

and for all the States of the nation. But let me say that while Massachusetts and Connecticut have imposed an educational qualification which debars certain citizens in those States from voting for 

the officers enumerated in sectien 2 of the fourteenth amendment, 

Massachusetts, Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia have added a property 

qualification, either in regard to amount of property which the voter 

sh:1ll possess, or in regard to the payment of poll taxes, or county, 

State, or municipal taxes. 

Let me call attention somewhat to the effect of this in regard to 

representation in this House. The State which I have tho honor to 

represent in part upon this :floor sends here under the apportionment 

act of 1872 thirty-three Representatives. In the last election of those 

Representatives the tota1 vote for Representatives in Congress in each 

of those thirty-three districts was not less than 23,000 ; and in the Erie 

district, where the highest vote was cast, there was a little upward 

of 45,000 votes cast for candidates for Representative in t?is House. 

Now turn to the State of Rhode Island. Rhode Island m the last 

presidential election cast 29,210 votes, all told, for the presidential 

electors, and both of the members from the first and second congressional districts of that State had had cast for them and for their oppom·nts all told in both of those districts only 28,964 votes. That is 

the aggregate of both districts. In twenty-three of the congressional 

districts of the State of New York there was a larger vote than 

28,96-l cast for congressional candidates in each and every one of 

those twenty-three congressional districts. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentlema.n from New York, [Mr. Cox, 1 

chairman of the Committ ee on Census, in his speech yesterday, which was able and exhaustive, on this question, asks, in 1·eaard to 

the effect of the fourteenth amendment, a question which f think 

should receive an answer at this time and in this place. And that I 

may do him no injustice I read from the RECORD what purports to 

be his remarks on that question : The first question which arises under this second section of the fourteenth 

amendment is What is a denial or :1bridgment of the right to vote as contem· plated ~ Must it b~;~ by law or by individuals 7 What constitutes a denial or 

,. 
' .. 

., 

1881 . . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ·1185 

abridgment if otherwise than by law? What ~ the amo:unt of priVl!'te force ~nd 

intimidation, or the kind of device or fraud which constitutes a demal or abndg· ment? The last act of apportionment was passed on the 2d of February, 1872. It 

did not pretend to settle this or anythin~ else as to this fourteenth amendment. 

It re-enacted the clause of the Constitution, and fixed the power which must deny or abridge. 

It says "should ~y State" de!ly or abridge. .It does not. say person or commu- nity or other orgamsm ; so that, m so far as auy mterpretation may be drawn from 

the law of 1872 the only constraint on suffrage must be from the State and by legal enactment. No practical application has been made of the constitutional clause or the law. It has been hitherto a. dead letter. Nor is it possible now, with ~y 

known data ascertainable with reasonable accuracy, to apply either the Constitu· 

tion or the law to the apportionment. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. CLYMER in the chair.) The gentleman's time has expired. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I ask, by unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that 

my colleaane's time be extended for ten minnte2. 

Mr. ROBESON. I hope no limit will be placed upon the gentleman's time, but that he will be permitted to go on until he has con- cluded his speech. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I ask that. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The Chair hears no objection, and it is 

ordered accordingly. Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honse for its courtesy 

in extending me this privilege. 

Now, let me say, sir, that the answer to the question asked by the 

chairman of the Committee on Census has been given by the Supreme 

Court of the United States at the October term in 1879, in the matter of the Commonwealth of Virginia and J. D. Coles, petitioner. 

That was a writ of habeas corpus, coming up from the State of Virginia, in reaard to a county judge in one of the counties of that 

State, who .:as charged with having refused to selec~ ju~ors under 

the provisions of the recent amendments to the Constitution of the 

United States. 

The Supreme Court in rendering judgment-Justice Strong deliv- erin~ the opinion-holds in regard to that the following, to which I 

particularly ask the attention of the Honse. In speaking of these 

recent constitutional amendments, and the legislation necessary to 

carry them into operation, the court observes'' all of the amendments 

derive much of their force from this latter provision." That is, the 

provision existing in Congress to pass appropriate legislatioJl to en- force them: 

It is not said the judicial power of the ~neral Government shall extend to en- forcing the prohibitions and to protecting the rights and immunities guaranteed. It is not said that branch of the Government shall be authorized to declare void 

any action of a State in violation of the prohibitions. It is the power of Congress which has been enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions by appropriate legislation. Some legislation is cont.emplated to make the amend· ments·folly effective. Whatever legis~ti~n is appropriate, that is, adapted to cal'!Y out the objects the amendments have m VIew-whatever tends to enforce subiDlS· 

sion to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights, and the equal protection of the laws a~ainst 

State denial or invasion if not prohibited-is brought within the domain or con- gressional power. Nor does it make any difference that such.legislation is restrictive of what the State might have done before the constitl;Itional amendment was adopted . . 

And let me say here, all these constitutional qualifications or limitations which exist in these ten States I have named, I believe without exception, unless in the case of one or two of them, were passed 

before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution: 

The prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment are directed to the States, and 

they are to a degree restrictions of State power. It is these which Congress is 

.empowered to enforce, and to enforce against State action, however put forth, 

whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial. Such enforcement is no invasion of State sovereignty. No law can be which the people of the States have, 

by the Constitution of the United States, empowered Congress to enact. This .extent of the powers of the General Government is overlooked when it is said, as it has been in this ca.se, that the act of March I, 1875, interferes with State rights. It is said the selection of jurors for her courts and the administration of her laws 

belong to each State ; that they are her rights. This is true in the j!;eneral ; but in 

exercising her rights a State cannot disregard the limitations which the Federal 

Constitution has applied to her power. Her rights do not reach to that extent. Nor can she deny to the General Government the right to exercise all its granted 

powers, though they may interfere with the full enjoyment of ri"'hts she would 

have if those powers had not been thus granted. Indeed, every ad'aition of power to the General Government involves a corresponding diminution of the govern· mental powers of the States. It is carved out of them. 

We have said the prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment are addressed to the 

States. They are "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; * * * nor deny to any 

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." · 

And now the court, in passing upon the exact phraseology used in 

section 2 of the fourteenth amendment, say : A. State acts by its le~lative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. Tne constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no a~ency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, 

snail deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

Whoever by virtue of public J?Osition under a State government deprives another 

()f property, life, or liberty, w1thout due process of law, or denies or takes away 

the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition, and as he acts in the name ·and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State. This must be so or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning. Then the State has clothed one of its agents with power to annul or to 

-evade it. 

Ent the constitutional amendment was ordained for a purpose. It was to se- cure e9.ual rights to all persons; and to insure to all persons the enjoyments of 

such r1ghts power was given to Congress to enforce ita provisions by appropriate legislation. Such legislation must act upon persons, not upon the abstract ihing denominated a State, but upon the persons who are the agents of the State in th.e denial of the rights whioh were intended to be secured. 

In 1876, in the fierce struggle ·for political power in this country, it .. 

XI-75 

.. t- •'" \'' •r•• . 

was supposed that every State in the Union.had j)olled its full vote 

for President in that year. New York, my own State, cast upward of a million in that election, the largest vote ever cast up to the election of 1880. Four years pass away. We have another presidential 

election in 1880, and it is fair to assume that the lapse of four years 

would have brought increased numbers of voters in all of the States 

of the Union, but it will be found that in certain States the vote cast 

in 1880 for presidential electors is considerably less than that cast in 

1876. I have stated as a reason for my opposition to the passage of 

any apportionment bill by this Congress that every one of these bills 

for the apportionment of Representatives is based upon numbers 

without taking into the count voters. Under the Constitution as amended, I regard voters as well a.s numbers a basis for an apportionment bill, where citizens are denied the right to vote by State action. 

I am not speaking in a partisan sense ; bat it is alleged and believed 

that in some parts of the Union, in some of the States in this Union or in some sections of the country, there exists and has existed fraud, 

intimidation, and violence, by which means a large number of voters 

have been denied the right of voting in elections in the past. I do 

not assert, sir, whether that is so or not. The allegation has been 

made, and it is believed i,n a portion of this Union that this condition 

of affairs absolutely exists. 

Now, every one of the twenty-two States of the North increased its 

vote in 1880 over that cast in 1876; but when we come to certain 

States of this Union, the sixteen Southern States, we find that some of them have fallen off largely in the number of voters in the election 

of 1880 as compared with what they cast in 1876. South Carolina did 

not poll within 12,246 votes as many in 1880 as she did in 1876; Alabama did not poll within 18,725 as many as she did in 1876; Virginia 

did not poll within 22,483 votes in 1880 as she did in the preceding 

election in 1876; Georgia did not poll within 24,879 votes in 1880 as she did in 1876; Louisiana did not poll within 48,442 votes in 1880 as she did in 1876; Mississippi did not poll within 48,377 votes as many 

in 1880 as she did in 1876. For myself, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of 

having one of the committees of this Congress, or a select committee, 

if you please, raised for that purpose, which shall investigate the 

whole question of disqualification, either educational or property, in 

all these States of the Union where constitutional prohibitions against 

the right of suffrage are alleged to exist; and I would have this com- mittee look into this whole question and report to Congress what qualifications or disqualifications exist in all sections of the country to 

deprive citizens of the right to vote; and then when we have a full 

report of the disqualifications, either educational or property, or whether by violence and oppression men are denied the right of suffrage, and all of the facts before us, it will then be within the .power 

of Congress to go to work and consider an apportionment bill which can be based upon justice, equity, and the Constitution, based upon 

the voters of this country as well as upon the numbers. 

The gentleman from New York, [Mr. Cox,] in his exceedingly able 

speech, asks the question, suggested by way of illustration, that if 

the State of Pennsylvania should choose to impose a property q aali-

:fi.cation it might disfranchise all of Pennsylvania, and there would 

be no voter in Pennsylvania whatever. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that 

should become a fact, Pennsylvania would be to blame and not the 

Constitution or the General Government. Let Pennsylvania remove her property disqualifications and put herself upon the same basis 

that twenty-eight other States stand upon, and then that objection 

will be obviated as to Pennsylvania. Only four weeks of this session of Congress are left. Certainly 

within that time the qualifications or disqualifications existing in ten 

States of this Union, or the fraud, violence, and intimidation alleged 

to exist in other States, cannot be properly investigated and considered, nor can we have all the facts in such proper shape before the 

House as to permit an apportionment bill based upon voters as well as upon numbers. One other reason why I am opposed to al].y of 

these bills, or rather to the majority bill reported by the committee, 

is because it does not provide that the district system shall be mai.J;ttained. And let me pause here and ask the gentleman whether m the amendment which he has indicated his intention to offer (to 

make the number of Representatives three hundred and seven) he 

intends to incorporate in that the district system f 

Mr. COX. I will answer the gentleman. 1.\fy amendment is to the 

original bill which I introduced, for three hundred and one members. 

That has now those two sections. I propose to retaiu those two sec- tions, and so to amend the original bill as to leave them in, only amending the :first seetion, as yon will perceive. 

Mr. CROWLEY. 1\fr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman so says, because I can most heartily and cordially sustain that proposition for the establishment of a district system. In 1842, as the gentleman who preceded me said, this question of the district system was discussed with much deliberation and in exten.so in both branches 

of Con!!Tess. This dogma of State rights which has come before Congre~s every once in a while for now nearly one hundred y~ars was brought up in that discussion, and it was settled .bY ~he we1~ht 

of discussion, under section 4, article 1 of the ConstitutiOn, whwh 

says: 

The times places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Represent· atives shall be prescribed in each Sta.te by the Legislature thereof ; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the 

places ot choosing Senators. 

I' 

' 
1186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE; FEBRUARY 3, 

It was settled, I say, by the weight of deliberation, or rather by 

the weight of argument, and incorporated in section 2 of the a-ct of 

1842, that Congress had the power of prescribing to the States the manner in which Representatives should be chosen in the different 

t;tates of the Union. Prior to that time the States regulated that 

matter for themselves. Some of them elected by districts; some of 

them, I think, although I am not certain of that now, elected by 

Legislatures ; certainly some of them elected by a general ticket. 

Why the wisdom of adopting the district system Y The report of the 

majority, of this committee leaves this whole question a blank. You 

elect your Representatives by a general ticket, and then you have a State representation instead of a district representation. More than 

that, you leave it to the States to say of what territory each district 

shall be composed. And they may make one district for political 

purposes consist of 200,000 people, if you please; or, if the ratio is not so high as that, they may make it consist of what the ratio may be, 

while they make another district consist of 50,000 people, and an- other of 100,000, and thus work inequalities and injustices in the 

election of Representatives throughout the country. 

More than that, if you say you will not have this ·district system 

and that the district shall not be composed of contiguous territory, 

you put it in the power of the respective State Legislatures to say 

that they will take one county in one end of a State and attach it to 

another county at another end of a State, and thus overwhelm or drown out the political sentiment of a locality. By way of illustration, they may take a ward which gives 10,000 democratic majority 

in the city of New York and attach it to the district of my colleague 

in Syracuse, which gives about three thousand or four thousand re- publican majority, and drown ou~ the republican majority in the district and thwart the wishes of the majority of the people in that 

locality. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have as much faith in the wisdom of State Legislatures and in the wisdom of the people of localities as any gentle- man. But in reading our political history, let me say that when men are en~aged in a fierce strife for political power they do those things 

which are unjust and which they would not do in their calmer mo- ments. 

Let me read to you briefly what so great a man, so patriotic a man, 

indeed one of the greatest men, if not the greatest man this country ever produced-Alexander Hamilton-proposed to do at a time when 

it was necessary, in his j ndgment, to thwart the majority of the Ameri- can people in the election of Mr. Jefferson as President. Hammond 

in his history on political parties in the State of New York says, speaking of the election of Mr. Jefferson: 

Immediately after the result of the State election was known, and on the 7th 

day of May, Gen6ral Hamilton, with the approbatien, as is said, of a caucus of his 

political friends inN ew York, addressed a. letter to Governor Jay, requesting and 

urging him forthwith to call the then existing Legislature together, with a. view 

that before the legislative year expired (and it will be remembered that under the 

old constitution it expired on the 1st of July) they should pass an act dividing the 

States into districts for the choice of presidential electors by the people. It was supposed, and the event proved the supposition well founded, that Mr. Jefferson 

coi:J.ld not get, including the twelve New York votes, more than seventy.three votes, 

and seventy votes were necessary to a choice. If, therefore, four Federal votes could be obtained in this State (and that there could, if the State was divided into 

districts, did not admit of any doubt) the election of Jefferson would be defeated. 

Mr. Hamilton, in his letter, uses this extraordinary langua,.e, " You, sir, know in a great degree the anti-Federal party; but I fear you do not k::Iow them as well a.s I 

do. It is a composition, indeed, of very incongruous materials, but all tending to 

mischief-some of them to the overthrow of the Government by stripping it of its 

due energies," [Jeffersonians,} "others of them" [Burr} "a. revolution after the manner of Bonaparte. I apeak from indubitable facts, not from conjecture and inference." How General Hamilton could feel authorized to make these bold, and as all will now admit, unwarrantable assertions, to such a man as Governor Jay, it 

is difficult to conceive. He concluded by urging the Governor to make the call as the only rP.m.aining means of saving the nation. 

If so great and patriotic a man as Alexander Hamilton, to thwart 

the wishes of the people and gain political power, could urge a meas- ure of this kind, say not to me that in the struggles through which we have passed, in the struggles which probably await us, Legislatures 

will not gerrymander their States for the purpose of securing political 

power-and I am not saying whether that will be done by republicans or democrats or any political party which may come after them. 

I am simply saying that in the light o.f the political history of this 

country, in the light of the history of the respective States, it is wise 

and cQnstitutional for this Congress to say that ·we shall elect the 

Representatives to this body by districts composed of contiguous territory and as equal as may be in population; while on the other hand 

if we throw open the doors to all these possible evils which may re- sult from any other system it will not be good statesmanship nor wise legislation. 

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for listening to me much longer 

than I had intended to trespass upon its time. I am nearly through. 

Let me say that large deliberative assemblies, large legislative 

bodies, have not tended to the dispatch of business in any country 

in the world, have not tended to political wisdom. Nothing of that 

kind marks this Hungarian legislature of which I have spoken. Nothing of the kind marks, to the degree which it ought, the deliberations of the great Parliament of Great Britain. The French Corps 

Legislatif has become so turbulent as almost to cease, as I said before, 

to be a deliberative legislative body. Our American Congress as it stands to-day, even with the disqual- ifications existing in the several States and with the fraud and intimidation ·which it is charged exists in some of the States of this 

Union, is the most truly representative legislative body, in my judgment, in the world. Let us have all the facts of disqualifications in 

all the States i let us have, as far as we can ascertain it, a knowled~e 

of the intimiaation and fraud which are alleged to be committed m auy portion of this country properly placed before this body, and 

then in the passage of an apportionment bill we can make it so wise, so just, so strong, that we can make this Chamber of Representatives, 

this American Congress, what it ought to be, and what I believe it is 

destined to be, the freest and grandest parliamentary body in the 

world. [Great applause.] 

:Mr. RAY. If I understood correctly, the gentleman from New 

York [Mr. CROWLEY] included the State of New Hampshire among 

those which imposed property qualifications. That is a. mistake. 

New Hampshire has had no property qualification touching the right 

of suffrage since 1852. 

:Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, being a member of 

the committee to which this matter was referred, and being probably more responsible than any member of that committee for the bill 

presented by the majority, I feel that I ought to state to the House 

the reasons in support of it which induced its adoption. I have no set speech to make, none written and none printed. I only wish to 

present to the House, in support of the majority report of the com- mittee, such opinions as may occur··to me during the course of the 

remarks which I may make. 

I have listened to the gentleman on the other side of the House 

who has just closed his speech, [Mr. CROWLEY,] and to the objections 

which he has urged against our bill. It seems to me that all the 

positions which he has taken are unsound and cannot be maintained. 

The first objection, I believe, which he urges to the majority report 

made by the Select Committee on the Census, in favor of a House of 

three hundred and eleven, is that it proposes an increase of the mem- bers of this House beyond its present number. 

Now I know that each gentleman entertains his own views on the 

subject of the number of members which should constitute this House. 

I believe that in the decision of that question we should be guided 

not exclusively by our own personal interests or the interests of our State or of the section of the country in which we live. I do hope 

that the question of sectional interests will play no part in the decision of this question-one of the most important, I think, ever submitted to us for our judgment. 

I know it has been said that this is a question of mathematical calculation. But it involves likewise a redistribution of the political 

power of this country, a redistribution back to the States of the power 

given to them by the Constitution affecting their right to participate in 

the government of this country. I believe that we ha.ve more to fear 

from a reduction of this House than from its extension, and if I had 

to vote for either the one or the other I should prefer that the increa.se 

of this House should go to five hundred members than that it should 

be reduced a single one. I believe, and I hope that the House will concur with me in those 

views, that at each decade, as we go forward increasing in population, the House of Representatives ought to respond in some m:easure by its increa.se in numbers to that increase in numbers in the several 

States. We have since the last census increased in population in 

this country over eleven millions. Are we not to increase the members 

of this House to correspond to that Y Will we make a Procrustean 

bed upon which we are to lay this House, to "cabin, crib, and con- fine" it-to say, "beyond this you shall not go f" Are we to lay 

down any particular number, and say that inside of that number it can progress, but beyond that limit it shall never pass Y Can this 

House respond to the demands ma-de by the country upon it if it is to 

be made an exclusive body of that kind 7 Should it not be an epit- ome of the people 1 Is it not to respond at every election to the 

changes in public sentiment upon every question brought before the 

people 7 

Take the next Honse. Gentlemen claim, some of them, that we are to have a minorityrepresentation in that House. A bill has been 

presented to the House. for that purpose. I believe that whole idea 

is perfectly Utopian, one not required, one for which there is none- cessity at this time. I do not believe this House will adopt any such 

plan. I do not know that the plan will be forced upon the 'House 

for its consiueration. I do not know that the gentleman who presented it will ever press it further upon the consideration of the 

House. I do not believe the House is prepared to accept it, or that 

there is a necessity now which demands it. 

Is not this House now, and will not the next House be, a fair representation of public sentiment Y If you will take the political com- plexion of the next House you will find that according to the best 

calculations made it will have a republican majority of one over all 

other political parties, counting the House upon a strict party vote. 

On the popular vote Garfield did ·not receive quite a majority, but 

local influences and personal popularity will easily account for the 

majority of one in the House. The political divisions into Stat~s, 

conn ties, and districts for local purposes insures the minority fair rep- resentation. The history of the country shows this conclusively. 

Now, why should we abandon the district system which has been in 

operation for the la.at forty years f 'Why should we change that system and adopt the plan of minority representation, which has been 

suggested by some, when the relative strength of all political parties is 

fairly represented in the complexion of the Honse year after year with 

unvarying certainty 7 

But, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who last addressed ns seemed 
1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1187 

uneasy for fear something might be done to break down the district · system. He wanted to know why the majority of this select committee struck from the bill presented by its chairman those two clauses. 

I will tell him. It was to escape the argument and discussion which 

may follow if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER) undertakes to attach to this bill the measure which he has presented to us for minority representation. We saw no reason-and this is the ex- planation of our action-we saw no reason why the long and tedious 

discussion which that bill would involve should be injected here in 

the closing hours of this Congress. We did not understand it to be 

necessary that that question should be now determined. We did not 

understand that question to be germane to the apportionment bill, 

which is a mere distribution of the members among the States according to the rule prescribed by the Constitution. 

Nor do we find any necessity that the law on that subject should 

be now re-enacted. Do not gentlemen well know that there is an independent act on this subject, passed July 14, 1862, which now stands on the statute-book unrepealed Y Why should we pile statute 

upon statute to secure the same thing 1 This provision having been 

passed in 1842, repassed .in 1852, and, though unrepealed, repassed 

again in 1862 by an independent statute, why should we re-enact 

such a provision in this apportionment bill t Is that necessary to 

make the bill more effective f I will send to the Clerk's desk and 

have read the statute of 1862 to which I have referred. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

An actin relation to the election of Representatives to Congress by single districts. 

Be it enaeted by the Srnate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

America in Oongress assembled, That in each State entitled in the next and an~ suc- ceeding Congress to more than oneRepreseutativet.thennmbertowhichsuoh State 

is or may be hereafter entitled shall be elected by o.istricts composed \>f contiguous territory, eq_ualinnumbertothennmber ofR.epresentativestowhichsaidStatemay be entitled m the Congress for which said election is held, no one district electing more than one R-epresentative: Pro'IJided, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to the State of California, so far as it may affect the election of Representa- tives to the Thirty-eighth Congress: And providedfuirther, That in the election of 

Representatives to the Thirty-eighth Congress from the State of illinois, the additional Representative allowea to said State by an act entitled "An act fixing the 

number of the House of Representatives from and after the 3d day of March, 

1863," approved March 4, 186:.!, may be elected by the State at large, and the other 

thirteen Representatives, to which the State is entitled b:y the districts as now pre- scribed by law in said State, unless the Legislature of sa.Id State should otherwise 

pro-ride before the time fixed by law for the election of Representatives therein. 

Approved, July 14, 1862. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. Now, Mr. Speaker, with that act 

standing upon the statute-book unrepealed, also of 1842 and 1852, I see no necessity for pressing the matter further upon the Honse. 

Mr. SHERWIN. Will the gentleman allow me a question f 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. Yes, sir. 

:Mr. SHERWIN. When was that statute enacted f 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. July 14,1862. 

Mr. SHERWIN. Is it embraced in the Revised Statutes 7 

lir. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. No, sir. 

Mr. SHERWIN. How, then, can it be in force now 7 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. Because the Revised Statutes do 

not repeal ·any independent laws which they do not touch. If the 

gentleman will turn to the enacting clause of the Revised Statues he 

will, find that by the terms of that revision this law is left in force. ~Ir .. SHERWIN. In the act of 1872 fixing the apportionment the . :provision that the districts shall be oomposed of contiguous territory 

is confined to that apportionment alone. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. This is the act of 1862, not the act 

of 1872. It is an independent law and not embraced in or repealed 

by the Revised Statutes. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I do not see why we should go into this matter 

at all. It is a dangerous subject, to say the least of it, when we see what progress has been made in this direction by the legislation of 

Congress during the last forty years. The year 1842 was the first 

time that Congress ever undertook to interfere with the regulations 

of the States on this subject. Then it was that the moiety system was first adopted, giving to each State on even divisions so many 

Representatives, and to each State having a fraction greater than 

one-half an additional member. At that time another change was introduced. Theretofore, whenever it was necessary to apportion representation, the ratio was first found, the populations of the States 

divided by that ratio, and whatever number of members they might 

obtain by that division was given to them. Then for the first time a limit was fixed upon the membership of this House, the number 

being fixed at two hundred and forty-one, and the ratio being adopted 

to produce that result. Theretofore a ratio was determined and the 

number of members was left to be what it might under the ratio determined. A new system was devised, carrying with it the moiety 

system, or some system allowing fractional representation. Then for 

the first time what is now known as the district system was adopted. 

How have we progressed in our legislation on this subject I We have 

gone on until Congress has assumed almost entire control of the election of members in the States. In 1870, 1871, and 1872, when therepublican party was in power in beth branches of Congress, they 

seized upon this whole subject; they forced upon the States the ballot 

system, which many of them do not like, and which produces more fraud in one day than the viva voce system will in a hundred years, as those of us who have lived tinder both systems well know. We 

hear more of fraud, corruption, ballot-box stuffing, and intimidation 

in a single contested-election case in this House than the whole State 

of Kentucky furnishes in all our elections for State officers during 

twenty-five years. 

Is it wise for this Honse to interfere f What is the object f Congress has thus interfered to direct the States as to the time when 

they shall elect their Representatives, fixing a uniform day, thereby 

throwing the power and control of the Federal Government, with its 

innumerable supervisors and deputy marshals, into the State elec;:tions 

which occur on the same day. Then came :the legislation providing 

for supervisors and deputy marshals, of whom we have heard so much. 

Complete machinery has been provided by the central Government 

here to dominate the States in theil elections. I am opposed to this 

interference on the part of the Government with the States, even' for 

the purpose of dictating to them that they shall elect by districts. 

It is inconsistent with the theory upon which our Government is 

based. If you will go back and look at the history of that provision 

in the Constitution under which this action is had, you will find that 

nine out of the thirteen original States which adopted that Constitution adopted it with the distinct understanding that Ct:mgress never would exercise that latent power except for the purpose of self-preservation, as in cases where a. State refuses to elect Representatives, or from some other cause could not. 

Under what section of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, does Congress 

claim power to pass these clauses regulating the elections of Representatives by the States f There is but one; in these words: 

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representa- tives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress 

may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except aa to the plaees of 

choosing Senators. 

And no provision of that instrument aroused so much opposition 

to its adoption by the States as this. Nearly all the conventions 

placed upon record their solemn protest against its use being ever resorted to, except as a matter of self-preservation. Opposition was not confined to sections. In fact, State rights bad its birth and. earliest 

propagandist and defender among the New England States and around 

Plymouth Rock. Massachusetts, in her convention, said: 

The convention do, therefore, recommend that the following alterations and pro- visions be introduced into the said Constitution: 

"SEC. 3. Thati Congress do not exercise the powers vested in them by the fourth 

section of the first article, but in cases when a State shall neglect or refuse to make the regulations therein mentioned, or shall make regulations subversive of 

the rights o:I the people to a free and equal representation in Congress, agreeably to the Constitution." 

Thus it will be seen the olil State of Massachusetts, always zea!ous 

of her rights as a State, left a record to future Congresses, in the following language : . 

And the convention do, in the name and in behalf of the people of this-Commonwealth, enjoin it upon their Representatives in Congress, at all times, until-the 

aLterations and provisions aforesaid shall have been considered, agreeably to the fifth article of the said Constitution, to exert all their infl.uence, and use all reason- able and legal methods, to attain a ratification of the said alterations and provisions, in such manner as is provided in the said article. 

I will take South Carolina next-and part of the record of he:a.convention, which adopted the Constitution for her people: 

And whereas it is essential to the preservation of the rights reserved-to the sev- eral States, and the freedom of the people, under the operations of a general government, that-the right of prescribing the manner, time, and places of holding the 

elections to the Federal Legislature, should be forever inseparably annexed to the soverei~ty of the several States, this convention doth declare that the same ought to remam, to all posterity, a perpetual and fundamental ri,\!ht in the loca,\ exclusive of the interference o:f the General Government, except in cases where the Leg- islatures of the States shall refuse or neglect to perform and fulfill the same, according to the tenor of the said Constitution. 

It is grandly sublime to study the history of those times and.mEtn 

after a new nation had been born, to note the unanimity of sentiment 

of their jealous vigilance for the rights of the States and the peo~le. 

The instruction of the convention to its Representatives in Congress 

is of no doubtful meaning, namely : 

Resolved, That it is a standing instruction to all such delegates aa may hereafter 

be elected to represent this State in the General Government to exert their utmast abilities and influence to effect an alteration of the Constitution conformably to the 

aforegoing resolutions. 

The State of New Hampshire follows next, whose conventions took 

under consideration this particular section of the Constitution, and 

upon her record are found the following emphatic entries : 

The convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations and pro- visions be introduced into the said Constitution : 3. That Congress do not exercise 

the powers vested in them by the fourth section of the first article but in case when a State shall neglect or refuse to make the regulations therein mentioned, or shall 

make regulations subversive of the rights of the people to a free and equal repre- sentation in Congress ; nor shall Congress in any case make regu.la,tions contrary to a free and equal representation. 

And the convention do, in_the name and in behalf of the peoP.le of this State, en- join it upon their Representatives in Con~ess at all times until the alterations', and 

provisions aforesaid have been considered a~eeably to the fifth article of the said 

Constitution, to exert all their infl.uence ana use all reasonable and legal methods to obtain a ratification of the said alterations and provisions in tiuch manner as is 

provided in the said article. 

The wise statesmanship of Virginia, whose vigilance and prudence 

had a controlling influence from the Declaration of Independence in 

1776 to the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 has left upon its rec- ord a declaration on this amendment strong, emphatic, and to the 

point, in the following words, namely : 

XVJ:. The Congress shall not alter, modify or interfere in the times, places, or manner of holdin~r elections for Senators and Representatives, or either of them, 

except when the Legislature of any State shall neglect, refuse, or be disabled by invasion or rebellion to prescribe the same. 
1188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

They placed upon the same record a. perpetual instruction to their 

future Representatives in Congress of the United States, namely: 

.And the convention do, in the name and behalf of the people of this Commonwealth enjoin it upon their Representatives in Congress to exert all their influ- ence ~d use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a ratification of the foregoing alterations and pr6lvisions, in the manner provided by the fifth article of the 

said Constitution· and in all congressional laws to be passed in the mean time, to conform to the spirit of these amendments, as far as the said Constitution will 

admit. 

'The next in order is now one of the most powerful and influential 

States in the Union; and I ask to be pardoned for quoting from a. distinguished Senat-or from the State of Louisiana, :Mr. White, who I 

believe was a. native of New York, when he said he" referred with 

pride and pleasure to the proceedings of her convention upon this 

impm:::tant point : " 

New York was not then a large State in the comparison; and yet the cautions 

jealousy of her statesmen against this wanton exercise of Federal power over her 

local elections was not the less, because she had at that day the less to fear and to lose from the assumption. Her record is more full as to this grant of power than 

tha-t of any other S~te, as ~er convention seem design to set up every gnru_:d against an abuse of 1ts exerclSe. They therefore, rn express terms, :first put therr 

construction upon the clause of the Constitution as they found it, in the following language, to Wlt: "That nothing contained in the said Constitution is to be con- strued to prevent the Le~slature of any State from passing laws at its discretion, 

from time to time, to divide such State into convenient districts, and to apportion 

ita Representatives to and among such districts. 

After this emphatic decla~a.tion of the rights of the States, the con- vention of New York proceeded to make their ratification of the Constituti~n in this language: 

Under these impressions, and declaring that the ri$hts aforesaid are consistent 

with the said Constitution, and in confiaence that tne amendments which shall 

have been proposed to said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, we, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the 

State of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence, nevertheless, that, until a convention shall be called and 

convened for proposing amendments to the said Constitution "' * * that the 

Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this State respecting the times, 

places, and manner of holding elections for Senators or Representatives, unless the 

Legislature of this State shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for 

the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and that 

in those cases such power will only be exercised until the Legislature of this State 

shall make provisions in the premises. 

'Phe convention of New York went even further than this. They 

looked forward with prophetic vision at the encroachments of the 

Federal power, and to warn them of the danger of centralization 

they proceeded to instruct their future Representatives against· that 

encroachment, to wit: 

.Azld the convention do, in the name and behalf of the people of the State of New 

York, enjoin it upon their Representatives in the Congress to exert all their inftuenceand use all reasonable means to obtain a ratification of the following amend- menta to the said Constitution ·in the manner prescribed therein, and in all laws to be passed by Congress, in the mean time, to conform to the spirit of the said amendmenta_, as far as the Constitution will admit. 

The amendment proposed by the convention follows, and is in this l~guage, namely: 

fil.'hat the Congress shall not make or alter any regulation in any State, respect- in~ the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators or Represent- ati"Tes, unless the Legislature of such State shall neglect or refuse to make laws -or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making t.he same ; and then only until the Legislature of such State shall make provisions in the premises : Pmvided, That Congress may prescribe the time for the election 

()f Representatives. 

'On that account, Mr. Speaker, because there is no necessity tbat 

this .Jaw shall be re-enacted by this Congress because it endangers 

this apportionment bill and may prolong indefinitely this debate, be- ·oaUBe, to say the least of it, it is of doubt:{ul constitutionality, because 

it is almost in the nature of things where any State dare.s to violate 

it, which she may do, we can do no more than exclude her Representatives from tile halls of the House, I hope it will not be insist-ed 

upon. I ask these gentlemen who now contend so stubbornly for it, 

suppose a State, according to the rule as you understand it, does not 

make her territory contiguous; or suppose every district of that State 

is based on contiguous territory save one, are you going to exclude 

all the members of such a. State because she has not complied in one iru!tance with what you understand ,to be the requirement of this 

law f This power was given to you to bring members into Congress, 

not to drive them out. Will you turn around and use it for that 

purpose 7 Will you say to New York, with thirty-three members here 

upon this floor, if your Legislature does not square itself according 

to the rule which we prescribe we will exclude your thirty-three 

members, although you have five million people, and they will go 

unrepresented upon this floor f How do you propose to do it f Is it 

not a bt-utum fulmen which you issue against the State, directing them 

to do this thing without the power on your part except by the exclusion of its representation to compel it to do 1t Y 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have but little more, if anything, to say on that 

subject. I do not wish to invoke sectional issues here, nor do I wish 

to get up a partisan strife on this subject; but I do say, as the law 

stands on the statute-book it gives to gentlemen on the other side all 

they ask, and it is unnecessary to ask us on this side to re-enact it, or meddle with elections in the States against the protest of our forefathers, made, as it has been, so often and so emphatically. The other objection alleged by the gentleman from New York 

against the bill of the majority was, if I recollect aright, the increase 

of the number ef the House. That is a question, of course, which 

each member must consider for himself, and we have all equal lights 

before us and can form each our own opinion as to whether the conntry can be better served by a. smaller or larger House. I listened te 

what he had to say on that subject, and when he cited his own great 

State with a. small Legislature, as he said, probably one that dates 

back for sixty years and not increased through that whole time, as a fair sample of what a. State can be and what it can do with a. small 

Legislature, I thought it was a. little unfortunate, because out in our part of the world at least New York is not considered the freest 

State from fraud, nor her Legislature the most incorruptible in the 

Union. We have never heard any charge against New Hampshire, 

which I believe has a Legislature like a. great big town-meeting, like 

that which is made against the Legislature of New York, of having 

big railroad bills and measures for railroad interests lobbied through 

it, and that men were elected to it who were controlled and. held in 

hand and sent there, as it is understood, to be in a large measure the 

attorneys and promoters of railroad corporations and banking interests. I do not know it would be better for his State to have an increased representation in her Legislature, but I am satisfied it would 

do her no harm. 

As far as we of the committee are concerned, and at least as far as I personally am concerned in reference to the number of Representatives, I do not ask nor demand the House to be increased to any ex- traordinary number. It certainly seems to me when we increase the 

number eighteen, as the majority bill in this House proposes to do on an increased population of 11,000,000, it is asking no big increase, 

because it fixes tbe representation at over five hundred and fifty 

thousand population for each of the new members who can enter this 

House on account of the increase. Is that increase an expansion too 

far T Do we not derive some practical benefit from it ' Have we not 

the history of the world before us, which shows a large repre entative body is a safer and greater protector to the liberties of the people than a smaller one T The gentleman would like to reduce this 

House within the narrow limits of the Senate. Are we to have no popular branch of this Government; and are the people t(} have no voice in it Y Are we to hold it up as a model republic, and at the same time stifle the direct voice of the people f Where else is their 

power directly felt in our system of government save in this House 

aloneY 

You may take your President, your Supreme Court, and you may 

take the Senate, and the power of the people is not felt directly there. 

They are elected in the first place for a long period of time. The 

Senator is elected for six years, the President for four. The people do 

not elect either. They do not rest upon them. The President is elected 

through the intricate machinery of the electoral college or directly by 

the vote of the States, where the electors have failed to choose. His 

election rests upon the States, and only indirectly upon the people. 

Four years of time must pass before he can respond again to a. change in sentiment. · Take the Senate. They are not the people's representatives. They are the representatives of the States, elected by their State Legislatures, and for a. period of six years. They do not respond to the change 

in public sentiment, as we well know. Public sentiment may change 

time and again upon great measures of national importance during 

the course of his senatorial career, and there is no power in the people to change the man upon the floor of the Senate to correspond to 

this change in public sentiment. 

Take, again, the Supreme Court, the co-ordinate branch of the Government. How is it selected T They are appointed by the Executive 

and confirmed by the Senate-all removed far away from the people. 

They have no part with the people, nor have they any interest with 

them in the question of representation. The people have nothing to 

do with it, have no power over them. They are placed in that position by the powers not ilirectly responsible or representing the people, and remain there until they are retired or removed by impeachment or resignation or death. They are absolutely independent of 

any change of public sentiment or of requirements of the people. 

They are masters of the situation. As far as it has been possible we have retained the system of democratic government, but it will be 

found that it exists only in the House of Representatives. All these 

other branches, a-s I have shown, are npou an entirely different basis; 

a.p.d are we now to strike down the only popular l1ranch of representation f Are we,.as some gentleman s~ggests, to narrow it down to 

the narrow limit of two hundred and fifty, or even less, as some rec- ommend f Do not we stand up as the only power that is able to 

withstand the increasing power and prerogatives of the executive 

and judicial branches of the Government f Are we not the only 

branch able to stand against the tremendous money power, the com- bined national wealth and aggregated capital of this country, which comes here and orders that this or that measure shall pass, subordinating to their own interests the rights and interests of the great masses of the people Y Do you not know that the House stands here 

day after day as the only power and the only protection that the 

people have against the encroachments of giant corporations and the 

inordinate greed of the moneyed interestsf Will any gentleman upon 

this floor question it Y Why is it soT Because every two years every 

Representative upon this floor may be changed by the vote of the 

people. Every two years the whole personnel of this House changes, and the country has the right to send back men who will not forfeit 

their trust. When the great controversy that must sooner or later, 

a.y, has already, come between the capitalists and the people, they 

have a. right to see to it that their rights shall be guarded and main-
1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1189 

I 

tained by men who, directly responsible to them, live among them in and act with exactness f Are we to proceed to do thatf I refer to a. small districts, giving opportunity for a scrutiny into their public and report of the committee made on the ninth census, in 1869-'70, by the 

private life. President-elect, Mr. Garfield, then a Representative from Ohio, preIt seems that public policy demands that there shall be a large sented the matter to the Honse. Nothing was done except to pass 

number of Representativea unapproachable and incorruptible who section 6 of the act of 1872. What are the provisions in the constitncannot be moved by corporate greed to impose unfair and unjust bur- tiona and the statutes of the different States f I only call attention 

dens upon the people. to them for a moment to show the utter impossibility of ever underWe have seen, Mr. Speaker, time antl again in the history of the taking by investigation, by the census or in any other way, to ascer- world instances wherein men have undertaken to overthrow the will tain the exact number of people who under this provision are ex- of the people, and every time they have undertaken to do it it has eluded from the right to vote who have that right according to the 

been through the means of small legislative bodies. Look at the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I 

history of the French Empire. It was the House of Ancients that will take the State of Pennsylvania, to which the gentleman refeued. was subject to the will of Bonaparte, and not the Honse of Deputies. What is the provision of the law of Pennsylvania T It is that those 

The House of Deputies with its five hundred members stood out over twenty-two years of age who have paid the poll-tax assessed on -against his will until his armed grenadiers with their bayonets en- them ten days before the election shall be entitled to vote. I quote · tered the chamber and thrust them out bodily through the windows from memory. 

and doors. They were willing to withstand his great power and his Now, I ask yon if all the congressional committees that were ever a pdemands; but it was the Ancients that yielded, and Bonaparte recol- pointe<l could go into the State of Pennsylvania and ascertain, from 

lected that when he established his consular government by cutting one end of it to the other, how many individuals come within the 

down the number of the chamber until he made them subordinate reach of that clause t Do they not change as often as an election 

to his will and deprived them of the essential power that they had comes round t Are they not so many this year and so many next 

possessed. He made them small and hewed them down to his own year¥ If a man who did not pay last year pays his tax this year, he 

purposes. The history of England shows that a large Parliament is not excluded. Next year he may be. It is as changeable as the sand 

withstood the power, nay, demanded and obtained the execution on the sea.-shore. 

of Charles I, but the Rump Parliament, of one hundred members, How are yon to ascertain these matters i And is a gentleman war- yielded to Cromwell: who demanded it of them. Are we now, Mr. ranted in asserting that he is not to vote for an apportionment bill 

Speaker, the Honse being the only representative body, directly until this thing becomes an absolute. fixed fact and certainty¥ Are 

responsible to the people, to yield to an attempt which is to be made we to stand here and deny to the great and growing West and South; 

to cut down its number and power, or shall we respond to the ex- are we going to deny to Texas and Kansas their increased representpectations of the people by increasing the number of their Repre- ation in this Honse until a congressional committee goes out over sentatives by adding the small number contemplated by the bill T Pennsylvania and finds how many people over twenty-t wo years of 

Eighteen new members to help represent them fairly and protect age have failed to pay their tax assessed ten days before election f 

their interests upon the floor of this Honse is certainly not extraor- And suppose we find out the number this year, will it not change the· dinary. next; and we will require to have a different basis for the election 

Coming as the gentleman from :Xew York does frem a State where of all the Congressmen in this House, and yet will know as little 

they feel the combined effect of vast capital and corporate greed, about it-as we do now 'I Take Massachusetts ancl her illitera~y clause, 

where financial power seeks to and does dominate the will of the peo- which, it is said, excludes many of the popula_tion from voting, which 

ple, his position is not surprising. Perhaps he would like to bring us under the fourteenth amendment ought to affect her representation in 

within that power, which sooner or later will demand control of this proportion; are we to appoint a congressional committee to open 

Government. The question then presented will be, How are we ·to schools in Massachusetts and examine voters as to whether they can meet this demand. 'I There is but one practical way: increase the rep- readY What power have we to examine a voter in this way Y May 

resentation, give the growing South and West their increased power, he not learn to read in a month, and thus remove the disqualifficat hen let united interests combine them into opposition to the demands tion 'I Yet all this and others ten thousand times more ridiculous 

of capital and corporations, which antagonize equally the agricultur- must be gone over before the tender conscience of some members will 

ists of both sections. allow them to apportion representation. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, one other objection has been urged by the gen- This matter has undergone an investigation in this Honse. When 

tleman from New York against this measure. He says he will not the republican Congress in 1872 fixed the apportionment bill they 

vote now for any apportionment bill. And why not Y He will not had this same subject before them. It has already been provided for 

vote for this apportionment bill at the present session, because he says as far as a State can provide for it. If the gentleman will turn to 

the apportionment is not based upon population, as the gentleman the act of 1872, he will find this provision: 

from New York [Mr. Cox] asserts. He says it should be based upon SEc. 6. That should any State, after the passage of this act, deny or abridge the 

suffrage, upon the number of voters, and not upon population. The rightof3.D:yofthemaleinha.bitantsofsuc~State, bein.gtwenty.oneyea.rsandciti~ens 

gentleman is not warranted by the fourteenth amendment in making of. the. Umted. States, to v~te a.t any election nan:e.d m. the. amendment~ to the Uon· 

th t ti Th f t h dm t 1 h . st1tution, article 14, section 2, except for participation m ths rebellion or other a asser on. ~ our eent . amen en eaves. t e ~pportwnment crime the number of Representatives apportioned in this a{)t to .such State shall 

based upon populatwn, except m those States which VIolate the pro- be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citize11s shall have to visions and clauses of that amendment. . the whole nwnber of male citizens twenty.one years of age in suoh State. 

He read from the decision of the Supreme Court that only where So, Mr. Speaker, congressional action is unnecessary to acc8mplish 

the States themselves, by a legislative enactment, interfere with the this purpose. We already have upon the statute-book all that this 

right of all re~ident males to vote, and pass unjust laws prohibitory House can do. We have passed an act to cut down the representathereof-only m that case could Congress interfere. But I understood tion of each State in proportion as it disfranchises citizens contrary 

from the last remarks the gentleman mn,de that, under the lead of the to the clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. Now, 

plumed knight of Maine, he "6roke away from the decision of his it is impracticable and impossible that this can be executed., There own supreme court, which he read for our enlightenment, and that he stands the law. In the face of it stands the impossibility, the utter 

wanted a congressional committee appointed to go into all of the and sheer impossibility and worse than nonsense, of any attempt to 

Southern States and find out whether by fraud, by bulldozing, or by execute it. When the fourteenth amendment was passed no man. kukluxing, anybody was deprived of the right of suffrage. dreamed of the consequences of it. When it was passed no word· Why all this cry about negroes not voting? Why all this pre- was ever said in regard to any subject save the right of the colored 

tense that. they are bulldozed Y \Vhy this efi'ort to take from the population, then being enfranchised. to vote. It was not expected 

South the mcreased power which her enfranchized slaves have given that every State of this Union would be struck by it. It was not 

her T Is this the object of your demand for investigation 7 Are you expected that every State of this Union would have a. clause in its 

disappointed in your calculations ? Did yon expect the negroes to constitution in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the C"onsti- ever and forever vote the republican ticket against their own inter- tntion. 

ests T Are yon stricken with remorse, and do you regret your hasty It was not expected that all this trouble would arise out of it. We 

a;ction 7 The ~epublican party, seeing_ the negroes vote against it, stand here to-day with that amendment before us, and with•an 

like Manfred ~n the Jnugfran, filled with remorse and regret, seem .absolute utter impossibility of ever enforcing it by any praetical 

ready to exclaun: legislation or in any practical way. So, in 1872 the whole thing was The spirits I have raised abandon me- abandoned by a republican Congress simply passin~ a law. They The spells which I ave studied baffle me- undertook to institute and carry out some things which the gentle-

;he re~edy I/eck d*of tortured n;e; man now asks for. I hold in my hand a table prepared by the C'ensns 

For I ha•e ceased Committee at that time, and which was presented to the H6ns-e for 

To justify my ~eeds nn~omyself- its action on that very subject. It was pronounced so inefficient, so The last infirmity of evil. far from being just and correct, that it was totally abandoned by 1he 

Bnt to recur. Does the .gentleman me2.n to insinuate or say that republicans themselves at that time. 

under the decision of the Supreme Court which he has read we have How many people under the fourteenth amendment were diaqnalithe right to reduce representation for any individual matters of that fied in 1870 i In all the States of the Union, adding them all toJd.:ld! And are we to wait until we send out a congressional com- gether, the total was 40,380. Where did these disfranchised people· m1ttee under the fourteenth amendment to investigate all the States live t Were they in the sixteen States to which the gentleman re- of tbe Union which have in their constitutions or statutes provisions fers f Were they located in the South f Are we to invoke the shades 

and clauses inconsistent with that fourteenth amendment f Are we of slavery now to prevent an apportionment and a fair representation t~ wait until we send out such a committee to ascertain the constitn- of the people 1 I ask what were the States in which lived the 40,380-

tions of the States and make a. report on which we can rationally act, persoDB who were prevented from voting at elections by State rega-
1190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

lations contrary to the fourteenth amendment Y Upon examination 

it will be found that a large portion of them lived in the Northern 

States. Every State of this Union had something like the same number except the State of Missouri, which reported 9,000. I suppose that was more from the fact that she made a correct and honest 

report rather than that she excluded more people from voting than 

did auv other State. . The ~gentleman talks about the State of Rhode Island. How many were excluded from voting in the little State of Rhode Island 'l 

Nearly 3,000; the exact number was 2,825. And the gentleman has read~here a long list to show that in the South -there were fewer 

votes polled in the last presidential election than were polled in 1876. 

Is that a fair showing of the voters for the two years 'l Does not the 

gentleman well know that in 1876 the democratic party at that 

time wM in power and marching forward a.s they believed to a result 

which they had long had near at heart, and expected to attain that 

result nnder the lead of the great statesman of New YorkY Every 

democrat in the Southern States rallied to the polls. I will not say 

that it was in the hope of getting au office; but still they went to 

the polls and every one of them voted, because they believed that 

Tilden would be elect-ed, (as he was.) How was it in 1880f They 

expected to be beaten, and if a few votes fell off it was no more than 

might have been looked for. In 1876 Tilden carried the State of 

Kentucky by about 70,000 majority. In 1880, under· the depressing 

influence of the Indiana election, we scarcely squeezed up to 45,000 

majority. That is the way it went. 

'i'alk about the Southern States falling off. Take the State of 

Rhode Island again; look at its vote in the last election. The two 

gentlemen who now expect to represent the State of Rhode Island 

in the Forty-seventh Co ogre s received both together only 10,315 votes, 

unless the gentleman in the Library, who furnished me information 

from the Congressional Directory, has made some mistake about it. 

How many voters in Rhode Island failed to vote f It is fair to presume 

that there are 50,000 voters in that State from her population, and 

but 10,000 votes were cast, and the balance, 40,000, failed to register 

and to vote, four-fifths remaining away. Yet gentlemen raise their 

hands in holy horror because in the State of Virginia 24,000 less 

votes were polled in 1880 than in 1876. 

Now, it is a well-known fact, if we are to consider this matter from a party stand-point, that the leaders of the republican party met and 

made a solemn resolve that they would not make any fight in the 

South, because they did not want to show a large number of votes 

there, but preferred to go to the country and say that they had been 

bulldozed from voting, as the gentleman now cries out. 

That, I think, practically disposes of all the objections which the 

gentleman from New York [Mr. CROWLEY] has raised against the 

bill reported by the majority of the Select Committee on the Census. 

A few words in support of that bill and that will conclude what 

little I have to say on the subject. I am aware that in framing any 

apportionment bill, if we group the States arbitrarily, it is impossible to ,so frame the bill that some unfairness shall not be presented 

by it. I am aware that there can be no apportionment of Representatives by which some State will not receive an advantage and gentlemen from another State not rise and say that their State has been 

unfairly treated, that its fraction is within a few thousand of the 

fraction of the other State that has been allowed a fractional Representative and they are not so allowed. 

I knew it is utterly impossible to frame any bill and present it to 

this Honse in which, if I may be allowed to arbitrarily group the 

States together, whether northern or southern, I cannot show an un- fair distribution growing out of fractions. I will take the number 

presented by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SHERWL.~] in his address to the House. He says that three hundred and nineteen is a perfectly fair number. He groups the States, I believe, into what _he 

terms the sixteen Southern States and the twenty-two Northern 

States. This is purely arbitrary. 

Now there is no reason why he should so group them; there exists no reason in this country for such grouping. The Constitution con- tains nothing about theN orth or about the South. We do not under 

the Constitution apportion Representatives to the North and to the 

South, to the East and to the West; but we apportion them to the 

States of this Union according to their population. He has no right 

to groap these sixteen States in one class, and those twenty-two in 

the other, count them up, and say "These have received more than 

their share, and the others have not received as many." Let me point 

him to a little calculation which he can make to see whether his apportionment is fair. I want him to take the States which I will name, 

group them together, divide their population by the ratio, and then 

take the other States and divide their population by the ratio; and! 

will show him that his is the most unfair presentation of the case that 

has been submitted to this House. Take the States of Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, California, illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, 

Virginia, and West Virginia, having in the aggreuate a population of 

29,653,785. Divide this population by 154,764, an:! you find that those 

States should have one hundred and nine~y-one Representatives. But 

under the gentleman's bill, ta,lring the tables furnished by the Census 

Office, those States get one hundred and ninety-six Representatives, 

five more than they are entitled to en an even division of their population; and in proportion as they gain unfairly other States must 

lose. The other States lose five, making a difference of ten in favor 

of these above named. I have aB much right to group the States in 

my way as he has to group them in his. The result depends altogether 

upon the manner in which you group them. I will take all the States 

that get fractional representation, and under any number that can be 

selected I will group them in such a way as to make a difference of 

from eight to ten in favor of those States getting the fractions and 

against the others that do not. 

The gentleman has no right to fix upon an imaginary line, call one the Southern, the other Northern States, and say that the number 

three hundred and eleven is unfair because with that number most 

of the fractional votes happen to fall on a particular side of that 

line. 

If this is a question as to political parties, ought not the States to 

be grouped so that those voting the democratic ticket, or apparently 

doing so, shall be in one class and those voting the republican ticket 

in the other f Now take the States voting the democratic ticket in 

the last election. Take the sixteen Southern States and add California, (supposed to be a democratic State,) Indiana, and Connecticut. Add together the population of these States and divide theresult by 158,745, the ratio of three hundred and eleven. Then take the 

other States, add their population together, divide the aggregate by 

158,745, the ratio of three hundred and eleven, and you have a perfectly fair and even distribution of political power as between the 

two parties. Now,if questions of the effect on political parties is to be 

considered, what better or fairer result can you expect or do you desire! 

So far as parties are concerned the fixing of three hundred and eleven as the number of districts operates evenly and fairly between the 

democratic and republican parties. Now, why not select three hundred and eleven and stand by the bill which the committee has presented 'f Why should we go back upon the action of a committee who 

have considered this question so long Y 

Take the bill of the gentleman from New York, [1\Ir. Cox,] which 

fixes the number at three hundred and one. Why should you adopt 

that number? Why arbitrarily stop there 'i Does it make a fair distribution 'l Apply even the rule of the gentleman from Illinois, granting sixteen States on one side and twenty-two States on the other, 

and you ~ill find that these twenty-two States under an even division with a fraction of thirty thousand get a Representative belonging to the other group, because the Southern States have a fraction 

of one hundred and thirty-four thousand ; and they do not get the 

odd member, while the other States with a fraction of thirty thousand do. If we are to do this thing fairly, I ask you whether that 

is fair among sections Y If we are to consider sections as sections at 

all, three hundred and seven reaches the same result as three hundred and one, and is subject to the same criticism. 

Now, upon a full consideration·we have adopted three hundred ancl 

eleven, because it is as fair as any other number that can be fixed. 

You cannot reach absolute fairness in this matter; it never has been 

attained though it has been undertaken ever since the Constitution was adopted. First, there WM the adoption of a ratio, regardless of 

the number of members which it would produce; and afterward the 

moiety system was ingrafted into the law, giving an additional mem- ber to each State having a fraction greater than one-half. This was found t.o operate harshly, as was supposed, in the case of some States; 

and it was scarcely ever strictly adhered to. The fairest system ever adopted was that of 1850, which has been adopted by this committee; 

that is, to fix what shall be the number of the House and then divide 

the agg7.;egate population of all the States by that number in order 

to obtain a ratio; throwing off any fraction of a unit that may be 

presented; and then after giving each State so many Representatives 

upon an even division of its population by the ratio obtained to distribute the remaining member among\hose States having the largest 

fractions, regardless where they fall. If ~ that is not perfectly fair, 

what rule can be fair ~ I know it has not been adhered to all the 

time. The republicans seem to have mixed this ann the moiety system. In 1862, and probably also in 1872, the wholesome rnle which 

I have just indicated was disregarded and the moiety system was partly followed. But e>en that did not suit the party in power. Arbitrarily and without cause they assigned to certain States numbers to 

which they were not entitled by any rule which could be discovered. 

In 1872 two hundred and eighty was first fixed as the number the 

Hoose was to have, and I think the ratio, if I recollect rightly, was adopted in regard to that number. Afterward it was increased to 

two hundred and eighty-three. They then added eight more to it, 

arbitrarily, by assigning them to various States, and· on that they 

gave them two more, and finally a Stat.e wa-s admitted, making the 

two hundred and ninety-three members we now have. 

Are we to go by arbitrary assignment in this matter or shall we adopt some uniform and permanent rule and march up to the number, regardless of where tbe fraction falls f That is all we have done 

in this case. That is what the committee recommend. 

Why did the committee adopt three hundred and eleven 1f I will 

tell you why. It affects fewer of the States in regard to their repre- sentation than any other reasonable number that could be reachedWe had regard for the expressed will of a great many members of 

the House that the number should not be increased very largely. We 

looked over the floor of the House and we concluded that eighteen 

additional members could· be seated in this Hall without its undergoing any great or permanent change, at least we believe they can. We found there was a willingness on the part, as we believed, of 

members of the House to go as far as an increase of eighteen mem-

• I 
1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1191 

bers and a great unwillingness to go beyond that. We found when we got to three hundred and eleven, every State in this Union preserved intact its representation or increased, except four, that is the 

' States of :Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, and we could not 

reach those States without increasing the number of the House 

beyond what we believed we would be sustained in' doing. 

Therefore, when we got to that the most practicable point we could 

stop at, we did stop. Indiana under that gets a Representative and 

maintains its position just as it does now. She came and she begged 

and insisted, as a State always does, that she should be considered. 

Massachusetts will go to three hundred and three, because she 

remains intact. Pennsylvania says" I want to go to three hundred 

and seven," because there she remains as she is. Now should we stop 

at three hundred and seven, and leave Indiana out when by going 

there she can be reached ~ 

I do not look at this from any partisan standpoint, and I hope I do 

not from any party or political point of view. My own State will 

increase one Representative if we go to three hundred and fourteen. 

I do not ask this House to increase the power of t.hat State by going 

to-three hundred and fourteen-to make the small increase of three 

more-to reach it. I am willing to stand here on the committee's 

bill, three hundred and eleven, because I believe it a particularly 

fair bill to every State in this Union and to every party. Aa I said awhile ago, we may look over the fractional representation and see who is it that gets this increased power growing out of 

it. Why, sir, Southern States and the great and growing West. 

You cannot expect New England and the East not to lose their representation and power because " westward the star of empire has 

taken its way." These Western and Southern States, growing as they 

do, and, as they have, increasing year by year in population and in 

power and strength, it is to them the fractional votes should be as- signed. Why should New England have a fractional vote when two 

years from now, if we had another apportionment, she could not possibly reach it Y She is going down and declining, while the West is 

growing up ; and if the West h~d a fractional vote to-day to which 

she was not entitled two years from now, if a new apportionment was made, many of the Western States would be entitled not only to one fractional vote, but to two or three others. One State in the 

West has increased in population 367 per cent. Are we not torespond to that State with an increased representation T Texas has 

increased from six to ten members-an empire within itself-and, 

growing at thart rate, five years from now, if we could have a new apportionment, she would be entitled to five more. Shall we hesitate about giving her a fractional Representative when, before he 

gets his seat, she will be entitled to four or five Y 

Now, New England and the Eastern States have their fair representation. They have not only population collected from other portions of the country, not only emigrants who halt there on their way 

west, not enly those who ga~her there in the season of pleasure to 

their springs and other places of resort, but those whom business 

carries in that direction, making many thousands counted for them 

who do not belong to their population, but are merely migratory and 

belong to the West or will in a little time. They have already the 

power they ought to have. The great South and West, united in every 

interest, finding, as you do, the largest number of fractional Representatives go to those sections, is it not just and fair their increase 

in population should have it \' If we are to invoke personal interest, is it more than is to be expected that these two great sections, 

united by common ties, agriculturists as they are, furnishing the food 

and largely the raiment to nearly the whole world, united in every 

interest, corporate ridden by the . mighty corporations of the East 

and overwhelmed as they are by unjust and iniquitous taxation in 

their interest, you will find the great and growing West and South 

will stand together claiming the advantages they .have under the bill 

to strengthen their power in the common fight against the tarift~ the · most unjust and oppressive the world has ever known, and the railroads which rob them of hundreus of millions of dollars upon their 

agricultural products every year. I say, standing together on all the 

great questions of taxation and together in all the great fights we are sooner or later to make on the corporations of this country now un- dertaking to control and dominate us, is it more than fair these two 

sections should claim at least what is just and fair to them in the way 

of representation in this House by fractions or otherwise T 

I trust, Mr. Speaker, when this House comes to consider the bill 

presented to it by the committee that at least upon this side of the 

House it will receive calm, patient, and careful consideration with a view to the distribution of the political power among the States in 

accordance with their rights. The South too long has been deprived 

of its representation by the unjust and inaccurate census of 1870. 

She was deprived of a fair representation upon this floor, the representation to which she was entitled. And while I do not believe that 

her population has increased in the marvelous degree the census shows, 

for the reason that I am convinced, as I believe is the judgment of 

the country, that the census of 1870 was unfair; still, in consequence 

of the fact that for the last ten years she has been deprived of her fair 

share of representation, we give it to her now under the terms of 

this bill. Under the present census South Carolina, thrice gone over because of the claim of partisan press and of party spirit, to show 

that there was not a fair count of the population of that State; I say 

that State, deprived of its fair share of representation, should now 

have it under the terms of this bill. If any advantage is to follow, it 

should fall to those States that so long have been deprived of their 

rights. 

Now, I think this is a fair bill, I think it is a fair presentation of an old subject, and I do hope that at all events the democratic side 

of this House will agree to the bill reported from the committee. 

[Here the hammer fell.] I append, with leave of the House, a few 

tables giving the result of some calculations which I have made, and some statistics which may be of advantage to the members, (A, B, C.) 

TABLE A. 

O'.l O'.l ;:... . $.< Q;) • c) 6 $. o..Q 0 0 ..... ,.c+> .s .c .... 1.: d c'll=l 

.... 0 .S§ e~ .:::: s .... ce:~ en ·;; ~=Z p,ci 

~ o · Number of Represent. =- "'.-:s ~g ~L~ =ci =ci atives. ~~ ._o o·'"' ..... Q.) -+>o S·9 ,Q~ §~ ~:;3 ,.Q dl> .sell §l2:l ~ ~ .... ~§ ga E<l I> I> t5 oc p Q ~ '0 0 z en <l~ <l ~ <i z r:n 1- -------- --

290-- -··--··-------- ·---· 181 108 181 109 ........ + 1 51,779 110, 1 0 291. _____ ------ .. -· ...... 181 108 182 109 + 1 + 1 137,654 119,357 

292·--·-··----------- · ·-· 182 109 183 109 +1 .. ........... 93,740 75,030 

293.·----·----·---------· 183 110 184 109 + 1 -1 30,439 69,535 

294.-----·-----------·--· 183 110 185 10!} +~ -1 35,298 32, 565 

295 .---------------·----· 183 110 185 110 +2 -1 139,60 95,265 

296·----·------------·--· 185 111 186 110 + 1 -1 9,425 526 

297·---------·-···------- 185 111 187 110 +2 -1 113,210 52, 92 

298---------------------· 186 111 188 110 +2 -1 50,970 114,835 

299---------· ------·---·· 186 112 188 111 +2 -1 153,814 11, 213 

300 .••••• ·----- ------ ---· 187 112 1 9 111 + 2 - 1 81,735 72,925 

301 .••.•• ·----····-····-· 188 112 189 112 +1 ......... 30,016 13!, 184 

302---·--·-------------·· 188 113 189 113 + 1 .......... 1:{2, 090 31, 530 

303·--- --··-··----- ·----· 1 9 113 190 113 + 1 ........ 69,686 91,437 

304 .• ----·---------·----- 190 113 190 114 ....... +1 109,390 153, 005 

305·-----·---------·----· 190 114 190 115 ............. + 1 110, 4i0 51, 253 

306·--··----·------·----· ·191 114 191 115 +1 49,641 111 , 559 

307·--- --------·--------· 191 115 192 115 +1 150,107 10,710 

308 .•• --- ·-----.--.. ·---· 192 115 192 116 ............. +1 8!), 518 70, 740 309. ___________ ·--· ·---·· 193 115 193 llG .......... +1 90,394 130, 425 

310 .. ____ ·----- ---------· 193 116 193 117 ........... + 1 125,799 30,393 

311.--- --·----·---------- 194 116 193 118 -1 +2 68,760 89,780 

312·-----------·--··----- 195 116 194 118 -1 + 2 9, 370 14 '829 313·--·--·--------------· 195 117 195 118 ............. +1 98,040 49,995 314. ___________ · ·-· ·----· 195 117 195 119 ........... +2 69,370 26,629 

315·--·--------·--------· 196 118 196 119 .......... +1 136, 42'3 10, 163 

316. ~} ••• ·----- ·--· ···-·· 197 118 197 119 +2 +1 87,499 6 '707 

317·--------------··--·-· 198 118 198 119 ............. +1 28,870 126,835 

318 .••••• ------ ---····--· 198 119 199 119 +1 ......... 125,890 29,455 

319 .•.••• ------ ·--· ·----· 199 119 200 119 + 1 ............. 67,354 87,289 

320·-- ---------·--· · ·-··· 200 119 ~1 119 + 1 ............. 9, 390 144, 885 

3-21.- - - -- • - -- -- • - - •• ---- • 201: 120 202 119 

=~=~ -1 92,391 120,325 

322.----·------·--··----· 201 120 203 119 -1 47, TIO 105,565 

323.----··-----·--------- 001 121 203 120 +2 -1 147,143 9, 718 

324.-----------·--··-·-·· 202 121 203 121 +1 ............ 85,640 56,830 

325·-----·-----·--------- 203 122 204 121 +I -1 18, 47~ 41,4..68 

TABLE B. 

6 ~ $.< P.. P.. m ., Korthern. Southern. Q .... .... I> I> 0 <11 0 s A 

<11 0 0 ~a.i ~- ,.::1. 

~~ ,.q ,.q j:l<D a~ 8., oEl -a~ "'ij,cl ~- ... ~ <t>O 

'S~ TotaL Ket. TotaL Ket. o:3 Q·.-< Q.;:; 

o+> a~ 8l3 ~~ ..::~~ 

r:n~ lzil:l ...,a Q Q 

... ~ ------1----- 0 

8~ p+> ~" >:~a! 

csz 'Hl'l2 o!:l ~~ ~"-

o<+- 00 a.i a.i a.i a.i a.i a.i a.i 0 "'~ ,.::IP., 'SO'.l ~~ ~ G) Q) <11 0 ...... a.> ...... 0 

O'.l 1=1 .., 1=1 Cll = O'.l d ;::: ~ .... !:!'"' ;:..o d <12 d O'.l ·<e O'.l ·a O'.l -a ·a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 0 E-i 8 z l:l.l 

---- - - - - - - - ------------

290. ---· 7 13 ......... 6 7 4 3 ..... .. 9 .. .......... 181 109 11 7 

291.. --· 8 13 ......... 5 7 4 3 ---· 8 . ......... 18-2 109 12 7 

292 .•••. 9 13 ......... 4 7 4 3 ....... 7 .. ........ 183 109 12 7 

293 . .••. 10 1~ ....... 3 7 4 3 .. ...... 6 ·---·· 184 109 13 7 

294. ·--· 10 12 ........ 2 7 4 3 ........ 5 .. ........... 185 109 13 6 295 ..... 10 12 .... .... 2 7 3 4 .. ....... 6 .. ......... 185 110 13 7 

296 ..••. 10 11 ....... 1 7 3 4 ........ 5 .. ......... 186 110 14 6 

297 .•••. 10 10 ....... .. ...... 7 3 4 . ...... 4 . ...... 187 110 15 6 

298 .•••. 10 9 1 ...... . 7 3 4 ... ... 3 .......... 188 110 14 5 

299 . .••. 10 9 1 ...... 7 2 5 ....... 4 ........... 188 111 14 6 300 ...•. 10 8 2 ..... 8 3 5 ........ 3 . ......... 189 111 13 5 

301. .••. 10 8 2 ...... 8 2 6 ........ 4 .. ......... 189 112 12 6 

302 . .... 10 8 2 ··-· 8 1 7 ....... 5 ........ 189 113 11 7 

303 ..••. 10 7 3 ...... 8 1 7 ......... 4 . ......... 190 113 11 7 

304 ..••. 10 7 3 ....... !l 1 8 ....... 5 ........ 190 114 10 305 .. .•. 10 7 3 ....... 9 ...... 9 . ...... 6 ........... 190 115 7 !) 

306. ·--· 10 6 4 .. ... 9 ....... 9 ..... 5 .... ....... 191 115 7 8 

307. ·--· 10 5 5 ...... 9 ... .. . 9 ... .. . 4 . ..... 19"2 115 8 8 

30 10 5 5 ...... . 10 ..... . 10 ... .... 5 ............. 192 116 8 8 30!l ... .. 11 5 6 ...... . 10 ....... 10 .. ...... 4 .. ......... 193 116 7 9 310 ..••. 11 5 6 ...... 11 ... .. . 11 . .... . 5 .. ........... 193 117 7 9 

311 ..••• 10 4 6 ...... 12 ....... 12 ......... 6 ......... 193 118 6 10 

312 ..••. 11 4 7 ...... 12 ...... 12 .. ...... 5 . ....... 194 118 6 10 

313 .•• . . 12 4 8 ....... 12 ...... 12 .. ..... 4 .. ........ 195 118 7 9 

314. ··-· 12 4 8 ........ 13 ...... 13 ...... 5 .. ....... 195 119 7 10 

315. ---· 13 4 9 ...... 13 . ...... 13 ....... 4 . ........... 196 119 8 10 

316 ...•. 13 3 10 ....... 13 .. ...... 13 .. ...... 3 . ....... .... 197 119 9 9 

317. ··-· 14 3 11 ...... )3 ....... 13 . ..... 2 ........... 198 119 9 8 

318 .•••• 15 3 12 .... 13 ..... 13 ..... 1 . ........ 199 119 9 7 

319. ·--· 16 3 13 ..... 13 ...... 13 .. ..... .......... ....... 200 119 10 6 

320 .• ••. 17 3 14 ...... 13 ...... 13 .. ..... ......... 1 201 119 11 5 

321. ··-· 18 3 15 .. ..... 13 .. .... . 13 ..... ........ 2 20-2 119 10 3 

32-2. ---· 19 3 16 ...... 13 .. ...... 13 ........ ............. 3 203 119 11 3 

323 . •••• 19 :l 16 .. ...... 14 . ....... 14 .. ...... ......... 2 203 120 10 4 

324 ..••. 19 3 16 ...... 15 . ...... 15 ...... ....... 1 203 121 10 5 

325 ...•. 19 3 17 ....... 15 . ....... 15 ........ ......... 2 204 121 10 5 

'' 
. ' 

1192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

TABLE C. 

States. 

Alabama .••..••.•••...••.•••••••••••.••.. Arkansas ••••••••••••.••...•...•••••.... . California ••••.••.•••..•.....••••.•••••... Connecticut ..•.•••.••••••••...•••••••••• Delaware .•••••.•.•••.••••••••....••..••. . Florida .•••••.•.•••..•..••••••..•••••.... . 

~~~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Indiana .•••••..•••••••••••••..••••••.•... Iowa .......•••••.••.•...••.•.•••••..•.••. lCanaas .....••••••••.••..••••••••••••..•.. 

~~t;i~::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: ~:: ~ Maine .•.••..•••.••.•.•.••••••...•.••••••. Maryland •.••••.•••.•.•••.••••••..••.••.. Massachnsetts .•••••.•••..••••••••••... .. 

=~ta.-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~;~;r~!::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ebraska ••••.•••••......•....•..•••..... :Nevada. .••••..•.•.•..•.•..••...•••....... NewHampshire .•.•.•.•...•••••.•.••••... New Jersey ....•.••••...•..••••••..•..... NewYork ..•••..••••.•.•..•••••.••.••... ~ orth Carolina .•••••.••.•.••••••••••.... . Ohio .•.....•••.••••.•••••••.•..•••••..... 

~~:~i~~·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Rhode Island .•••••..••.•.....••..••••. : . South Carolina. .••..........•....••••.•... Tennessee ..••..••..••....•....•..••.. -... Texas .••.••...•.•..•...•...•...••....... . 

~!!~~:::::~~~:.~~-;~~~~~~~-:~~::~~ ~:. 

996,992 

484,471 

560,247 

537,454 

125 015 187: 74& 1,184, 109 2, 539,891 

1, 6!:0, 637 

1,11H, 792 364,399 

1, ;j2l, 011 

726,915 

&26, 915 780, !:94 

1, 457,351 1, 1 4, 059 439,706 

627,922 1, 721,296 

12-2,993 

42,491 

318,300 

906,096 

4, 382,758 

1, 071,361 

2, 665,260 

90,923 

3, 521,791 

217,355 

705,606 

1, 258,520 

818,579 

330,551 

1, 225,163 

442,014 

1, 054,670 

202,1E-2 

102,359 

145, 0{)-2 

127,499 

28,207 

38,871 

234,971 

542,833 

377,938 

255,471 

99,929 

284 096 

159:007 

153,160 

169,845 

312, TIO 274,459 

75,274 

169,551 

3 1,129 

35,009 

18,652 

l\3,361 

194,109 

984,255 

214,142 

593,950 24,608 

776,627 

43,996 

146,979 

258,093 

166,343 

74,867 

266,437 

93,847 204,177 

TotaL •••••.•••••.•••••.•.•.•••••••. 38,113,253 8, 314, 1:!05 

690 

189 

243 1, 249 

284 

41 1, 064 

609 

566 

283 1 2-23 

• 873 

185 

40 

533 

3, 719 1,318 

117 

342 

9,265 

115 

16 

6 9 335 

469 

674 

2 551 

t 123 

2,345 

2, 835 

516 

733 

2, 766 

107 

981 

9!:!2 

301 

40,380 

Mr. HUNTON. I mo>e to extend the time of the gentleman from 

Kentucky. 

~Ir. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. I am very much obliged to the 

gentleman from Virginia, but I had just concluded, and desired, if I 

had any time remaining, to yield it to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. WmTE.] 

1\Ir. LORING. Mr. Speaker, I desire to yield my time to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. KEIFER.] 

Mr. KEIFER. I do not desire to take up the time of the House 

but a few minutes in the consideration of this question, especially at 

this time, and therefore I will yield whatever time the gentleman 

from :Michigan [Mr. HoRR] may desire out of the time allowed to me. Mr. HORR. Mr. Speaker, there is a provision of the Constitution 

found in article 14, section 2, which says thatRepresentatives shall be apportioned among the ~evera.l States according to their respective numbers, countin~ the whole number of persons in each State. 

It further provides thatWhen the right to vote at any electuon for the choice of electors for President 

and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the execu- tive and judicial officers of a. State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is 

denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years-of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in 

the proportion which the number of such male citizens'sball bear to the whole num- ber of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State .. 

I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that laW3'ers construe this provision to mean that such "denial or abridgment" must be by some legal en- actment. 'Vhile this may be good law, I submit that the spirit of the 

Constitution may be violated while the letter remains unbroken. I 

insist that whenever one portion of the citizens of any State by a systematic plan so bring it about that a large number of her citizens are kept from the polls, that the violation of this provision is aa com- plete as if a law was duly enacted which simply produced the same effect, and that such citizens should be deducted in making any fair 

calculation upon which to base an apportionment bill, or at lea-st that 

such lack of votes in any given State should be taken into account 

in any fair apportionment bill. 

Hence it is that I claim that an apportionment bill founded upon 

the last vote of people of the United States would really meet the 

requirements of the Constitution in spirit much more perfectly than one founded on the last. census, because upon that basis we would 

eliminate from representation those citizens whose right to the ballot has been abridged. You must remember that the election last 

I 

fall was a general one, one in which all the people were equally interested without regard to latitude or sectional lines; that the can- vass wa-s spirited and determined in all parts of the country alike, so that the inference is fair that the great bulk of voters whose rights were not in some way denied or abridged went to the polls and cast 

their ballots. Therefore! affirm that the votes of that election are a better index of the people who should be taken into account in this 

apportionment than is the census just completed. 

In view of this conviction I have carefully prepared a table showing the vote of each State, the present number of members from each 

State, the number that would be here from each State, using the 

average number of votes cast for a Congressman as the basis of calculation; also the number which the bill of the committee proposes 

to give to each State, and then the number each State would have if 

the committee ha.a. used the vote for the basis of their calculation 

instead of the census. I have also added a column showing the aver- age number of votes cast in each State for one Congressman in the 

next Congress. Also another column, showing what the average vote 

would have been for each Congressman in each State bad the num- ber elected been the same as is now proposed by the bill of the com- mittee-that is, 311. This table I ask leave to print in the REcoRD, 

and 'so will not detain the House to read it now. 

Table Bltowing the total ,;ote a1Ul number of RepJ·esentatices of each State. 

d (!) a .... 

1 :3 0 oS 

0 .... s . ~8 .,.;> ·;.~ ,.Q$ (!)I>. 

0 op S.o ;.. p.:;o tl!o 0 c:etl! Ol=j .de :::: 0 .c.O ~ 3-~~ 0 .... :g~ .s~ 

0 "0 

~ :::: 

~ ::::: .... ~~ .,oc::> .0 oS ~l'l $o,c _s·. s 0: ,a 

(!) ..::> l>o j::o p. o,:; 

P-- 0~~ States. .:! s <0 .0 

en 1-o <0 ~,.!d -g2 .::~a .... Q) ... 00 cS oo,... .d 0 ,a 

~ ,co F-c-+4 ~ l::M 0 ... a e .... Qr:/2 cS Q) Q) 

s~ P,.Q P$'g 0 .0 s 0 

~~ ~., .s s s p ..... Cl -s·a r;<o ~=~rl.l] ..sl ,::; 0 

o.::l Q,.Q c 0 ....;> " ... ... ... 1:1 $~ ~ll~~ Q) 0 l:ll~-o 

1 ,a tl!c!) 

3 ~ 8 Sc.t ~,a ti) ..... Q) :::: >=' ... p..~ a 0 .. E-1 P-t ~ ~ ~ <l <I 

Alabama. .•••••.. --••••...••. 151,507 8 5 8 5 18,936 18,938 

Arkansas .•••••...••..••..••. 106,249 4 3 5 4 26,555 21,249 

California .......•..•.•..•... 164,166 4 5 5 G 41,041 32,833 

Colorado ..•••••.•••••....••. 53,532 1 2 1 2 53,532 53.532 

Connecticut ••••••..•.•••.••. 132,358 4 4 4 5 33,089 33,087 

Delaware ..••••••..•. .•.. .••. 29,233 1 1 1 1 29,233 29, 2:!3 

Florida .•••.••..••.•••...•. .. 51,618 2 2 2 2 25,809 25,809 

~&:.::::: :::::: ~: :::::::: 155,655 9 5 10 5 17,295 15,565 

621,716 19 20 19 21 32,722 32,72-2 

Indiana ..•••.•.•....•.••.... 470, 6i8 13 15 13 16 36,206 36,206 

Iowa. ..•.••••.••••••...•..... 32'l, 076 9 10 10 11 35, 7SG 32,207 

Kansas .••••••.•••.•.......•. 201,019 3 6 6 7 67,006 33,508 

~~~~~::::::::::::::::::: 264,047 10 8 10 9 26,404 26, 40<1 

97,201 6 3 6 3 16,200 16,200 

Maine .•••.•.....••..••••..•. 143,853 5 4 4 5 28,770 35,263 

Maryland .•••••...••..•..••. 173,039 6 5 6 6 28,839 28,839 

Massachusetts ..••.......... . 282,512 11 !l 11 10 25,683 25,683 

Michigan ..••••••..•...•..•.. 352,541 9 11 10 12 39,171 35,254 

E~Er.~~:::::::::::::::::: 150,771 3 5 5 5 50,257 3J,l54 

117,078 6 4 7 4 19,513 16,725 

397,221 13 13 14 13 30,555 2 ,373 

Nebraska·····-··· .•••••..•. 87,355 1 4 3 3 87,355 29,118 

Nevada ...........•.......•.. 18,343 1 1 1 1 18,343 18.343 

New Hampshire .•••••.•.••. 86,363 3 3 2 3 28,787 43,181 

New.Tersey ••••••...•.••..••. 245,737 7 8 7 8 35,105 35,105 

New York ..••••...••••...••• 1,10-1,671 33 35 32 37 33,475 34,521 

North Carolina .............. 241,218 8 8 9 8 30,153 26, 02 

Ohio .•••••..•......••••.••... 724,967 20 23 20 24 36,248 36,24.8 

~~~~~i~:::: :::::::::::. 40,812 1 1 1 1 40,812 40,812 

874,783 27 28 27 29 32,400 32,400 

Rhode Island .•••••.•.••...•. 29,235 2 1 2 1 14, 618 14,618 

South Carolina ....••..•...•. 170,956 5 5 (j 6 34, 191 ~8,492 

Tennessee .•..••••••••••..••. 241,827 10 8 10 8 2<1,182 24,182 

Texas ..........•.•••........ 237,133 6 7 10 8 39,522 23,713 

Vermont ....•.•.••........... 6<1, 483 3 2 2 2 21,494 32,241 

~1!!!!tE~:: ::::::::::::: 211,754 9 7 10 7 23,528 21,175 

112,713 3 4 4 4 37,571 28,178 

267,172 8 8 8 9 33,396 33,396 

----------- Total .................. 9,297,592 293 293 311 311 .......... --· .............. 

It is perhaps proper for me to state that these computations have 

all been made by myself, and while they may not be absolutely accu- rate, I do not believe there are any material errors. UnfortuD;ately 

for me, I did not have the Census Bureau at my command to a1d me in these calculations. I desire now to state some of the most striking 

results that my examination of this subject has discovered. 

The whole number of votes in the entire thirty-eight States at the 

last election was 9,29"7,592. Hence the average number of votes to 

each Congressman of the next House is 31,732, and the average num- ber of votes to each Congressman, if you fix the number at 311, as does the bill of the committee, would be 29,896. Now, let us take, for 

example, the State of Mississippi. This bill gives her seven members, 

whereas upon the basis of her vote she would be entitled to only four. You can readily see this. Four times 29,896 gives 119,584, and 

the >Ote of Mississippi was only 117,078. Hence she would get the 

' 
•' 

/, 

1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. II9a 

fourth member by a fraction, though a large one. On the basis of 

this bill she would get a Congressman for every 16,725 votes cast, 

which is just about one-half the number that it takes under the bill 

to elect a member, on an average, in the Northern States. Let me say 

right here, that it appears from actual calculation that the average 

number of votes for each Congressman in the Northern States, if the 

number were 311, is 33,838, while the average vote for each one in the 

Southern States is only 23,376, a difference of 10,462 votes. 

For another example, let us take the State of Alabama. The bill 

of the committee gives her eight members, whereas upon the basis of 

her vote she is entitled to only five. Take the average number of 

votes again for a. Congressman, 29,896 ; five times that is 149,480. The 

entire vote of Alabama was 151,507. So that after giving herthefive 

members, there is only left a small fraction of 2,027. This State by 

the number fixed by this blH would get a Congressman for every 

18 938 votes, which is fifteen thousand less than the average number 

of' votes for a Northern Congressman, and 10,958 less than the aver- age of the entire country. Again take the State of Arkansas. The bill gives her five mem- bers. she .had a vote of 106,249. This would entitle her to three 

members, and leave a fraction of 16,561. Allow her a member for this 

fraction and then she would have but four. The bill would give her a memb~r for every 21,249votes, which is 12,000 less than the average 

at the North, and 8,647less than the general average. 

Once more, take the State of Georgia, and here the disparity between the vote basis and the census is certainly glaring. The bill of 

the committee gives Georgia ten members, while upon the basis of 

her vote she would be entitled to only five. For, take the average 

vote 29 896, and repeat it five times, and you have 149,480. Now, the ent~e ../ote of Georgia was 155,655. Take from it the 149,480, and you 

have left only the small fraction 6,175. The bill gives her a member 

for every 15,565 votes, which is 1,500 less than one-half the number 

required in the Northern States, and is 14,331lef!s than the general 

average. Air. HAMMOND, of Georgia. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him f 

Mr. HORR. Of course I will, for my next sentence was to be : " And does not such a state of facts call upon Georgia to rise and 

explain f" [Laughter.] Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. I desire simply to ask the gentleman a question. As I understand the gentleman, the logic of his remarks 

is that apportionment ought to be based upon the figures of the last 

election, and not upon numbers, as required by the Constitution. 

Conceding that that is the gentleman's view, and that is the only sense there is in it- '- . 1\fi:. HORR. I am glad there is that much. [Laughter.] ··-- lli. HAMMOND, of Georgia. Conceding that is true, would it not 

be the better way for your party to succeed if they were not to try 

to vote at all in Georgia, and then yon would greatly reduce the num- ber of Representatives~ - Mr. HORR. They have come so mighty near that already it does 

not make much odds now. How much of this thing does she expect 

the people of this country to endure and still hold their peace? 

Then again there is Louisiana. This bill gives her six members. 

Her vote would entitle her to but three. Her entire vote was only 

97,201. Three times the average, 29,896, gives us 89,688, which taken 

from her vote leaves a fraction "of only 7,513, which is only about 

one-quarter of the average vote for a Congressman, and would not 

of course entitle her to another. The bill gives her a member for 

every 16,200 votes, which is not half the number required to elect a man in the North under the same bill, and is 1:l,690 less than the 

general average. But you say these States are exceptional. Not at 

all. Texas and Virginia are but little better. The bill gives Texas 

ten members. Her vote would entitle her to but eight, and it gives 

Virginia ten when her vote would entitle her to but seven. Here we have seven States which the bill gives fifty-six members, 

and which, upon the basis of votes cast are entitled to but thirty-six 

members, showing a gain of twenty Congressmen who really have no voting people at their backs. 

Let us take the eight States, Georgia., Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky. The total vote of 

these eight States was 1,155,109. They have fif-ty-eight members in 

the next House. That gives an average of 19,917 votes to each mem- ber. 

Now take these eight States: Connecticut, lllinois, Indiana, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Their total 

vote was4,564,226, and they have one hundred and thirty-six members, 

which gives an average of 33,643 votes to each member. Thus you see it takes 13,643 more votes to send a man to Congress from these eight 

Northern States than it does to send one from those eight South- ern States. But it may be claimed that I have selected States so as to bring about this result. Let us see about that. The entire vote 

of the sixteen Southern States was 2,758,449. There are from those 

States one hundred and six members. This would give for each Congressman-elect from those States an averagevoteof 26,023, but ifthe 

number were one hundred and eighteen, as fixed by the bill of the 

committee, it would take only 23,376 votes for each member. 

The entire vote of the twenty-two Northern States was 6,539,143. 

There are from those States one hundred and eighty-seven members, 

which would give for each Congressman-elect 34,968 votes; and had 

the number elected been one hundred and ninety-three, as provided. by this bill, then the average vote to each member would have been 

33,833; which shows that it took 8,945 more votes to elect a member 

of the next House in theNorthern States than it did in the Southern 

States; and if the number of members had have been the same as is 

fixed by this bill of the committee, the discrepancy would be swelled 

to 10,462 votes. 

If you should give the Northern States a member for every 23,376. votes cast at the last election, and that is the number it would have 

taken on the average for each member from the South had the num- ber of members been as fixed by this bill, she would have in the next 

House two hundred and eighty members! And if you should give· the South only a member for each 33,838 votes, and that is the average 

vote in the North with the number fixed as by the bill, she would 

have only eighty members in the next House. The mere statement of 

these facts shows that there is something wrong somewhere. 

Mr. ACKLEN. I would like to ask the gentleman to permit me to 

ask him one question in reference to the comparison that he has made 

of the districts of the South, particularly in the State of Louisiana. 

I ask him if the answer to the suggestions he has made is not this: 

that there is practically no contest in most of the districts in the- South t I know that it is particularly the case in the State of Louisiana. In the third district, which I have the honor to represent, there 

was, however, a very sharp contest at the last election, and the vote was about twenty-five thousand ; whereas in the sixth district of that 

State the entire vote was only about fifteen thousand, and in some of" 

the other districts it was, I believe, a little less. Is not the answer to his statements the one I suggest t 

Mr. HORR. I wish to say to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 

ACKLEN] that I :first looked up this matter on the basis of taking individual districts of the South, but the figures were so severe on the 

South that I had not the pluck to present them to the Honse. 

[Laughter.] So I took the general average, because it is milder;-

does not appear so savage. 

Mr. ACKLEN. Allow me to say--

Mr. HORR. I would have to ask another question of you, which 

would lead to a long debate. It would be the question, why there is. no contest in the districts of the South Y 

Mr. ACKLEN. I am satisfied that the gentleman is aware that in 

some of the northern districts there is practically no contest. 

Mr. HORR. Before I get through I will give yon ample credit for· this trouble up north. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Has the gentleman included the State of Rhod& 

Island in his calculations¥ 

Air. HORR. I think that before I get through Little Rhody will ba 

taken care of. [Laughter.] 

But this basis for an apportionment bill cuts both ways. Take the 

State of New York. The bill of the committee gives her thirty-two 

members, but when you take the vote for the basis of your calculations she would be entitled to thirty-seven. The committee's bill 

gives her a member for each 34,521 votes, which is 4,625 votes more than the general avera_ge on each member, and which on her thirtytwo members amounts to 148,000 votes, thus compelling her to tlll'ow 

away almost as many votes as the State of Alabama casts. 

Do you know if you. should give the State of New York a member 

for the same number of votes that sends one here from Georgia to the 

next House that she would have on this floor in that Congress seventy- one members, and she would not ha-ve to have a little fractional 

member either, as she is compelled to under the bill of the committee. With such a membership she might indeed be called the Empire· State. And if Georgia had only a member for each number of votes 

that sends one from New York she would b,ave only four: in place of 

the ten given her by the bill. Can the gentleman in charge of this. bill, [Mr. Cox,] can any one, give any good reason why the State of 

Georgia should have a member here representing only 15,565 voters, 

while the great State of New York requires 34,521 votes to each of 

her members! 

Again, take the State of Ohio. The bill gives her twenty members, 

while on the voting basis she would be entitled to twenty-four. It 

takes under this bill of the committee 36,248 votes for a member of 

Congress from Ohio. That is 6,352 in excess of the general average~ 

On her twenty members it would amount to 127,040 votes, which is. 

29,839 more votes than the State of Louisiana ca.st, and it takes in 

Ohio 20,048 more votes to get a man to the next Congress than it· does for this same State of Louisiana. Only think of it: if Ohio had a member for every same number that sends one from Louisiana she 

would be represented in the next House by forty-five members-a. sufficient number, it seems to me, to satisfy even the modest claims 

of her timid, unobtrusive statesmen. Does any one claim, can any one claim that such a disparity as this can be explained on any theory of fair dealing 1 

But, again, let us take the State of Indiana. She cast at the last 

election 470,678 votes. The bill under consideration gives her thirteen members. On the vote basis she would be entitled to sixteen •. The bill of the committee makes it take in this State 36,206 votes to.. 

elect a member of the next House. That is 6,310 more than the gen- eral average, which on her thirteen members amounts to 82,03()-

votes, about two-thirds as many votes as the entire State of Mississippi cast. In other words, it takes 19,4e1 more votes to elect a Congressman in Indiana than it does in the State of Mississippi. To con-

•' 
J. 

-\ 

I. 

I 

1194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

tinne my former comparison, if the same number of votes cast for a. 

.Congressman in Mississippi'would send one from Indiana there would 

be twenty-eight Hoosiers on the floor of the next Honse instead of 

thirteen; and should Mississippi be allowed a member for only the .same number that sends one from Indiana her seven members would 

-dwindle down to three. And yet a bill which produces these astounding results the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] would have us think is the "very pink of perfection." 

We are told that "comparisons are odious." One would think so. But let me say that the only exception to this state of affairs in the 

entire North is the State of Rhode Island and in a slight degree perhaps the State of Massachusetts. The vote of Rhode Island looks 

bad. The census ba-sis gives her two members while she votes enough 

for only one, and even that one is on a. fraction. I am sorry for this, 

for if there is a gamy State in the Union it is Little Rhody. Her 

wealth, her common schools, her great industries, her distinguished 

statesmen, her entire history from Roger Williams down to the present time, need cause none of her sons to blush. Yet I am compelled 

to say that there is something wrong in her voting arrangements. 

She needs overhauling somewhere. Her vote leads me to believe she 

.ought to be contented with one Congressman, and I think her states- men upon reflection will see it. 

Massachusetts by the voting basis also loses one member. This 

bill gives her eleven; her vote shows her entitled to but ten; and I am clearly of the opinion that ten does her ample justice. 

Is it not singular that in the entire twenty-two Northern States, if 

you fix the number at three hundred and .eleven and calculate upon 

the basis of votes, Rhode Island and Massachusetts are the only two 

that would lose a member ; six of them, to wit, Vermont, Oregon, 

Nevada, Nebraska, Maine, and Minnesota, would neither gain nor lose, and the remaining fourteen Northern States would all gain, 

while in the South not a single State gains on the vote ba-sis. Florida, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina neither 

gain nor lose, and .the remaining eleven all lose. So that whereas 

the bill gives the Southern States one hundred and eighteen mem- bers, and the Northern States one hundred and ninety-three, on the 

basis of votes cast the Southern States are entitled to only ninetythree members, and the Northern States should get two hundred and 

-eighteen. That is a difference of fifty members in favor of the South 

and against the North; and yet with all these facts staring them in 

the face the committee go to work deliberately and fix upon anum- ber that will give the South more proportionate strength than she now ba-s by six members, and then claim that this is a fair, impartial 

bill. And the number selected by the gentleman from New York 

[Mr. Cox] gives the same section an advantage of four. 

I am aware that under the strict letter of the Constitution the .census basis is the proper one. But let me say to gentlemen here 

that there is a deep feeling in the minds of the people of this country 

that this systematic crushing out of nearly one-third of the entire 

vote in so many States of this Union is little less than a terrible crime, 

and the people fear that ifnot prevented it will destroy the very foun-

-dations of civil liberty in this country. If we cannot have a free, 

untrameled ballot, then there is little need of apportionment bills of 

any kind, for without that the will of the people cannot be expressed 

and all elections become a. mere farce. 

Now, I am not going to say whether the recent census is a fair one or not. There are many of the returns that cannot be explained 

upon what was supposed to be reliable history of the events of the 

past ten yearsin some of the States. But what! do maintain is, that no man can reconcile the census returns with the votes cast on any 

basis of fair dealing. It seems to be beyond the power of contradiction that there was gross cheating either in the census or in the 

voting. Then I ask does it not follow that to have a fair apportionment both of these elements should be taken into account' 

For one I am satisfied that the present number of members in this 

Honse is large enough, if not too large, for the good of the country. 

It is now as unwieldy a body as the heart of man can well wish. If 

there is any number that would render it more difficult to do any 

needed work than the one we are now laboring under, and any one knows what that number is, in all conscience, I hope he will keep it 

to himself, for should our leaders here get hold of it I should well- nigh despair of all legislation in the future. 

However, if we are to increase the present number at all, then such a number should be selected aa will leave the relative strength of 

the two sections just as it now is; in any event no number should 

be taken which will add strength to that portion of the country 

which now has so much more than she is really entitled to, as I have 

already shown. 

Mr. McMILLIN. 'Vill the gentleman yield to me for a moment J 

Mr. HORR. Certainly. 

Mr. McMILLIN. The gentleman bas given us a long mathemati.cal disquisition upon the disparity between the votes ca-st NQrthand 

South, and he has delivered to us a lecture upon the small votes on which some men represent constituencies here. Now, on looking at 

the Directory, I see that there were 18,071 votes polled against the 

gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HoRR] and only 11,993 for him. Why 

did not this conscientious qualm strike the gentleman earlier, if he 

is in favor of the majority ruling in the different districts f 

Mr. HORR. Which vote is it the gentleman is figuring from f 

Mr. McMILLIN. I figure from the vote upon which the gentleman now occupies his seat here and speaka. 

Mr. HORR. There was a large majority against me in my district on that vote, if you add together the greenba.ck and democratic votes . Mr. McMILLIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HORR. The greenback craze, which is similar to the one the 

gentleman has, although he is a democrat, [laughter,] ran through 

my district ; and the majority against me, taking the democratic and 

the greenback vote, was, as I remember, about 8,500. But if the 

gentleman will look at the returns of the last election in my district, 

he will see that the people came to their senses on that subject. 

Mr. McMILLIN. But the point is this: How is it .that the gentleman, with the views he has uttered here, is willing to represent his 

constituency on so small a minority-so small a vote f 

Mr. HORR. Why, sir, I represent my whole district. Our State 

elects on pluralities. 

Mr. McMILLIN. So, I would answer the gentleman from Michigan, under the Constitution we must fix the basis of our future representation upon the population, and not upon the votes cast. 

Mr. HORR. All I claim is, that the vote should be taken into ac- count ; and I am trying to show that-this proposition of the committeerfixing three hundred and eleven, the only number which gives the 

South six more members than they now have, is an outrage in view 

of the fact that they already have a good deal more representation than their votes show they ought to have. 

Mr. McMILLIN. And in defense of the committee, I ask the gentleman whether it is not the fact that there are numbers smaller than 

three hundred and eleven which will give the South a greater proportional representation f 

Mr. HORR. No, sir. 

Mr. McMILLIN. There is such a number. 

:Mr. HORR. Then, I do not know it. 

Mr. McMILLIN. I will say there is a smaller number which will 

do it, and the committee is not subject to that animadversion. 

Mr. HORR. My memory is different; that is all. 

Mr. McMILLIN. The statistics show it. 

Mr. HORR. I was stating, Mr. Chairman, that a bill on t he basis 

of three hundred and nineteen would wrong no one and could be 

passed here in a day. The number proposed by the minority of the 

committee, three hundred and nineteen, does that very thing, and 

leaves a large number of the States with exactly their present num- ber of members, or gives them an increase, and leaves only Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire to suffer a loss of one each. 

If yon go above the present number at all, why not fix upon some number that will thus be free from all charge of partisanship, and 

which will or should give perfect satisfaction to all sections of the 

country. I believe it best that a fair and just apportionment bill 

should be passed by us at this session of Congress. So many State 

Legislatures are in session that such a measure at this time seems advisable. It is perhaps impossible to have a non-partisan measure of any kind proposed by the majority here. If so, we may be com- pelled to choose between this unjust and unfair measure of the com- mittee and no bill at all. I dislike such an alternative, but this 

question is of such grave import to the whole nation that I am sat- isfied that rather than have this bill become the law we would better 

refer the whole matter to a new Congress, composed of men just fresh 

from the people, men who were elected in a contest when all these 

questions were discussed and fully investigated, and who will come here knowing the wishes of the people on this important subject. Believing as I do that this bill was drawn with the simple purpose 

of giving more strength to that section whose people are guilty of 

the great wrongs against the ballot which I have pointed out, for one I am fully determined to oppose the measure, first, last, and all 

the time, and that, too, with all the means that a kind Providence 

and parliamentary law will permit. [Laughter.] 

In conclusion, let me say that I have given the foregoing figures 

with no desire of censure or abuse toward any portion of our fair 

land. If any of these statements seem harsh it is simply because some sections of the country so conduct their elections that to recite 

the multiplication table even within their borders would seem abusive. If I know the earnest desire of my own heart it is that such a bill may be finally passed as will show that we are all actuated by a lively sense of fair dealing, and that each member here may be able 

to say that in this one matter I rose above all party considerations and was actuated and inspired only by the exalting sentiment of 

"charity toward all and malice toward none." 

Mr. KEIFER. I yield now for five minutes to the gentleman from 

New Hampshire, [Mr. BRIGGS.] 

Mr. McLANE. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question f 

Mr. KEIFER. I have but very few minutes, but will yield for a 

short question. 

Mr. McLANE. I wish to develop an idea of the gentleman from 

Michigan a little more fully than he has. I understand him, although he has not said it in express terms, but the general spirit of his re- marks leads me to the conclusion that he feels the Southern States 

have in some way or other deprived the negro of his suffrage. 

Mr. HORR. I do not know who they are who do not vote. I do 

not know exactly the folks. [Laughter.] 

Mr. McLANE. And therefore they should lose reprcsent.ation. Now, 

I 
· > 

/ 

1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1195 

I want to know from the honorable gentleman from Michigan if that' 

is the idea he wishes to convey 7 

Mr. HORR. My idea was simply this, that they ought to be deprived of a portion of their representation under that clause of the 

Constitution which I first quoted if they persist in keeping people away 

from the polls. 

Mr. McLANE. People away from the polls! 

Mr. HORR. My main object was to show the unfairness of a bill 

which fixes the number so as to give them this advantage with all 

these facts staring them in the face. 

Mr. McLANE. I wish to say to the gentleman that he can hold his 

soul in patience as to that negro vote. If he supposes we, the white 

voters of the South, mean to deprive the negroes of their votes, I say 

he may hold his soul in patience. We accept in its full development 

the constitutional theory propounded by the gentleman from New 

York that the Constitution of the United States bases representation 

upon population, and our past experience has given us confidence in 

the result of universal suffrage. There is no occasion, therefore, for 

any honorable gentleman on this :floor to suppose that the negroes of 

the South, whether they be voters or whether they be Representatives, 

will fall below the level of the white voter or the white Representative as he has been found in the States of the North. 

Mr. HORR. Will you let me ask you a question f 

The SPEAKER pro tempo're. The gentleman from New Hampshire 

is entitled to the :floor. 

Mr. HORR. Do you think negroes of the South have been permitted for the past six years to have a free and untrammeled ballot 

all over the South f 

Mr. McLANE. Mr. Speaker, I have no idea that the people of the 

South-the negroes of the South-have had as free and as untrammeled a suffrage in the past as they will have in the future. But--

{ Cries of "All right!" on the repub-lican side.] 

Mr. HORR. That is encouraging. 

Mr. McLANE. But, Mr. Speaker, while I give that frank answer to the gentleman from Michigan, to his inquiry, he will not withhold 

from me his attention when I say that while the negroes have not 

had as untrammeled a suffrage in the past as they will have in the 

fnture--

Mr. HORR. That would lead to a long debate. 

Mr. McLANE. It would not lead to a long debate. I simply want 

to make a brief reply in answer to the gentleman's question as to why 

the negroes of the South have notMr. BRIGGS. I decline to yield the :floor any further. 

Mr. McLANE. I think I am entitled to the privilege of answering 

the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. HORR. I say this would lead to a debate, because I have some facts myself in that connection which I would like to submit. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Mr. SpeakerMr. McLANE. If the gentleman still declines to yield to enable me to complete my answer, then I will take the liberty of doing what 

has been done occasionally here, of publishing in the RECORD a full answer to the question of the gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. BRIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose, in the brief time 

allotted to me, to discuss this question of a new apportionment of 

representation in Congress. I could hardly state my views in the brief 

period of five minutes; but during this discussion constant reference 

has been made to the State which I have the honor in part to represent. I notice by the speech of the gentleman from New York that, 

according to his statement, New Hampshire has a senate which con- sists of twelve, and that she has in the popular branch of her Legislature three hundred and seventy-nine_Dlembers. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, both of these statements are erroneous. The 

senate of the State of New Hampshire consists of twenty-four mem- bers. The house of representatives varies, sometimes one number 

and sometimes another. Under our constitution we endeavor to give 

every town in the State its representation in the lower house of the 

State Legislature, and every-town which has a population of six hundred inhabitants is entitled to a representative upon that :floor. If 

the town baa not six hundred inhabitants and is so situated that it can be classed with another smaller town, making the aggregate population of both six hundred or over, we cla~s the two towns together 

and give them a representative in common in the lower branch of the 

State Legislature. If the town has less than six hundred and is so ·situated that it cannot be classed with another, then we give that 

town a representative for such a proportion of the time as its population bears to the whole number required. Under that basis the 

Legislature of the State of New Hampshire, in the popular branch, 

had every place elected, would have contained three hundred and one members, and the Legislature for 1880 would have contained three 

hundred and three. Now, under the last census, the census just taken, we shall reapportion our representation in the Legislature, and have a larger house than we have ever had before. 

In the discussion here to-day it is a-ssumed that a large house is 

unwieldy and that it cannot be controlled, and that business cannot 

be conducted or tran,sacted as well as in a smaller one. Is that true f 

If it is, the fault lies at the door of every member of that house and 

nowhere else. We have a larger house in our State than this. We 

transact the business of that little State sometimes in four weeks, 

sometimes in si-,: weeks, and hardly ever extend our legislative session beyond a period extending over eight weeks; and this talk, gentlemen, that you cannot manage and control a large house I have no faith in, for I believe the fact that this House is sometimes disorderly-! believe it and know it-and you know as well as I do that 

the fault lies right at your own doors and nowhere else. Another 

thing: they point to the Calendar of this House and talk about the mass of business that lies there untransacted. Who is to blame f It 

is the rules which you have enacted; the rules which you have es- tablished, which cripple every motion and thwart the efforts of all 

the members everywhere to consider the public business here. Reorganize your rules, let members of the House observe them, and the 

size of the House will be no objection then in the transaction of its 

business. 

Now, there is another thing: I do not believe in reducing the size 

of the lower House of Representatives. This body is the body that 

represents directly the people of this nation. If you look over your 

country you will find railroad corporations extending their rails from ocean to ocean, grasping and absorbing their side lines, and growing 

in wealth and proportions, and exerting a terrible power and in:flu- ence over the legislation not only of the House, but over that of the 

States themselves-a power that is being felt everywhere. The 

smaller you make your House the more easy do you make it for these 

vast corporations to control the interests and the legislation of this 

country. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. KEIFER. I now yield two minutes to the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, [Mr. ·wmTE.] 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Ohio has yielded me two minutes, for which I am very much obliged, and in which I propose to make a brief explanation in justice to my State. At another 

time I shall avail myself of the opportunity to express my views on the proposition on this subject for which I intend to vote. 

Pennsylvania, however, ha-s been somewhat conspicuous in this discussion, and has been severely commented on for retaining what is 

known as the property qualifi~ation in the apportionment of mem- bers of the Legislature, and thus affecting the apportionment for 

members of Congress. Such is not the ca-se. Pennsylvania has no mere property qualification for the voter, nor for the holding of office. 

At one time the property qualification existed in the constitution of 

PenJmylvania. Our ancestors, when they settled in Philadelphia, 

being freeholders themselves, determined that no one should ·be admitted to the privileges of the government unless he was himself a freeholder. He must possess a certain amount of land. This property 

qualification was a prerequisite to the privilege of suffrage. This 

qualification was then common to all or most of the States. But long 

since a more liberal spirit has obtained in Pennsylvania, and now there is no property qualification to the voter. Representation there 

is based entirely upon population. This change was made by our present constitution, framed in 1813. We have a tax-paying prerequisite, but this is not based upon property. 

It is provided a tax shall be paid at least thirty days before the 

election, which shall have been assessed at least sixty days before 

the election. No amount of tax is required. The smallest amount 

of a county or State tax is sufficient. This is· in the nature, indeed, 

of a poll-tax for the purpose of fixing the place of residence and to 

prevent fraud at our elections. And the man or the voter against 

whom the tax is assessed is not required to have any quantity of 

property whatever. It is assessed by the borough and ward and 

township assessors. These are the same officers who re~ister the voters. 

This registry is a precaution against fraudulent voting. The taxthe inconsiderable tax required of the voter-is more of a registry 

proceeding than a property qualification. And I may say further, that this registration is not really a prerequisite ; for if a man has 

the privilege under the constitution to vote otherwise he can prove 

it, notwithstanding his name may not be on the registry list. I make 

this brief statement in answer to the criticisms about the alleged 

property qualification in our Pennsylvania constitutiorls. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Will the Chair allow me to make a suggestion f 

I understand all that remains of the hour of the gentleman from 

Ohio [Mr. KEIFER] is only about five minutes. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. It is seven minutes. 

Mr. ROBINSON. I understand further that the gentleman from 

Mississippi [Mr. HooKER] wishes to take the :floor after the gentle- man from Ohio, who is not ready to proceed to-night. I suggest under 

those circumstances that the House allow the gentleman from Ohio 

to go on this afternoon and occupy the time he needs, after which 

the gentleman from Mississippi may be recognized in his own right. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. What is the proposition of the gentleman from Mississippi f 

Mr. ROBINSON. My proposition is to let the gentleman from Ohio 

know in advance that he can have more than five minutes to discuss 

this question. 

Mr. HOOKER. I have no objection whatever to the proposition of 

the gentleman from Massachusetts, and agree to it with this modification, however, that, at the request of my friend from Maryland, 

[1\Ir. McL~'"E,] I desire to give him five minutes to reply to an inquiry of the gentleman from Michigan, [1\Ir. HORR.] 

Mr. KEIFER. I need only about twenty minutes altogether. The SPEAKERp1·o tempo1·e. Unanimous consent is reqnested that 
·' 

1196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3·,. 

t he gen t.Jeman from Ohio, who is entitled to seven minutes, may have 

his time extended thirteen minutes, so that he may occupy twenty minutes in all. 

l\lr. ~cLANE. When does the gentleman propose to take his twenty 

minutes' 

Mr. KEIFER. Right now. The SFEAKER pro temp. o1·e. The gentleman proposes tQ occupy 

th e time till four o'clock; and after that the gentleman from Missis- sippi, who will be next recognized, proposes to yield a portion of his 

time to the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. McLll."E.] 

Mr. COX. I desire to say, before my friend from Ohio proceeds, 

there will be no vote taken to-night. I will also ask the gentleman 

from Ohio whether he will not allow the gentleman from Maryland 

[:Mr. McLA~"E] to occupy his five minutes before he proceeds with 

h is own remarks Y 

Mr. KEIFER. I have no objection whatever to that if such is the 

wjsh of the House. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 

McLA:\"E] is entitled to the :floor for five minutes. . 11Ir. McLANE. When I said to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 

HORR] that I had no idea the negro vote in the South had been as -utrammeled in the past as it would be in the future I was about to 

proceed to tell him why. · At the close of the war, and for ten years or for twelve years after the 

war, the South was held in subjection by the Army and the vote in the 

Southern States was under the protection oft.heArmy; I might almost 

say under the direction of the Army. And the white and the black 

populations in the South were held in a relation of antagonism. There was no question as to the fact that the South was in a state if not of 

anarchy then of military subjection; and through the entire South 

the voting during that period was a forced and unnatural vote. The 

black man voted or the white man voted as the military forces permitted, or subject at least to the violent excitement which this un- constitutional supervision created. 

And esnecially was it true o:f the black man that he only voted where 

t he Army stood ready to protect him, not because the white man of the 

South assailed him, but because he had been made by force to consider 

himself the ward of the Federal Government; and not only was he 

made to vote under the protection of the bayonet, but the white man was taught to know that the colored man thus protected and inspired was to govern the State, and n. condition of anarchy unparalleled in the history of the world existed through those States. And 

this same bayonet that protected ·the black man in his vote carried 

ths black man into the hall of legislation and: .protected him in the 

hall of legislation when he was wrongfully legislating for the State. 

During that time there was no free vote in the Sooth, whether of the 

white man or of the black man. That period cea-sed when the administration of General Grant ceased. The last vestige of that military despotism was in 1876. It was a-s recently as this present administration. When Rutherford B. Hayes was inaugurated President of 

the United States the Army still held the legislative halls of Louisiana. And from and after that day the black man of the South-and 

I say it to his credit-votes as freely as the white man of the South. 

[Cries of" Oh!" "Oh I'' on the republican side.] 

1\Ir. HORR. How is it in Louisiana f 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I say that is true in regard to Louisiana. 

Mr. McLANE. And it is for the credit of Louisiana that the black man can vote a.s freely there as the white man can vote in Michigan. 

Mr. HORR. I desire to ask the gentleman from Maryland one question. Mr. McLANE. I say to the honorable gentleman from Michigan 

without disrespect, that if comparison be made ·between the Representatives sent to the ftoor of this House from Michigan and the Representatives sent hythe negro vote of Louisiana. it will not be in any sense to the disparagement of the latter. 

Mr. HORR. Willyouanswermethisquestion T If your statement 

is true, why is it at the election in 1876 that the vote given has fallen 

off 'f Why is it that your vote in 1880 is less than it wa.a four years 

ago at the presidential election 1 

1\Ir. McLANE. The gentleman from l\Iiehigan knows perfectly well 

that the vote is light where there is no contest, or where ·the result 

of the cont€st is certain, and this result obtains in the North as fully as in the South, and in 1880 there was little or no contest in Louand answer it truthfully, as it applies to my State. [Cries of "Order I" "Order!"] You do not want the truth. [Cries of" Order!"] 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 

ROBERTSO::N] is not in order. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I only want a minute or two. 

Mr. KEIFER. If it will not come out of my t ime I will yield to the 

gentleman, because the Honse has been very liberal to me. Mr. ROBERTSON. The gentlemanfrom!fichigan asked the question why it was that the vote of Louisiana--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is. there unanimous consent for tho 

gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. ROBERTSON] to proceed 7 

A MEMBER. How long ! 

Mr. ROBERTSON. A few minutes. 

Mr. REED. We desire unanimous consent that the gentleman 

from Michigan [Mr. HoRR] shal1 have time to reply. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is right. 

Mr. REED. If that is done, then as many of those gentlemen may 

talk as want to. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there consent 'I · 

Mr. WHITE. I rise to a question of order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo're. The gentleman will state it. 

1\Ir. WHITE. The gentleman from · Louisiana [Mr. ROBERTSON)! 

asked for a moment or two of time to make a statement, and appea.lefl 

to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KEIFER] to yield, which he did. 

Mr. KEIFER. Not to come out of my time. 

The SPEAKER JWO ternpore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 

[Mr. WmTE] will recollect that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KEI-- FER] yielded upon condition that it should not be taken out of his 

time, which condition it was not in the power of the Chair to grant. 

The House itself must give consent to that. 

Several1riEMBERS. Regular order I 

The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The regular order being ca.lled for, 

the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KEIFER] will proceed. 

Mr. KEIFER. In the midst of this wild confusion I can hardly 

expect to speak calmly and moderately, as I alwa.ys try to do, and 

yet entertain the distinguished gentlemen here. 

I shall vote for three hundred and nineteen members in this Honse 

for the coming decennial period. Having announced that, I want to. go back and ascertain how far it would be just and equitable for us to accept the original bill introduced into this Hoose by the distinguished chairman of the Census Committee, [Mr., Cox,] a bill which 

provides for three hnndrt}d and one members of this Honse. 

That gentleman told us yesterday that the p.nmber three hundred 

and one was more convenient and more fair than three hundred and 

eleven or three hundred and nineteen; that it would produce as little 

inequality as any other number that could be selected. Now, when we look at this matter on this side of the Hoose in a partisan point 

of view, we are charged with doing something unfair. Yet examining 

that bill in that view, it will appear that the number three hundred 

and one would give to the States which we now commonly denominate the Southern States, to distinguish them from the Northern and< 

free States, an advantage of four members. 

Now, the majority of the Committee on the Census concluded that. that was not enough advantage, that it would be better to find the only 

number perhaps that would give to the Southern States the advantage· of six members, while the number which I favor, and ,the number 

favored by the minority of the committee, three hundred and nineteen, would give to neither section of the country, North or South, 

any advantage at all. It is the only number, so far as I have seen the figures, that fixes the apportionment exactly on~ equality between the two sections so far as gains and losses are concerned. This 

matter of looking carefully to the interests of the North and South. 

is not an original question with this Congress. It was the first question upon which the first President of the United St~tes took issue 

with Congress. Out of apportionment legislation grew the first veto. 

message ever signed by a President of the United States, and it was. on the theory that the first apportionment bill submitted to him in 

1793 was unfair to the South. 

If the Clerk will now read the first veto message of April5, 179'2,. I will then call attention to the history and the circumstances under 

which it came to be written and sent to the Hoose. 

The Clerk read as follows: U~;ITED STATES, Aprr."l 5, 1792. 

isiana. • Gentlemen of the House of .Rep7uentatives: 

Mr. HORR. And why no contest Y I ha>e maturely considered the act passed by the two Houses, entitled" .An act 

Mr. MORRISON. Because the republicans abandoned the contest for anapporti~nme?;ltofRepresen?tiyesamongthe sever&:J.Spate~, ~ccordinJ;tothe · 

in the South and undertook to buy votes enough to answer their pur- first e~mmer!ltio!J-; and I return 1t to your House, wherem 1tongmated, Wlth the· · th N th followmg obJections: _ pose 1n e or • . . First. The Constitution has prescribed that Representatives shall be apporti_?ned ~Ir. ROBERTSON. I will answer the gentleman's question why among the several States according to their respective numbers; and tliere 1s no there was no contest. one proportion or divisor which, applied to the res~ective numbers of th~ States, ~ 'I LANE I d t t t b · t ted will yield the number and allotment of Representatives proposed by the bill . .... .~.r. Jl C · 0 no wan 0 e 10 errup · . . Second. The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives. Mr. ROBERTSON. I want to answer the gentleman !rom MIChl- shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand; wbio~ restriction is, by the eon- gao; the gentleman from Maryland has not answered him. I want text, and by fair and obvious eonstrncti~n, to be applied 1!0 the separate andreto answer hi9 question truthfully. ~~ective numbers oft~e States, and the b1ll has allotted toe1ght of the States more The SPEAKER pro ternpore. The time of the gentleman from Mary- t an one for every thirty thousand. GEORGE w .ASHINGTON. 

lan:d [Mr. ~cLANEl has expired and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 

KEIFER 1 is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. As the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HORR] 

propounded a question to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mc- L~E] which he has not answered fully, I would like to answer it 

Mr. KEIFER. It will be found that by taking the number three· hundred and one as a basis for the future Honse of Representatives. 

there is "no one proportion or divisor which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and allotment of 

·., 
( I 

1881. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1197 

Representatives proposed by the bill," to use the exac~ language used 

by the President of the United States, George Washington. 

Before going into a demollStration of that statement, I ask the ·Clerktoread-andlbeatheattentionofmemberstoit-whatThomas 

Jefferson says on the subject of the history of that veto message. He 

will read an extract from Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution, volume 4, page 624. 

The Clerk read~ follows: 

The President called on me before breakfast, and :first introduced some other 

matter, then fell on the representation bill, which he had now in his possession for 

the tenth day. I had before given him my opinion in writing, that the method of 

apportionment was contrary to the Constitution. He agreed that it was contrary to the common nnderstanding of that instrument, and to what was nnderstood at tlie time by the makers of it ; that yet it would bear the construction which the 

bill put; and he observed that the vote for and against the bill was perfectly geo· 

graphical-a northern against a southern vote-and he feared he should be thought "to be taking side with a southern party. I admitted the motive of delicacy, but that it shoulcl not induce him to do wrong, and urged the dangers to which the scramble 

for the fractionary members would always lead. He here expressed his fear that 

there would, ere long, be a separation of the Union; that the public mind seemed 

dissatisfied, and tending to this. He went home, sent for Randolph, the AttorneyG eneral, desired him to get .Mr. Madison immediately, and come to me ; and if we three concurred in opinion, that he would negative the bill. He desired to hear 

nothing more about it, bnt that we draw up the instrument for him to sign. They came ; our mindS' had been before made up ; we drew the instrument. Randolph carried it to him, and told him we all concurred in it. He walked with him to the 

door, and, as if he still wished to ~et oft: he said "And you say yon approve of 

this yourself~" "Yes, sir," says Randolph, "I do, upon my honor." Ho sent it to the House of Representatives instantly. A few of the hottest friends of the 

bill expressed passion, but the maiority were satisfied, and both in and out of doors 

it gave pleasure t.o have at length an instance of the negati>e being exercised. 

Written this the 9th April. 

Mr. KEIFER. 1\Iy time will not permit me to occupy the attention of the House any further with the history of that matter. It 

shows t.hat early in the constitutional history of this country this 

matter of apportionment was regarded as a very grave and important one. It was then believed that it was right and proper to find some -common divisor that would be equitable and just to each and all of 

the States. There was a jealous eye to the interest of the Southern 

States in connection with that matter. 

I state this in support of ·my non-partisan position on the subject 

of fixing a numberfor the Representatives of coming Congress~s that 

will give no advantage either to the North or to the South. 

If we look over this bill and make calculations upon it, we will find some queer figures, some queer ·results. I refer to the originnl bill 

upon the subject before this House. It will strike a man as rath9r 

curious, if he were not to go to the very foundation of all these pe-

-culiar relations of numbers, how it could happen that Ohio, with an increased population from 1870 to 1880 of 532,979, should under that 

bill lose one member of Congress, while South Carolina, with an in-

.oreased population of a ' little more than• one-ha.lf of that number, 

that is, 290,016, should gain one member. 

The same thing may be said in reference to Mississippi. With an increased population from 1870 to 1880 of 203,670, that State gains .one member under this bill, fixing the number at three hundred and 

'()ne; while Ohio, with her gain of 533,000, loses one member. But 

this would lead us into some further explanation about the figures 

which I do not choose to go into. I simply state these mathematical 

-curiosities in support of my claim that we ought to select a number 

that will be exactly fair. These singular results are not confined to a comparison of Ohio with other States. New York State, with an increased population from 1870 to 1880 of 701,051, under this bill 

loses two members, and Pennsylvania, with an increased population 

from 1870 to 1880, of 760,835, loses one member under the bill, while 

Mississippi with an increased population in the same time of only 

203,670, and South Carolina with an increased population, also for the 

>Same time, of 290,016, each gain one member by the provisions of t his 

bill. Other comparisons could be made with like results. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. Has the gentleman made inquiry 

whether Ohio has not now more representation relatively to South 

Carolina than she ought to have 7 

Mr. KEIFER. Oh, no; I have taken the figures of 1870 as a fair 

apportionment with the ratio then adopted; then I take the ratio 

given now; and taking the difference between the census of 1870 as reported and the census of 1880 as reported, I find these singular re- sults. The matter of fairness or unfairness in the taking of the cen- sus for either of the years 1870 or 1880 has nothing to do with the 

question. 

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia rose. Mr. KEIFER. I cannot yield further; I have not the time. 

Now, I am not quite satisfied with the position of the gentleman 

from Kentucky [Mr. THOMPSON] when he argues in favor of a large 

body of men as more likely to be a pure body. While I am not afraid 

.of having the number increased, for other reasons which I will indicate, I am not quite .satisfied that the ·reason the gentleman gavethat a large body of men is always the safest-is the ri~ht one. I 

understood him to say that the rule is universal in relation to large 

bodies of men being safer than small ones. History will prove that 

to be absolutely untrue, if the gentleman takes into account the fact 

that in other countries the methods of choosing such bodies and the 

powers that choose them have not recognized the people as the gov- erning power. I wish to say as I pass along that when we get a per- fectly pure body of men in our Republic, large or small, it will be a body representing the people of the several districts of the country 

who have had a fair opportunity to cast their ballots without fraud or intimidation and to have those ballots honestly count_ed and fairly 

returned. When the time shall come that we have that in this country we may expect to have a good and pure House of Representatives. 

If it has happened in other cou~es that smaU bodies of men have 

been more tyrannical than large, it will be found to be because some concentrated power other than the masses of the people has selected or chosen that small body- of men, and therefore directed and con- trolled them. - I believe, however, in a reasonably large House of Representatives, 

in view of the great amount of work that we have to perform. The 

Constitution fixed 30,000 as the ratio of representation for the first 

apportionment. It was then supposed that one member for 30,000 

inhabitants was enough, and only enough. 

Now, with all the varied interests of this country, with all the sub- jects that our constituents are concerned about, with all the multi- plication of duties growing out of our business here, it is proposed to 

adopt the ratio of 164,018 as the basis of representation here. This 

number is the ratio on which the original bill fixing the number of 

members at three hundred and one is based. The bill reported by a majority of the Census Committee fixing the number of members at 

three hundred and eleven is based on a ratio of 158,745, and the bill 

of the minority of that committee fixing the number pot three hundred 

and nineteen is based on a: ratio of 154,764. The ratio ten yeara ago was only 135,239, I ·believe. ' 

We are expected to perform all our many duties promptly and well. 

There comes requisition after requisition upon members of Congress. It may be that many of these demands upoh us are for the perform- ance of duties that do not properly belong to our position here; but 

custom has made it the duty of every memoer of Congress to run er- rands to the Departmehts-to be a sort of counselor or adviser between the people and th~ different Departinenta where the business 

of the people is pending. If the number of Representatives is to be 

cut down and our constituencies increased, it will be impossible for us to perform the duties that these people expect of us. For that reason I am in favor of an increase on the basis of the figures I have 

named. 

Turning aside for one moment in this discussion, I will say that 

there are some other remarkable figures and facts worked out under 

this census. My own State will not suffer on a basis of voting population, if such a basis could be adopted (and I do not say it could) 

under the Constitution. Ohio, I am happy to say, has a people not 

only free to vote when election day comes, but a people educated to 

vote, and who do vote. Let me state a fact that may not have been · noted'. At the election inN ovember last, Ohio cast 103,046 more votes 

than were cast in the great State of Illinois, with substantially the same population, the population of Illinois being 3,078,769 as again t 

3,198,239 in Ohio. Now, this larger vote in Ohio comes from the freedom of the people to vote and also (for they are as free in Illinois) 

from the education of the people in the matter of voting. We have 

first tried before the people of Ohio the great issues of this country . We have tried the great financial issues there in advance of the na- tion. First in 18i5 we fought the battle, and we won the financial 

victory as it has been won since by the people of this whole country. 

The election returns con pled with the vote at the late election show some curious results in the North and West in the ability or willing- ness of the people to vote. Take the table of figures made up in 

round numbers, as follows: 

States. Vote. Population. Per cent. 

Illinois...................................... . ... 622,000 

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725, 000 Indiana . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 575, 000 Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 323, 000 Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201, 000 

3, 100, 000 3, 200, 000 2, 000,000 

1, 600,000 

1, 000,000 

1 in 5.0 1 in 4.4 1 in 3.4 

1 in 5.4 1 in 5.0 

It will be seen that Indiana is a good voting State. The now good 

roads and accessibility of voting places in Ohio and Indiana may 

have something to do with the voters getting to the polls in a larger 

per cent. than in some other States. 

The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HoRR] has given :figures from 

the Southern States which in comparison to these would astonish 

the country if it was not already aware that something terrible was the matter with the votin"' population in those States. 

Before taking my seat, I wish to say but one other thing in support of my proposition. Taking three hundred and one as the num- ber, Ohio with nineteen members (which would be her apportionment under that number) would have one member for every 168,328; 

Mississippi one member for every 161,656; South Carolina one mem- ber for every 165,937 ; Louisiana one member for every 156,683. Thus, 

without taking the time to run through the list, it will be seen that 

my State is to be pnt at a disadvantage of several thousand in population, (to say nothing of votes,) as against these States of the 

South. Therefore I protest, 1\Ir. Speaker, against a bill suoh as the one originally offered by the gentleman from New York; and I still more protest against the bill reported by the Committee on the Census, because it is still more unfair. I insist upon a fair number, one that will be just to each section. So far as I am concerned, (I do not 

speak for those around me,) I shall oppose, as does the gentleman 
. 

I ' 

1198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

from Michigan, [Mr. HoRR,] any number that is unfair; and I will 

do it by every means known to the rules of parliamentary law. 

rHere the hammer fell.] 

Mr. COLERICK. Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour, 

and of the further fact that I have consented to yield one-half of the 

time accorded to me to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. RYo~,] I prefer, if it is agreeable to the Honse and satisfactory to 

that gentleman, that he should occupy the first half hour, and that 

the remaining half hour shall be reserved by me until to-morrow. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. 1\Ir. Speaker, it is quite as important 

that we should determine the manner of electing the Representatives 

to this Honse as it is that we should determine the number which 

shall compose the popular legislative branch of this Government. In 

t he discussion of this question, it is of the utmost importance to us that we should be guided by those plain, simple, constitutional provisions which determine the basis upon which representation shall 

rest. If there is anything settled by the uniform history of our Government it is that representation is based upon numbers-upon the 

number of inhabitants in the several States-and not alone or in any 

instance by the number of qualified electors. Any attempt to regulate representation by the qualification to vote, under the circumstances of thfs case and with the facts which are now before the coun- try, would be utterly futile and lead to manifest injustice. We have no basis upon which we can act. The people voluntarily go to the 

polls if they go at all. Many of them remain at home. Therefore 

the constitutional provision of the country, that upon which we are bound to act, that which we are sworn to support and protect, requires 

that in apportionment of Representatives to the American Honse of 

Representatives we shall confine ourselves alone to. the number of 

inhabitants which have been returned by the enumerators of the census as the basis of our work. 

Now, while it is not my purpose to devote ·any time to the discussion of this aspect of the question raised and discussed by members on the :floor of the House, I propose for a few moments to direct the 

attention of my fellow-members to a subject which I deem of the 

utmost importance in the determination of the question now before us. The bill reported by the committee fixes the number of Representatives at three hundred and eleven, but it makes no provision what- ever for the representation of new States which may be admitted into 

the Union, it is utterly and entirely silent on the subject of the a-dmission of new States into the Union, and without legislation upon 

that subject either in the bill admitting the State or in the apportion- ment, States admitted after we have passed an apportionment bill 

would be without representation in Con~ress. 

I propose in the discussion of this qnestwn, Mr. Speaker, to announce my purpose to add an mnendment to this bill which shall authorize new States when admitted into this Union to have representation ac- cording to their population. In addition to that I find it has heretofore been the practice in making apportionments to determine in some way bow the Representative shall be elected by the States 

either in single districts or by dividing the State or referring to the 

Legislatures of States the duty of determining the local divisions in 

the States which shall be entitled to Representatives. The minority 

of the committee reported a third section to the bill which they submitted to the House which, so far as it goes, meets every requirement 

of the law. But it is a part of the necessities of the case that additional safeguards should be adopted, and therefore I propose to move an amendment to attach to the third section of the bill reported by the 

minority. Section 3 as reported by the minority of the committee is 

taken from the apportionment act of 1871. I have added to the third 

section the provision which I now send up to the Clerk to be read. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

It shall be unlawful to divide any coup. tv or parish where any district shall con- sist of more than one county or parish, ana in all districts consisting of more than one county or parish the counties or parishes contiguous to each other having the 

number of inhabitants nearest to the ratio fixed by law for a Representative in 

tho Congress of the United States sha.ll be made a representative district. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. It will be noticed, 1\Ir. Speaker, that 

the third section of this bill as reported by the minority of the com- mittee provides that each State shall be divided into districts cor- responding with the number of Representatives to which that State 

ma.y be entitled ; second, that the districts shall be composed of con- tiguous territory, and third, there shall be but one Representative 

from each district. Now, that provision which I have recited was contained in the apportionment a.ct passed in 1871, and so far as it 

appears upon the report made by the minority of the commit we it is 

copied verbatim from that act. But it falls short, as I have already 

said, of accomplishing any beneficial purpose in restraining the Legislatures of the States from committing what I regard as a crime 

against the free citizens of this Republic. Therefore, I provide in the 

amendment which I have submitted that there shall be no division 

of counties, that territory contiguous wherever a district is composed 

of more than one county shall contain the nearest possible number of 

inhabitants that will correspond with the ratio fixed by law. The 

words in the existing law which provide that contiguous territory containing as near as practicable an equal number of inhabitants to 

the ratio required by law shall be a district, have proved entirely 

insufficient as a. warning to the Legislatures of the several States in 

determining this question of representation in Congress. 

As nearly as practicable, says the law, leaving the Legisla-tures 

. 

entire discretion over the whole subject of districting States for the 

purpose of representation, and it illustrates the old adage with a perfection that cannot be equaled, that "honeyed words butter no parsnips." 

Now, a great deal has been said here upon the subject of disfranchising citizens entitled to exercise the privilege of franchise in the 

several States. A great deal has been said about "bulldozing" toprevent people who are entitled to cast their ballots according to their 

judgment, from doing so in certain States. I do not propose to dis- cuss that question at any considerable length, but I propose to meet. this subject upon grounds plain, fair, and reasonable, and to advocate such an apportionment of the Members of Congress as shall give 

to the people in this country fair, free, and honest elections, and a. due representation upon the :floor of Congress. I have no partisan 

claim of my own to ad vance in the discussion of this question, or in 

the support of the measures which I trust will be a-dopted; butwhat 

I do want and what I wish and shall strive to do, is to endeavor to 

prevent the disfranchisement of one-half of the population of this 

country by a system of reckless gerrymandering, and by which fully 

half of the people have no representative in the National Legislature. 

In the first place I want to prevent the process of dividing coun- ties. Well, gentlemen, yon will say that you have not done it. In 

all the researches that I have given to the subject I have found but one State only besides Pennsylvania where this practice is carried on. In all the other States, I believe, counties have been yoked and 

united together in single districts ; but in the State of Pennsylvania no such wholesome practice prevails. We divide counties there and 

unite the fragments in districts to accomplish partisan ends. We annex townships to counties and counties to townships. Another 

proposition which I advocate is that the counties contiguous to each 

other having the nearest population to the ratio fixed by law for a. Representative in Congress shall be made into a congressional district. Does this hurt the people t No ; by no means. The people 

have a. right to it; it hurts nobody but the politicians who want to 

make districts for themselves or for their friends, who will use partisan 

power to accomplish the result; a result, let me say with emphasis 

to yon here and now, that never can be followed in any free ~overnment wi$hont putting in peril civil liberty. Another proposition in 

that amendment is that the population, as I have already stated, near- est to the ratio fixed by law shall constitute a representative district •. Now, sir, turning to actual practice upon the subject, we find that in 

mstricting States there has been no sort of regard whatever paid to· the number of "inhabitants fixed by law as the ratio of representation. 

In support of this assertion I can point to the record. I can find· districts that never had the population required by law, which have 

Representatives; districts in which thirty or forty or fifty thousand: are allowed to elect a Representative; and upon the other hand thousands and thousands have been piled into a district in excess of the 

population required· by law to answer partisan purposes. This thing 

should not be continued. My: friends upon the other side, who claim 

to be friends of honest elections, who claim to be friends of the people, who claim tha-t they want a fair apportionment, I ask you to join 

with me, then, in the support of such measures as sb,all give to the 

people of this country a representation in their National Legislaturewhich is fair, honest, and equitable. 

Mr. DAVIS, of North Carolina. Will thegentlemanfromPennsylvania point out where this has been done f 

:Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. I will tell the gentleman where I 

know that it has been done. I will take the district represented by 

my friend Mr. KLoTZ, which has twenty townships annexed to it from. 

Luzerne County. It is composed of four or five demoeratic coun- ties1\fr. KLOTZ. I would like to make a correction ; they have added 

to it twenty townships and a half. [Laughter.] 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. They took some twenty townships 

from Luzerne County and added them with Columbia County to Carbon, Monroe, and Pike Counties, all democratic counties, thereby 

making a democratic district, with 10,000 democratic majority, with- a population of 150,000 or 160,000 people. Take also the district of 

my colleague who represents Berks County. That district is below 

the ratio in the number of its inhabitants. It has but 106,000 inhabitants in it, and 130,000 is the ratio required by law. But Berks 

is democratic by 6,500, and there is no adjoining county that can b& 

annexed to Berks to make a republican district. The little county of 

Lebanon ou the west side, which with Berks would have made a district1 has 1,500 republican majority. They could not afford to throw 

away that republican majority, and therefore they make him a district of 106,000 in it. 

Let me again call the attention of the Honse to the district represented by my friend from Northampton, [Mr. BACHliAN,] the district 

composed of the counties of Northampton and Lehigh. These are heavy democratic counties. But they added to them a number of 

democratic townships from Bucks, leaving in the residue of Bucks a. republican majority. Then they give to my colleague from Montgomery and Bucks all the remaining portion of Bucks County not 

included in the tenth district. Having abstracted the democratie 

majority from Bucks, how did they fix it up to make a republican 

district out of two democratic counties by adding the remainin~ part 

of Bucks to Montgomery f By making a very large democratic dis-

\ 

I 
1881. ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1199· 

trict for my friend, Mr. BACIL'IA...~, they succeeded in getting up a pretty good republican district for my friend GoDSHALK in two democratic counties. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WHITE. Will the gentleman allow me a moment! 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. Yes, sir. ~lr. WHITE. Let me t ell my friend that the democratic senator 

from Berks County, at the time of the apportionment, \oted for and 

approved of the bill. And I think the democratic representatives 

from this northeastern portion of the State approved of it. They were all in favor of that apportionment. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. Well, I think it is not the first time 

that democrats have sold their constituents for power. [Laughter on the republican side.] 

Mr. WHITE. Do not blame the republicans, then, for it. .Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. Now, they talk about the disfranchisement of the negro. He ought not to be disfranchised. His right 

to vote should be secured to him. I do not think my friend from 

Michigan or anywhere else could oppose such legislation any more heartily than I do. But I hope my friend will be equally emphatic 

in his condemnation of this system of gerrymandering. I give these 

Pennsylvania cases as illustrations, not because they are peculiar, for 

the whole system is wrong and it obtains everywhere. Let us cor- rect the wrong by compelling a fair district system. 

In the State of Pennsylvania, where we have407,428 democrats, it 

takes 50,928 to send a Representative to this House. These 407,000 

electors in Pennsylvania are represented by eight men upon this 

:floor. The republican vote in 1880 was 444,704. It takes 23,450 re- publicans to elect a Representative to Congress. These 444,000 thousand republicans in the State of Pennsylvania are represented by 

nineteen men in this House. The city of Philadelphia has five Representatives on this :floor. One is a democrat and four are republic- ans. It takes 75,000 democrats in that city to elect one democrat, 

and 94,000 republicans to elect four republicans. 

Mr. O'NEILL. Let me state to the gentleman that the democrat 

from the city of Philadelphia never objected to the districting of the 

city which secured his return to this House. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. He never had any voice in the matter; besides democrats love to be disfranchised. 

Mr. O'NEILL. The difficulty is that it was a hard matter to so appol'tion the city of Philadelphia aa even to get in one democrat, 

the democratic population is so small. 

Mr. BELTZHOOVER. The republicans did not object to the apportionment. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. And though they have the power 

they have never attempted to correct the injustice. 

Mr. WHITE. It cannot be corrected unless you can get the democratic votes more scattered. As it is now they all live in a bunch. 

:Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. Every Representative on this :floor 

from that city but on@ is a republican under that system of gerrymandering. 

Mr. O'NEILL. The gentleman ought to confine his attention to 

the rural districts rather than the city. · Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. Now I propose to tell you how this 

is done. 

, :Mr. O'NEILL. I hope he will confine himself to his own district, 

t hen. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, with 5,000,000 of 

people, every county in the State full of people and full of voters, we have districts one hundred and twenty miles long--

Mr. WHITE. My district is that long. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. And the lines are more crooked than 

any snake track made in the sand. [Laughter.] They take one or t wo strong republican counties and in the republican majority in 

t hese counties they sink one or two democratic counties, and in that 

way make a republican district. Thus they parceled out the State 

among themselves, as did those gentlemen who sat at the foot of the cross and divided our Saviour's raiment. They have done that all over the State. There are twenty-seven districts in the State and only one instance where they pot a republican county in a democratic 

district. They put the little county of Union in a democratic district 

because they could not do anything else with it. They had nowhere 

else to put it. 

:Now, do you wish this state of things continued! I do n0t say that 

it is peculiar to Pennsylvania alone, for her politicians are about as honest as the average run of the country. 

Mr. WHITE. Will my friend allow me f 

Mr. ROBINSON. I hope the gentleman will allow that mistake to 

be corrected. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. I cannot allow any more time to be ' 

taken up with questions. 

l!r. WHITE. That apportionment was made in 1874, and since 

that time--

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. By a republican Legislature. 

Mr. WHITE. Certainly; and since that time the republican aggregate majority of the State has been increasing. The people there 

approved of it and indorsed it. Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. I suppose you mean to say the repub- licans approved of it 'f 

Mr. WHITE. The democrats approved of it, t-oo. 

Mr. RYON, of Pennsylvania. But there are machine republicans 

in Pennsylvania.. The people there have stood more than any people· on earth of dishonest and partisan legislation. The gentleman knows 

very well, because he has been there himself. [Laughter.] 

Now, in the State of New York, in the State of Ohio, and in the 

State of Pennsylvania by this process of gerrymanderin~ more white: men are practically disfranchised than there are negroes m the South. 

I do not approve of it in the North any more than I do in the South .. It is wrong anywhere and everywhere, and it is our duty to put a, 

stop to it if we can. We can only stop it by adding to this bill sueh. legislation as will render a repetition of such a wrong, such a crime, 

and such an offense against the people of this Republic impossible 

hereafter. , [Here the hammer fell.] ' 

Mr. KEIFER. Will the gentleman allow me, before he takes his 

seat---

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Air. COX. I move that the House now adjourn. 

LEAVE OF ABSE.L~CE. 

Pending the motion to adjourn, by unanimous consent leave of 

absence was granted as follows: 

To Mr. MULLER, until Tuesday next; and 

To Mr. RicHMom>, for one week from Monday, on account of important business. LEAVE TO PRrnT. 

Mr. BELTZHOOVER was granted leave to print in the RECORD as a portien of the debates an argument in favor of the bill (H. R. No. 

2272) for the settlement of the a-ccounts of certain States for moneys 

expended in the war of 1812. [See Appendix.] · 

SUPPLIES FOR Th"T])IA...~ TRIBES. 

The SPEAKER pro tent pore, by unanimous consent, laid before the 

House a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, relative to the deficiency estimates for the issue of supplies to certain Indian tribes; 

which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

FORT ASSINIBO~. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore also laid before the House a letter from 

the Secretary of War, recommending an appropriation for Fort Assini .. boine; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

PURCHASE OF TELEGRAPH LL.~S. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before the House the follow ... ing communications; which were severally referred to the Commit-. tee on Appropriations : A letter from the Secretary of War, recommending the purchase of 

the Cheyenne and Black Hills telegraph line; and 

A letter from the Secretary of War relative to the purchase of the 

Cheyenne and Black Hills telegraph line and the construction of telegraph lines in Oregon and in Washington Territory. 

FREE BRIDGE ACROSS THE POTOMAC. 

Mr. KLOTZ, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 

7105) relating to the acqueduct of the Alexandria Canal Company, 

at Georgetown, in the District of Columbia, and to provide a free 

bridge across the Potomac River on the piers of said acqueduct ;4 

which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee. for the District of Colm;nbia, and ordered to be printed. 

SEED CANE. 

Mr. KING, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 7106)' 

appropriating 20,000 for the purchase and distribution of seed cane;~ 

which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on" 

Agriculture, and ordered to be printed. 

The motion of Mr. Cox was then agreed to; and accordingly (at. 

four o'clock and forty minutes p. m.) the Hause adjourned. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following petitions and other papers were laid on the Clerk'S' 

de11k, under the rule, and referred aa follows, viz : By Mr. WILLIAM ALDRICH: The petition of C. Feustel and others, 

of Geneva and Chicago, Illinois, for the reduction of the tax on cigarsto the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. ANDERSON: The petition of citizens of Kansas, ex-soldiers, 

against the passage of the sixty-surgeons pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · By Mr. BACHMAN: The petition of 16 citizens of Pennsylvania, . against the passage of Senate bill No. 496-to the same committee •. By Mr. BENNETT: The petition of 33 citizens of Pembina County, . Dakota Territory, for the division of that Territory on the forty-sixth 

degree of north latitude, the organizat ion of the north half into a Territory, and the admission of the south half as a State-to the Committee on the Territories. By Mr. FRYE : The petition of R. W. P.ratt and other soldiers of 

New Vineyard, Maine, against the passage of Senate bill No. 496-to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions. • iY Mr GEDDES: The petition of Charles Horn and others, of 

Mansfield, Ohio, for a reduction of the tax on cigars-to the Commit-. tee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. HEILMAN: The petition of citizensofEvansdale,Indiana, . for the reduction of the duty on salt-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of soldiers of Pikeville, Indiana, against the pas-
1200 1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 4, 

:sage of the sixty-surgeons pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. 

By Mr. HOUK: The petition of citizens of Tennessee, against the 

passage of the sixty-surgeons pension bill and for the passage of the 

Geddes bill-to the same committee. 

By Mr. HOUSE: ResolntionoftheTennessee State board of health, 

asking the continuance of the National Board of Health-to the Committee on the origin, introduction, and prevention of Epidemic Dis- ·eases in the United States. 

By Mr. JOYCE: The petition of citizens of Vermont, that a pen- -sion be granted Alfred ?II. :Magoon-to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. 

Also, the petition of James A. Dickey, for arrears of pension-to 

the same committee. 

By Mr. KETCHAM: The petition of Adolph Joseph and 20 others, 

citizens of New York, against the passage of the sixty-surgeons pension bill-to the same committee. 

By Mr. LAPHAM: The petition of wool-growers of the United 

States, for the passage of the Eaton tariff-commission bill-t o t he 

.Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. EDWARD L. MARTIN: The petition of J. B. Slaymaker 

and others, for the passage of a law regulating interstate commerce- ·to the Committee on Commerce. 

Also, the petition of C. Gundy Brown and others, for a revision of 

the patent laws-to the Committee on Patents. 

Also, the petition of C. Gundy Brown and others, that the Commissioner of Agriculture be made a Cabinet officer-to the Commit-

-tee on Agriculture. 

Also, the petition of C. Gundy Brown and others, for the passage 

-of an income-tax law-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, the petition of George T. Dodd and 392 others, for an appropriation for the improvement of Indian River, Delaware-to the 

.Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. McMAHON; The petition of Edward Kimball and others, 

citizens of Butler County, Ohio, for the passage of an income-tax 

law-to the Committee on- Ways and Means. 

By Mr. MONEY: The petition of .Mary A. Wortham, for a bounty1and warrant-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By 1\Ir. PRICE: The petition of citizens of Muscatine County, Iowa, 

for a law to protect innocent purchasers of patented articles-to the ·Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. ROSS: The petition of citizens of New Jersey, for a reduction of the tax on cigars-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Also, the petition of citizens of New Jersey, against the passage of 

Senate bill No. 496-to the Committee on Invalid· Pensions. 

By Mr. ROTHWELL : The petitions of James Eason and others, 

and of M. Y. Buchanan, V. Rollins, and 18 others, for the passage of a bill to make the Commissioner of Agriculture a Cabinet officer-to 

the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, the petition of 0. P. Philips and 7 others, citizens of Missouri, 

for the passage of an income-tax law-to the Committee ou Ways 

and Means. 

Also, the petition of John Starkey and others, citizens of Missouri, 

for the amendment of the patent laws-to the Committee on Patents. 

Also, the petitions of W. S. Christian, Thomas Boyd, and 21 others, 

and of Charles B. Comstock and others, citizens of Missouri, for legislation to regulate interstate commerce-to the Committee on Com- merce. By Mr. J. T. UPDEGRAFF: The petition of William Thompson 

and others, citizens of Belmont County, Ohio, for legislation to promote the interests of agriculture-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. UPSON: The petition of citizens of Texas, for legislation 

to suppress the disease among cattle known as pleuro-pneumonia-to 

the same committee. 

By Mr. VANCE: The petition of T. G. Hensen and others, for a postroute from Rutherfordton, North Carolina, to Spartanburgh, South 

Carolina, via Big Island-to the Committee on the Post-Office and 

Post-Roads. 

By 1\fr. WILSON: The petition of James Singleton and 40 others, 

of West Virginia, against the passage of Senate· bill No. 496-to the 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

IN SENATE. 

FRIDAY, Febr'ltary 4, 1881. 

.Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. J. BULLOCK, D. D. 

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

N.A. V .AL APPROPRIATION BILL. 

. The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the action of the 

Honse of Representatives on the amendments of the Senate to the 

bill (H. R. No. 6969) making appropriations for the naval service 'for 

the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, and for other purposes. 

On motion of :Mr. WINDOM, is was 

Re~~olved, That the Senate insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House 

,of RepresEmtatives, and ask a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes '!Jf the two HouseB thereon. 

By unanimous consent, it was Ordered, That thi conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed by the Vice- President. 

And Mr. Wu..-rool\r, Mr. DAVIS of West Virginia, and Mr. 'VITHERS were appointed the conferees. 

Th"'DIAN APPROPRIATIO~ BILL. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the action of the 

House of Representatives on the amendments of the Senate to the 

bill (H. R. No. 6730) making appropriations for. the current and con- tingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty 

stipulations with the various Indian tribes, for the year ending June 

30, 1882, and for other purposes. 

On motion of Mr. WALLACE, it was Re~~ol ed, That the Senate insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House of 

Representatives, and ask a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of 

the two Houses thereon. 

By unanimous consent , it was 

Ordered, That the conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed by the Vice- President . 

And Mr. WALLACE, Mr. BECK, and 1\Ir. 'VTh""DOl\I were appointed the 

conferees. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. 

The bill (H. R. No. 6729) to confirm a certain private land claim in 

the Territory of New Mexico was read twice by its title, and referred 

to the Committee on Private Land Claims. 

The bill (H. R. No. 7035) making appropriations to provide for the 

expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal 

year ending June 30, 1882, and for other purposes, was read twice by 

its title, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 372) authorizing the Public Printer 

to print reports of the Unit ed States Fish Commissioner upon new discoveries in regard to fish culture was read twice by its title, and 

referred to the Committee on Printing. 

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 388) to provide for publishing an edition of Hayden's Atlas of Colorado was read by its title. 

:Mr. ANTHONY. That joint resolution, I believe, is in totidem verbis 

like one passed by the Senate last week. I ask that it be put upon 

its passage. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I object. 

'.fhe VICE-PRESIDENT. Objection is made. 

The joint resolution was read the second time, and referred to the 

Committee on Printing. 

EXECUTIVE COMM"ID<I-r:ICATIO~S. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from the 

Secretary of the Interior, transmitting copies of letters from Agents 

Miles and Hunt, of ~he Cheyenne and Arapaho, and Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita agencies, Indian Territory, respectively,in con- nection with the deficiency estimate transmitted in his letter of the 

21st ultimo; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, 

and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of War, transmitting a communication from the Chief Signal Officer, 

recommending an appropriation for the purchase of the Cheyenne 

and Black Hills Telegraph Company's line ; which was referred to 

the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of War, transmitting copies of papers relative to the abandonment of 

Camp Sheridan, Nebrask3; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

He also laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of War, 

transmitting a communication from General A. H. Terry, commanding the Department of Dakota, asking an additional appropriation 

of 45,000 to complete the post of Fort Assinaboine, in Montana Territory; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

He also laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of War 

transmitting, in compliance with section 232 of the Revised Statutes, an abstract of the militia force of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed. 

PETITIONS .AND MEMORIALS. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT presented a letter from the Secretary of 

War, transmitting the memorial of Alanson :M. Randol, captain First 

Artillery, brevet colonel United States Army, remonstrating ~ainst 

the passage of the bills to restore to the Army William A. 'v inder 

and Dunbar R. Ransom, late captains Third Artillery; which was referred to the Committee on .Military Affairs. · Mr. KERNAN presented the memorial of C. H. Hull and others, 

Union soldiers, of New York, remonstratin~ against the passage of 

the bill (S. No. 496) providing for the exammation and adjudication 

of pension claims and the amendments thereto; which was ordered 

to lie on the table. 

:Mr. PENDLETON presented the petition ofT. E. Hoyt and others, 

of Ashtabula, Ohio, praying for the passage of the amendment re- ported by the Committee on Pensions to the bill (S. No. 496) provid- ing for the examination and adjudication of pension claims; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

He also presented the petition of the Trades and Labor Assembly 

of Cincinnati, Ohio, praying for the passage of the joint resolution 

(H. R. No. 239) to provide for the enforcement of theeigh,t-hourla.w; 

which was ordered to lie on the table.