Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-01-17

mo-, prefer As for itself, would rather have AZ than 40.
Thus the friends of the number AS would be a perpctu-
al quantity, always adding to the opponents of every other
number; which by thus defeating every other number,
would finally insure the adoption of the number As.
the bill left in blank, all numbers proposed would have an
equal chance. Tothis il was replied, that the alleged adj
vantage enjoyed by the number $4,000 as being in the
bill, was rather imaginary than real. inasmuch as if there
was a real majority of the House in favor of any other
number than 4S, il could in a moment strike 4S from tho
BILL, and insert that other number in its place; and if there
was not a majority of the House in favor Of any other NUN
Der, even il the bill were in blank, that number could
never be inserted. In fact, if the bill had been reported
in blank, the blank in the bill would enjoy every prefer
encc which the number 4S now did, because all the men,
bers who were opposed to any given number would prefer
the bill remaining in blank to having that number inserted
and the matter anouted to just this, that as long as no ma
jority could be obtained in favor OF any one proposed num-
Der, no bill could be reported; and the ratio of Represen-
tation must be lett where it was, until another Congress.
Whether, therefore, the number 4S were out Of the bill
or in II, was, in effect, perfectly immaterial. Various il
Illustrations were addiced on both sides, in support Of their
respective views. Some of these were taken from horse
racing; it being observed by some gentlemen, that they
were willing the horse 4S should run against any named
nag, fairly rode, and fairly kept, but not that he should run
against the field. Another compared the number dS 10 n
horse brought up to the starting post, ready saddIed and
backed, to run at the signal against all the other horses ON
the course, while they had yet to be saddlcd and backed
before they could start. Other gentlemen who took the
other side Of the question, compared all the numbers that
might be named, as well that in the bill as every other, to
so many competing candidates at an election by ballot, be-
tween the advocates of (which excessive compromises had
to be made, until some one candidate obtained a majority
OF all the votes. 1t was generally admitted that the Select
Committee in reporting a bill, containing a specific num-
Der, had done no more than their duty, having strictly
complied with the words of the resolution which created
them: but at the same time it was noticed that the number
reported in the bill operated more ~favorably to the State
CTennessee) from which the Chairman Of the committee
came (Mr. Polk) and that the number Al would have dis
tributed the fractions more equally.
This insinuation was warmly repealed by Mr.. Polk, who
stated that a majority of the committee came from other
States: that he had given his own vote last; and the advan-
tage to Tennessee was purely accidental.
Mr.. Stewart, of Pa. moved toinsert 46, and that question
was pending when the committee rose.
The gentlemen who mbarkedin the debate, were Messrs.
Bell, of Tenn. Wicklife, ofKy. Stewart, of Pa. Wilde, of
Geo. Evans, OF Me. Daniel, of Ky. Patton, of Va. ELS
worth, ofCt. Craig, of Va. Crawford, ofPa. Polk, o fTenn.
Burgess, orr. i. and Clay, of Alabama.