Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-05-31

~ cincsdav, .Hov -.
IN SENATE.
TIE AProRrioNMENT BILL.


The questions immediately pending were Tie amend
m n,s r ,uosed by the Judiciary Committee, striking
out the OF 10 19, adopted by the House &" IKE
presenta,ives and substituting 3o,'Jo A. Tue fA'" aio
a provs to represent fractions, by c'v'a5 an adu'-
tona! Representative 10 such STATES whose ''a'"" OK
ceeded moetv of the ratio o; 'O0ie and Inc amend
man striking out that p1Tti"n oil tAe 'ii ma""s y Wv
hqao-y on the SAFES - adopt the dSr4ct system OF
rrnrsscntatoD each ds;ric, To be composed oil coali-
guous territory, and t. return bat one representatives,
md snbs,ntnra provision leaving optional with the
States TO adop; either the district or gtneraiicKe' sys
lem but retaining that portion requiring that the uis-
,rics shall! be of contiguous territory, sending one ne
presen,atve If the district system should be preferred
Mr. HUNTINGTON observed that It was mol aiS
intention trouble the Senate with long speech ."
tins subject, TO consume time IN goiag over Tue
ground already ,raversed by those who had PRECEDED
hun He would not therefore, bave risen 10 say one
ward had no, the yeas and nays been called tor but as
hs vote was be recorded he thought II que 10 NM
sf and the Senate state that, IN giving II, ne was
mo, influenced by the effect which Tins amendment
would have on his Stale: for whether 1t prevailed
or not was a matter Of no consequence To CONNECTICUT,
as far as she individually concerned. But me
manner in which woud aifec;he small States oil the
Union being 4 matter OF the greatest Importance 10
1hem was su5jec, of general interest IN which he par
Iicpaed.
arguments in favor of the proposition ana leh o tue
objections urged against the bill OF lI92.
There was \ report made in the House of Represen-
,.,ivcs in 1892 10 which aluson had not been made
IN tins discussion -,
Two reasons had been assigned for Gen. Washing
IONS veto one that he considered the bill oil l|'2 gave
70 some of the States more Representatives than they
would be entitled TO- according 10 The ratio oil 6'ooo'
limited BY the Constitution: the other that there was
no proportion o. division capable OF producing rqua'y
llrou shout the States. Now, he coniended hal ne'
neral Washington had considerable d'uots OF the
proprety of veioing that bl in proof OF which, he re-,
ferred 10 extracts from Mr.. Jefferson letters, iuo'eo
IN the report. $500 800,
,lIusion badbeen repeaiedly made the bill of 1872
That bill had PASSED the Senate by vote OF IA IN Inc
afrma.ive-l3 voting in the negative Among thOse
WHO voted for II, the names oil many VINO au as
sisted in the formation Of the Constitution If such
men as Justice Ellsworth IN favor ot the bi, was
ituot evidence that the trainers OF the Constitution m
tended the principle commended Tor by the oena
from Georgia. should be the principle Of the Con-
stitutons
The Convention had, at first, the intention OF hxing
the ratio at 40 900: the bill Of 1872 was d'aughted
with that ratio. II not until an advanced perou
of It's consideration that the ratio Was reduced 10 5o'
100 1t was upon n motion To reconsider mat IL was
substituted He quoted the debate to show THIS; ana
read an extract from the Presidents remarks on the
subject.
II was to benefit the smaller States the change was
,nade New HAMPSHIRE tor instance, would have had
,wo with fraction OF $4,000, had the
ratio Of 40 600 been adopted but at the ratio OF 0GO
she was TO have three Representatives. In ike man.
ner he pointed oui the effects OF the change on several
other small States. lie used tins argument TO show
out the principle of representing fractions, as lar as
practicable.
The documents he had referred 10 brought 10 his
yicw an ANALOGOUS case which had arisen i'll the Stale
oil New York The Legislature OF that State, IN l9l
under Constitution similar 10 the Federal Const!tu-
Ion in that respect, adopted role carrying out inns
principle now long the Legislature acted upon IT. he
did not know. file read the clauses IN the Constitution
ot New York bearing on this port 1t was IN princl-
pie the same principle The Federal Consi'tu.
on-tla. direct taxation and representation should ne
according To numbers. In l.Jl, the Senate OF New
York decided that fraction III any OF the counties eS'
eeedlnc half the ratio should be entitled TO an add.
ona Representative: aud that rule became the law,
and was acted upon by the General Assembly ms
precedent he considered entI,led TO moie weight than
the objections quoted from Gen Washington veto
message; which objections, however applicable to the
bill of 1872 wholly napPl.cabe 10 the bill nov
under consde ration
He asked what did the Constitution by the
expression that ec, taxes and representatives shall
lie apportioned The States III proportion TO their re-
apectve numbers Tae meaning OF th's was, thai
any State, or instance, New liampshlre) should
e entitled to u number of Representatives, n the same
proportion 10 the whole number of Federal Representa-
ives which popu alton bore 10 The Federal poPua
,on OF the Union. THIS he illustrated by arithnetical
rules OF proportion.
There could be TO doubt them that if the uniformity
of taxation and represe NATION cannot he mathemati-
Cly carried out, II must be done aFithinstcaiIy, us
nearly rs practicable
lie contended that every apporoninent b! hitherto
passed had carried out this principle some way or
ether, though not exactly as the amendment now I'M
der consideration provides. THIS he illustrated by TAX
iug the bill signed by General Washington IN l.!2,
after that which he had vetoed. He argued that II
the whole population oil the Union, at that time, was
taken term OF the proportion, and the whole
number Of Representatives. another then the po-
pulaon, of NV Hampshire, in proportion 10 the fe-
iera populations, would have been entitled to one Re
preventative less than that bill allotted 10 her. The
xay IN which II conirved 10 give New Hampshire
ihs additional Representative was, by adopting ratio
Tor representation which produced result favor
able 10 her. and other small States with large itac-
ons than the proportion OF respective numbers IN po-
pulaon compared with the aggregate population oil the
whole Union.
This he con,ended, was direct carrying out Of the
principle Of representing fractions now coDended Tor
II the same principle that every succeeding APP
p,rtionmeni bill had been framed and acted upon IN
the Only Two during tins Government, IN w@tci
resort had beea had TO direct taxation, construction
had given the Constitution that Federal mum
hers should be the cfeFion which justified the assum p
that the precedent, eSiab shed OF basing repre-
kcn,aliou upon Federal population.
He would cote !ur the amendment because he con-
ceved it principle consonant with the intention
of the Constitution and best calculated to do justice Ia
the small States.
Mr. WOODBURY. observed that had been sup.
pcsed there was some Inconsistency the remarks oil
judge Marshall which he quoted yesterday; but, IN
strictness there inconsistency Whatever as The
passages referred perfectly reconcabe. THIS
he showed by reading The extracts and specifying 'e!
application He also quoted Mr.. Madison comments
MIR. Madison a leader in The debate; and he was
also consulted by General Washington IN his cons
deraton OF the veto. He says, Genera! Washington
though, the bill nigh, be brought within the Language
Of the Consultation but is lar ircm appearing thai
he thought COULD he made constitutional in principle
Al General Washin- tons request, MIR Jefferson, MIR
Madison aud NJ. Randolph cousu,ed and having
agreed o the reto they drew 1t up and upon MIR
Jefferson pledge Of honor that 1t was in conformity
with his opinion, Gea. Washington signed IT.
Mr.. ". entered INTO many details TO show The di;
culies which existed al The reference 10 the
fractions, occasionally quoting extracts IN support OF
his argument. 1t was 10 set the matter right with re-
rard 10 these nfarcncrs that he had tisen.
alr. WALKER referred 10 one OF the objections i'll