Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-02-23
lF'ron, the National fntsSfigencsr>
MONDAY FEBRUARY l8, 1892.


lFrom the National rnts,sgensn
MONDAY FEBRUARY l8, 1892.
IN SENATE.
Mr. BARTON laid before the Senate pre-
-.mble and sundry resolutions of the I.egis.a-
ture of the state of Missouri, requesting the
Senators and Representatives in Congress
from that State, TO endeavour to obtain the
passage of Il law To extend to all the actual
settlers on the Upper Gasconade who may
nave erected saw-mills on the public lands,
he right OF presumption which paper was
referred Ia the Committee on the Public
Lands.
The Senate resumed the consideration of
the bill to apporton representatives among the
several states, according to tho fourth census,
the motion 10 insert ratio of 10000 being
still pending.
Mr.. KING. of Alabama, after repeating the
disadvantage which that state laborcd under
rom not having her population fully returned,
(Which arose from the death ofthe first mar
shal and the inability of the second TO COM
plete the business within the prescribed term
anu the propricty of making provison for the
case, when the returns shall be received-sta-
tea that he had an amendment provided to
meet the case, which he would offer IL now if
"a order; but that not being the case, he moy-
cd TO Tecommit the bill to the Judiciary Com
mittee, with instructions TO report Il provision
substantially, to give further Time for colnplet-
ing the census in that state and that the next
session be authorized to allow, by law. such
additional number of representatives as the
state may be entitled to by the ratio now a.
uopted. Mr.. X. accompanied this motion
win number ofremarks, further explanato-
ry OF the circumstances which justified the
course heproposed.
pretty wide debate followed, on this
motion, OF which the following is a brief sum
mary:
+ DIR. HcI RES, of Milne, opposed the re-
coiam'tmcnt on account of the delay it would
cause,
Mr.. Orls, also opposed it on the ground
si'at tue apportionment was made imperative,
at particular time by the constitution; thai
ms operation was indivisible that it must b.,
conr wholly and entirely at one time-not
partial, or by piecemeal and that such an in
dulSence would he in violation of the CON
stitution-at any rate he thought some partial
INCONVENIENCE had better be sustained Than
system be commenced which would lead TO
.nschief--he enqured whether the same rule
could he applied to laying Il direct tax, tn he
contingent as 10 any one state land il il could
not in that case, whether it could in the anala-
$ous case at apportioning representation P
lie thouSht the objection insuperablc, and
spoke At much length TO sustain his opinions.
Ihe case, he agreed, was hard one, but il
was without remedy.
Mr. CHANDLER thought it would omen n
aay Tor uniairness in accommodating the
number of the population TO be ascertlincd to
.ae fat'o adopted so rs to avoid large frac-
non and Thar it would be n bad precedent
and might hereafter be extended To other
states.
MI. LOUVRE did not think the rccommit-
'Iaent necessary, though he was friendly to
me amendment. He was opposed TO
any delay in the progress of the bill to attain
M object which could be accomplished with
tnut any delay.
Mr.. WALKER maintained the proprety of
the recommitment, aud the delay of few
hours or even of day, ought not to be
manifest injustice from a state. He repli-
ed TO MIR. CrIs, at some length, to obviatc
ms objections, and pointed out former in
stances IN which further time was giyea to
complete the census of a state--at the cen
sus OF lI9O one OF the returns was received in
l192-but then, as would be in the case of
Alabama now, the number returned was in
reference to its actual number in 1890, when
the other states were enumerated. There
was nothing IN the constitution, he argued
which would forbid even the change of tho
ratio, or the making of any other regulation
concerning the pportionment-wha was
asked now, had been granted before. A mis-
take, he thought, pervaded all that Mr.. o.
had. urged, on this subject, to show which he
crted the cases OF the admission of the new
states since the last census, previous to which
their population was in each instance ascer-
L'hned, and the representation apportiunrd.--
In dong this the constitution was fulfilled, not
violated. AS 10 taxation, if q member be adj
ded to Alabama, her taxation would of
course be in proportion but even not fully
REPRESENTED, and taxation were 10 become ne
ccssary, land this would shcw the necessity Of
the casej Alabama would be taxed according TO
her population, though she were representc
only partially. Mr. w replied at large to
Mr.. OTIs, and TO sustain the rccommitment
Mr.. BARTON was in favor of the rccommii-
ment, and thought the objections made to it
were moi sufficient to divest state of her CON
stitutional right.
Mir. DIcEERsoN was in favor Of adopting
some mode which should give the state her
tuli representation--it could not be denied tn
her--taxatlon and representation must go 10
gether, and as the state would he taxed, if
necessary, according to her full population
her representation ought to eorrgs pond with
her real population. He thought it better,
however, to proceed with the bill and pledg-
Cd himselfto support, hereafter, any measure
which would do justice to the state.
Mr. BRowN, of Louisiana, put case. Sup
pose II to BECOME necessary To- lay heavy tax.
es, aud Itshould he discoV cred that marshal
had returned but one half of the population of
state, would Congress gefrain from taxing
The state according to its real numbers p
There was no more reason, he argued, for
allowing defect in her returns to DEPRIVE
her of Just representation. TO be fairly
taxed, the state must be fairly represented