Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-02-07

personalities Although rs did no injustice TO Maine he
should vote against it, because did injustice to other
States
MIR. Hubbard addressed the House in reply to MIR
Sutherland and proceeding with great warmth re-
pei what he considered injurious and unncrited in
situation thrown out by that gentleman against the Secre
Mr. Sutherland explained, and entirely discaimed all
intentions injurious IN amy way TO the Secretary the
delegation from New Hampshire, 10 the gentleman
bimsclf lie had referred the circumstance merely 10
show the weight New Hampshire possessed in the go
vcrnmcnt.
Mr. Hubbard, though not satisfied with the explana
ton proceeded TO reply to other remarks of Mr. Suther
land. Though the soi,soi New Hampshire might have
gone abroad and subsequently, appeared in that House,
representatives from other States as occupying posts in
the government, 1t tho State should lose
any OF her Representations Her population was not sta
ohy ou' stcaciiy increasing, and had gained 10000
since the last census.
Mr. Briggs, OF Mass, spoke in support of the amend
men' denied the justice OF the charge that tho Eastern
States were crying "Cve give, insisted that they were
demanding no than their rights, expressed his graft
icanon atseeing sonsolN New England coming that House
rom oher States, and especially from his
representing State in his person. but cprobatcd
the idea that any citizen of Massachusetts, should her
account ai 20 represent with fidelity the interest of his
own State when IL might clash with hers.
The question being about To be taken,
Mr. Boon OF Indiana, demanded the yeas and nays and
they were ordered accordingly.
Mr. Adams advcrting TO the lacness of the hour and
TO am oliusion made about the time of day, by Mr.
tctz, as 20 the influence of the dining hour ON political
Affairs said tina, his memory rccurrcdto this line of Dri
|
I" and wn,chcs hang that jarymcd ihoy dinoD
Admonished by this remembrance he would delay The
House only by statement two i'm reference 10 the oh
servaions which had been made He then observed
ma. .ne ARGUMENT oil Mr. Sutherland TO the share of
Now Hampshire among the Secretaries of Departments
would not apply 70 Massachusetts. He then auotcd the
language oil the Constitution where dcscrbcs the quaca-
ohS necessary 10 member of the House of Representa-
yves and rcnarng that il did contain the slightest
auson TO the place where the Representative had been
bo inferred that the other part of the argument which
nula m ntin.,.
States and being heads of Departments had its origin not
IN e constitution, but in the prolific brain of the gentle
man from Pennsylvania.
dc then briefly replied 10 the remarks of Mr. McCartv
whether might not be out of compassion TO the old th
teen states or from whatever other motive he should be
greatly ooged to gentlemen il they would leave the
representation of those States unimparod He ,lsclan
ca any pretenson rdemand their behalf any avors
All thcy asked was equal justice, and he was quito rs
Jealous that all the other States should retain their prc
sent number oil representatives, that Massachusetts,
should. The question with the Western States was NOT
cy should lose any part of their representation
but how much they should gain He did not envy them
nor would he do any thing to prevent their Of
members III the number IA should produce that effect
nc had not the smallest objection. lie then presented
ne result oil calculation, contrasting the effect of the
bill as repored the States from which the members o
inc select committee who reported it individually came
with its effect those States who considered
aggneved lie found that there the committee
one gentleman from Tennessee from Pennsylvania
TWO from New York, one from Ohio, and from Maine
DIVIDING the population Of those States respectively Inv
Is common RATIO he found the result TO he that cen
ncssce would have representative every is O97
PcnnSyvapia one for every 1915; New York, one for
every 9ool Oho one for every ,257 and Name one
Tor every 1887. But what would be the case ,yitb tho
States aggrieved? Maryland would have one
Se Tor every 5o73o Massachusetts, for every So
ooi. kentucky ono for every $3.50 Georgia one for
| every 53,726. New Hampshire one for every 53 s6S
And Vermont one for every ,I3I.
mus Tennessee would have representative for every
ioooo Oh her inhabitants, while Vermont would have on
one ior every $4,000, making difference of 5000 pco
PIE ior every representative. Mr. A. then quoted the
provision of the Constitution which declares thai
| be a.
states according TO their respective and contend
Gu hat The results he had shewn did conform TO that
direction. lie declined entering OIL the other toncs
which had been discussed. PN
MIR; Barsow "a member of the Select Committee) re-
pehed am insnuaton which he had understood 10 be con
the Committee. ~ "
Mr.. Adams discaimcd all ausion 10 tbcr mo,;yos IT.
had merely stated facts.
Mr. Basow resumed, and insisted that such had been
le eject OF the comparison the gentleman had instituted
anu appealed TO Mr. a. TO point out single number the
elect OF which, ratio would have left New Yorl,
larger fraction than that she would now have AZ 600 had
not been his choice, he would have preferred larger
number. o.
Mr. Polk also replied TO Mr. Adams The ratio of 1s
gave Louisiana but one Representative $1,000 persons
yet Tie member from that State had been in favor of II
and was in fact the person who had moved il in Commit
tee II The gentleman had pursued his calculations little
iurthcr no would have found that at the ratio of H. a re-
preventative from Missouri would have 65 thousand con
stltuents Alabama 50 thousand, and Illinois 81 o,s,nJ
mr. - iur'ner stated ha The effects OF rs, would be TO
give 10 inc Northern section OF the Union, fraction of
2ll TO the Southern section of 7O2; and TO the West
ern OF while the result of IL would be to allow IN
ee northern section fraction of ,507 TO the Western
| oil S,i2l; and TO The Southern of 2,S6I.
Il MIR. Hoffman acquitted the Committee of blame de-
cared himself IN favor ola reduction the House ut
desPalring OF that object unattanable and visino IN
act In spirit OF conciation should vote for Oo ~
the ratio. ~ -i'O'o IL
Mr. Bates OF Maine, said that his State would e safe
should either number be adopted but cstecIninr if his
duty TO act in spirit Of compromise he should vote for
A. ~ u 'o'c ior
MIR. Wilde enquired of the Chair whether if AZ should
DC stricken out, and If inserted would afterwards he
III order 10 move TO strike out IL, and insert another
number The Chair replied in the negative
me question was thereupon put, and decided in the
affirmative by Yeas and Nays as follows:
Ic0S.-Mcssrs. Adams, Adair, Angel, Appleton Arm
strong Arnold, Noyes Barber Isaac c. Bates Jas Bates
! Bergen, Bouck, Bouldin, Briggs, John C. Brodhead
John Bfodhead Burd, Burgess Cahoon CambrcIen~
Carson, Chandler, Choac, Clayton, Coke Collier Jews
Condct, Eleutheros Cooke, Bates Cooke Corwin Crane
Creighton, Daniel, John Davis, Dayan Dearborn Dck
SON. Dodindge, Doubleday. George Evans Edward
Everett, Horace EVereu Fitzgerald, Gather Crennel
iiamnnons, Harper, IIawcs Hoffman, Uonan Howard
Hubbard, Hughes, Hunt, Huntington, Inecrso Jenitcr
lSch NJ Johnson, Charles G. Johnston X ayanaob Ken
he, mchenndn, Mercer, Newman, Newton Pearcc
Pitcher, Randolph, John Reed, Edward c. Reed SIadc
Soule Southland, Spence, Stanbcrry Stoms Tolnpkins
vance, ward, Washington, Watmoueh, WAYNE Weeks |
Wilkin, Wheeler, Elisha Whitilcsey. Cam1 p White
Edward ID. White, WickIae, Wilde Williams, Worthine
ton, Young--05. o
! 1NdyS-Mcssrs. Alexander, Chiffon Allan Allison An
ucrson archer, Ashley, Banks, John S. Barbour Barn
wen, Barringer Barstow, Bcardsley, Bell Beune John
Blair, Boon, Branch, Bucher, Bullard Carr Chinn Cla
Dornc, Clay, Connor Cooper Coulter, Craig, Crawford,
/ Denny.