Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-05-04


what injustice Il might DO any OF those States Il would
not DO correct To Of them, erheies any po
uon OF their people was unrepresented The well found
eu objection would be, as TO of them least that
they were not adequately competeny, fairly represent
ed that they had not many voices and many votes
~ me rouse oil Representatives as they were entitled
ms would be the objection. There would be unre-
presented fractions; but the State, as a State as whole
would be deprived OF some part of its just rights.
On the other band, il the bill should pass as il is now
proposed 10 be amended there would be no
OF fractions in any State; for fraction supposes division
aud remainder An that could Justly be said would be
That some OF these States States possessed norton
oil Legislative powera little larger than their exact rgb:
as must be admitted, that should the bin pass unamend-
cd ey would possess OF that power much less than that
exact right Inc same remarks substantially true il
applied to those States which adopt the district system
as most OF them do In Missouri, for example there will
be no fraction unrepresen,ed, should the bin become
law IN present form; nor any member for a fraction
should the amendment PREVAIL because the mode of
uonnen which assigns TO each State that number which
IL nearest TO ITS exact right applies no assumed ratios
makes no subdivisions aud of course produces no fractions
In the one case, in the other, the State az State will
have something more orsometng less than its pro-
poruoh OF representative power but she will part out this
power among her own people, in either case in such
mole MS she may choose, exercise altogether as an
entire representation OF the people of the State.
whether the subdivision of the representative power
within any State If there be subdivisions be equal or
unequal, fairly unfairly made, Congress cannot know
anu has no authority 10 inquire. IL is enough that the
State presents her own representation on the floor of Con-
greSs in the mode she chooses 70 present it, If State
were TO give 10 portion OF her territory representa-
tive Tor every twenty-five thousand persons and 10 the
rest representative only for every fifty thousand il would
bc an act of unjust legislation, doubtless; but it would be
wholly beyond redress by power in Congress-: because
the constitution has left all this 10 the State itself
These considerations it is thought may show that the
constitution has not by any implication necessary con.
S'rciion enioned that which certainly not ordained
in terms, viz that every member of the House shall be
supposed 70 represent the number of constituents.
anu therefore, That the assumption of ratio represent
ing the common number of constituents is not called for
by the constitution. All that Congress il a, liberty TO do
as it would is 10 divide the whole representative
power OF the Union into twenty parts assigning one
right, and leaving all subsequent arrangements and all
subd, visions, To the State itself.
III the view thus taken of the rights of the States ,p,
the duties OF Congress- be the view then the pan
proposed in the amendment s in Just sense rcprc-
Scn'aon oil fractions But, suppose was otherwise sup
pose direct provision were made for allowing
ativc to every State in whose populations il being frs,
divided by common ratio, there should he found irac
ton exceeding halt the of that ratio what cons
onal objection could be fairly urged against such
SION: Let be always remembered that the case here
supposed provides only for fraction exceeding the noetv
OF the ratio; for the committee admit, once that the
representation Of fractions less than oety is uncons,
tutiona because should member be allowed TO State
Tor Such acon it would be certain that her repreen-
tauon would not he her exact right as il was he
lore But the allowance ola member for a major fraction
Is direct approximation towards Justice and equality
There appears the committee TO be nothing either in
the letter or the spirit OF the constitution opposed TO such
mode OF apporOnment. On the contrary il seems en-
treiy consistent with the very object which the consit
The argument commonly urged against it, is that is ne
CESAR to apply some one common divsor to abide
by its results
If by this it be meant that there mus, be some common
ric or common measure, applicable and applied imp1r
tally TO all the States, is quite true But if that which
intended be, that the population of each State must be
divided by fixed ratio and all resulting fractions eo mr.
small, dsregarded this is but take Cor granted the very
tng In controversy The question is whether il be ,in-
constitutional to make approximation to equality by allow
ing representatives for major fractions The affirmative n,
this question il indeed denied but il il NOT dsnrovod m
saying that we must abide by the operation of division
ny an assumed raio and disregard fractions The quss
ton still remains as it was before; and is sill TO be shown
what there is in the constitution which rejects approxma
ton the rue of apporonmen But supuose il IN he
necessary to find dvisor and to abide its results What
is dvisor? Not necessarily simple number II NAV
be composed OF whole number aud fraction; il NAV it.
sen be The result OF previous process; il may be any thing
in short, which produces and uniform iivson
whatever docs this, is common rule, standards
or, II the word be Important common dvisor. The
committee refer, ts part Of the case 20 some observa.
lions by Professor Dean with table, both OF which ac
company this report.
AS it is improbable that opinion has been rood deal
influenced on this subject by what took place on the pass
ing OF the first act making superintendent of represen
tatYes among the States the committee have examined
and considered that precedent II it he in point to the
present case, it is certainly entitled very great weights:
but II 1t be OF questionable applications the text of hc
constitutions even il it were doubtful, could not be ex.
planned by doubtful commentary In the opinion of the
commit Is only necessary that what was said ON that
occasion should he understood in xion with the sub
ect-mattcr then under consieratio and in order t coo
1t necessary to state, shortly, Tie case.
The two Houses of Congress passed bill after the
iIrt enumeration of the people, providing for House of
Representatives which should consist of 100 members
The bill expressed no rule principle by which these
members were assigned TO the several States 1t merely
said that New Hampshire should have five members:
Massachusetts ten, and going through all the States
and assigning the whole number of one hundred and
twenty Now by the census, then recently taken it an
peared That the whole representative population of the IL
States was 36l5 92O; and it evidently the wish Of
Congress TO make the House the constu.
ton would allow. But the constitution has said that there
should not be more than member for every thirty thou
sand persons This prohibition was course TO be obey
ed; but did the constitution mean that State should
have more than one member for every thirty thousand
persons or did only mean that the whole House as
compared with the whole population of the United States
should not contain more than member for every thirty
thousand pcrsons If this last the true construction
then the bill, in that particular, rights if the first
were the true construction then wrong because so
many members could not be assigned the States without
giving TO some of them members than one for every
thirty thousand In fact, the bill did propose 10 do this in
regard TO several States.
(Remainder ia our nert.)
-
HNOR SALE.-NIy tract of land Containing one thou