The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-05-25

rolina, thrteen within the State Of South Carolina,
nine; within the State of Georgia. eeyen, tceiue,;
within the State of Alabama, nre ten within the
State of Louisiana, [fve sir within the State OF
Mississippi, hye, sir within the State of Tennessee,
iiteen within the State of Kentucky fourteen; with
in the State of Ohio thirty within the State of In
diana, thirteen fourteen; within the State of Hi
nos, nine, ten within the State Of Missouri,
within the State of Arkansas, lone, tlco and within
the State of Michigan, four.
SEC. =. Ind be further enacted That, in every
case when State is entitled to more than one Re-
preventative, the number to which each State shall
be entitled under The apportionment, shall be elected
by districts, composed Of contiguous territory, equal
in number to the number Of Representatives which
said State may be entitled-no one district eecting
more than one Representative and The election in such
State shall under the iacS thereof be made by districts,
such districts shall BE- composed Of contiguous territor
and each shall contain representative population equal TO
The number cheh, by The erStg ratio, shall be required
for one member, as nearly may be and no district
shall elect more than member.
Mr.. BEkklEN explained the nature OF the
amendments. His own preference was in favor OF a
higher ratio than that adopted by the House but in
asmuch as the popular branch had fixed upon small
ratio, and as majority of the Committee on the Ju-
dietary in favor of it, he would surrender his in
divldual preference and support the bill as it was now
presented.
Mr.. WALKER addressed the Senate on the merits
of the BILL and in favor of the amendment of the
committee proposing to give one additional represen
atiye to each State having fraction greater than
moety OF the fifty thousand ratio.
MIR BUCHANAN was of the opinion that this
amendment was much violation of the Constitu-
ton il Of the settled principles Of the Govern
nent from its foundation.
Mr. CRIrTENDEN was understood to be in 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 I" one adj
duonal representative for each S ate having fraction
greater than one moiety Of the said ratio"
Mr. KING thought that they had better take the
question on the amend nents in the order IN which
they had been reported by the committee, and that
they ought to vote the ratio without regard to rac
tons He would be compelled to give his vote against
the bill believing he did, that nothing under sixty
thousand as RATIO ought to he 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 to compose the House should
first be fixed and the manner Of apporonment then
arranged and he alluded to the order in which these
different operations were prescribed by the Constitu-
ton. He was in favor of House numbering about
two hundred, or about seventy-four thousand the
raJ and he would move to amend the BILL as to
strike out the number filly housand) reported by the
committee, and to insert seventy-tour thousand six
hundred and seven.
The CHAIR then decided that MIR. Walkers mo-
ton not now in order it would be proper first
to take the question the first amendment
Mr. BUCHANAN entertained the opinion with
ment ought first to be considered, and
The Senate then decided that the second amend
mcnt with reference to the fractional representa- ny
should be first taken up for consideration.
MIR. BUCHANAN said that he would not now dis
cuss the district part of the bill g 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
mpossibility 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 Apporton-
nent 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 tortytwo up TO three hundred and six represen
tatives.
Mr.. WALKER replied in defence of the position
which he had taken favor of fractional represent
tatlon
Mr., WOODBURY. agreed with the Senator from
Pennsylvania as to the unconsttutionality OF the
amendment under consideration There was no rea
son why, if fraction amounting to more than
moety should be represented, why fraction amount
ing to quarter eighth, should not also be
proportionably represented and that was impossible.
There must be common diysor, and such could not
be adapted to fractional remainder.
Mr.. WRlGH L would vote against the amend
ment, Notwithstanding the State which he in part,
represented would thereby gain an additional Repre-
sentative, If the present Congress had right to
complain to day, so had the Congress of 90 which
passed the fist Airport pnment bill but did not pro-
vide for he representation Of fractions, lie then
showed that the inequality which the small States sui
iered in having large fractions, more than com
pen ed by their comparative representation in the
Senate.
Mr.. BERRlEN contenled that, the Conslilu-
ton provided that Representatives and direct taxes
shall be apportoned among the several States accord
ing To their respective numbers representation should
be brought as near as possible to the people.
Mr., WALKER aud Mr.. BAYARD made some
further remarks, and
The Senate then adjourned.