The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-05-26

committee proposing to give one additional represen
;atve each State having fraction greater than on
moiely of the fifty thousand ratio.
| MIR. BUCHANAN was Of the opinion that I'M
| amendment much violation OF The Constitu
ton was of the settled principles of the Govern
ment from It's foundation.
Mr. CRITTENDEN was understood to bein favor
of the bill, with the exception of the amendment OF
| the committee, to the second section.
| Mr. WALKER moved that the Senate concur in
the amendment Of the committee, as follows J.
dilional representative for each State having fraction
greater Than moiey of the said ratio"
| Mr.. king thought that they had better take the
question on the amendments in the order which
they had been reported by the committee, and that
they ought to vote the ratio, without regard to frac
tons. He would be compelled 10 give his vote against
the bill, believing, as he did, that nothing under sixty
thousand, as ratio, ought to be thought Of The ra-
| Ito ought to be from sixty to eighty thousand.
| Mr.. BAYARD was of the opinion that The num-
Der of Representatives compose the House should
first be xed, and the manner of apporonment then
| arranged and he alluded to the order in which these
different operations prescribed by the Constltu
| ton. He in favor of House numbering about
two hundred or about seventy -four thousand as the
ratio and he would move to amend the bill 50 as to
strike out the number City thousand) reported by the
| committee and to insert seventy-tour thousand SIX
| undred and seven.
| The CHAIR then decided that Mr.. Walkers mo-
ton not in order, it would be proper first
| to take the question on the first amendment.
| Mr.. BUCHANAN entertained the opinion with
the Senator from Mississippi, that the second amend
ment ought first to be considered, and
The Senate then decided that the second amend
with reference to the fractional representati ny
should be first taken up for consideration.
Mr.. BUCHANAN said that he would not now dis
cuss the district part of the bill Sufficient unto
the day is the evil thereof" but this he would say
that if passed, recommended by the committee the
general ticket system would be inevitable from the
impossiblity of dividing the large States into
single districts. He was decidedly opposed to the
amendment to represent fractions and he quoted the
Veto Of General Washington on the first Apportion
ment bill, in support Of his position In the mean
time, he would express his belief that the Senate
were not going to bring the House from two hundred
and fory-two up to three hundred and six represen-
tatives.
Mr.. WALKER replied in defence of the position
which he had taken in favor of fractional represen
| tation.
| MIR. WOODBURY. agreed with the Senator from
| Pennsylvania as to the unconstitutionality of the
amendment under consideration. There was no rea-
son why, if fraction amounting to more than a
moety should be represented, why fraction amount
ing to quarter eighth, should not also be
proportionaby represented; and that was impossible.
There must be common divisor, and such could not
be adapted to a fractional remainder.
Mr.. WRIGHT would vote against the amend
ment, notwithstanding the State which he, in part,
represented oud thereby gain an additional Repre-
complain to-day, SO had the Congress of '92, which
passed the fist Apportionmen BILL but did not pro-
vide for the representation of fractions lie then
showed that the inequality which the small States sui
fered in having large fractions was more than COM
pensae ed by their comparative representation in the
Senate.
Mr.. BERRIEN contended that, as the Constilu-
ton provided that Representatives and direct taxes
shall be apportoned among the several States accord
ing to their respective numbers representation should
be brought near possible TO the people.
| Mr.. WALKER and Mr.. BAYARD made some
| further remarks, and
| The Senate then adjourned.