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

no IT an,or,;onurn, bill Such would probably be the
case with regard TO Mississippi.
~, WALKER continued his remarks; he contended
tina, the ru,e OF The Constitution was not violated so
long STATE WIS ass ''u "io-e ~ P'N
than one to every @0,oO' ~
Mr. GAYARD observed tina, he said The ratio oil 81,
ODD IN the Constitution was n minimum; Out W men
higher ratio was adopted By law, It was substitute Tor
the ratio in the Constitution. he askca II 'ne o'"a,'
;n,,;,cd that, if The ratio was $4,000 by law, and
So, lad fraction of - 600 over that ratio, 1t was
,;,n,onal TO give ii Repres. NATIVE for that trac
ton . =, AZ.
Mr WALKER replied; the whole number oil The
State beng greater than two ratios oil JUouo, II was
constitutional TO gave 1t Two members III he was vio
,;n ,ry constitute onal principle with regard TO the
o,ha nse he ought to feel aarmed but he was dong
ma sncb ,lno he was pursuing quite an opposite course
b.. , c,d.avor,np 20 come the nearest 10 The great
Re,nblican principle OF The Constitution mat every
hrnar ho,ng should, if possible, be represented.
81. .IIEN obse!yed, that if any ratio could be
d.d h,,,,eo 80 600 ana 81, 0G0, that would do equal
s,;c IN all par,s OF the Union, lie would be IN favor
If i lie would say, however that, as Congress had
10 act unon this matter, aud as 1t was impossible 10 do
equal Justice 10 all paris OF Tue Union, lhe senate
honjd no, be deferred from action, because some njus
,,ca INNS, he done The inequality was augmented by
the nrooresson of population. lie would instance
Ohio in which the increase Of population was pro-
that during the last part Of the ten years just
sx,red there were SOC, 600 inhabitants of that State
wonld have had six members more than she had. Such
onld he the case with regard 10 The next ten years
He believed the increase in the population Of Ohio from
tho ,,l;nr of the census till the time this apportion-
mon, s Ia 60 mo operation, will be al least 100, 600
a nnr;on OF the population which will not be repre-.
sented for the ensuing ten years. tie mentioned these
thiprs 10 show that inequalities cannot be helped He
did not blame the Constitution nor Congress He
would vote against the amendment, not because he be-
lonsed to large State had no sympathy for small
r~nl.
that the State Of Mississippi should be left with so
large a fraction. He would gladly see such ratio
adopted as would change that result, ana avoid such
an inequality with regard to any State but he ad
vanced many reasons why he could not vote for the
amendment
make any specuatons on the annual increase of po-
pulation in any State or States. The Constitution in
hbts Congress from entering into speculaons Of that
nature therefore, it impossible to pay any regard 10
the considerations upon winch the Senator from OHIO
based his arguments TO the injustice done 10 his
State by leaving 100 900 Of lis inhabitants without any
representation, when this bill shall go into operation in
l-i3
Mr. ALLEN interposed, and explained that he had
made complaints of injustice TO his State by this
b nor had he made use Of any arguments against the
bill Itself He had merely endenvored TO show that ii
impossible TO avoid inequalities by any ratio which
might be adopted.
Mr. CRlTrENDEN resumed his remarks, and en-.
deavorrd reduce the discussion to the real question
at issue He recap;tulated the circumstances under
which Gen. Washington vetoed the bill Of 1892 &c.
neral Washington did not say that there should be a
common divisor. His objection was, that common
divsor could produce the results OF the proposed BILL
neither necessary nor proper 10 give his words
meaning which they did not obviously bear.
|, seemed to him that nothing but sophistry could
bring gentlemen TO conclusion that il con-
sonant 10 the Constitution to leave large unrepre.
scented fraction than small He reviewed the
sumption made by the Senator from Delaware, TO his
preliminary inltiaory raLio, and commended that his
assumption without foundation.
Il made no odds at which end Congress began 1t
was Just easy to agree upon common measure, TO
ascertain how many members there should be, be
gin with given number of Representatives, and from
i ascertain the ratio All the Constitution wants is
common rule, which shall work equally and uniformly
The Judiciary Committee thought 1t the nearest ap
proach practicable TO the dictates Of the Consttu ton
give Representatives for fractions of such agntude
as 900. He had difficulty in believing to be
not only constitutional, bet just and expedient.
Mr.. BAYARD remarked, that there would be no diff.
icuty in the question as TO what number should con-
s,i,u,e House, because individual interests of
bers not brought 10 hear on the question; but
when the ratio is considered individual interests are
excited and immense difficulties arise to impede the
adjustment
Mr.. CRlTTENDEN commended that there was moi
any great difference for, no matter which end wa:
and its effect individual interests would be the
whel Their the number of Representatives. ratio was
the first consideration. The Senator thinks members
10 shut eye. and look at the subject with the
other. Nov, he contended the whole bearings of the
subject would be looked at with both eyes, and all
would he considered This, however, not sub
ect al Issu" now.
nlr. ElNES held it 10 he fundamental principle
that construction Of either constitution law which
il practicable, in con,rGdisincton to the construction
wh.ch IS mpracticab!e should be adopted Those gen
tcmcn, therefore, who contend that the principle, o.
the Constitution is literally impraclicable, and thai
Congress IS bound to come rs near possible to the
praciIcaby of an mpractcable principle, refue Their
avn arguments IN the very premises they assume
Now he cOnended that The true principle Of the Con
s,tu,Ion-and, indeed the only one not beset with dit
fcultes-was set forth in the instrument ITSELF in terms
plain and simple in practice, that it required extra
ordinary ingenuity and sophisry to ystly it, Lief
10 ITSELF it simple problem, which The veriest tyre
in figures could work out with unerring precision
This principle was that representation shall be appor
toned according to the respective numbers in the
States, and this 10 be done by fixing common ratio
and often that ratio goes into the population
each State, that State should have Representative
There 10 impractica5lity in this-no,hing abou
fractions; ii positive rule Of the Constitution
and admitted vi no difficulties
Mr. r. here entered into minute review OF the de
bates in convention, To show the common and preva
lent idea at the time with regard TO given ratio. III
the original PROJECT drawn up by Mr.. Pinckney, the
provlso vas made, that each State should be entitled tc
representation according TO the number of its nhabit
ants at the rate Of member of every (bank) mum
her of inhabitants and 1t continued in the report
the committee and retained till the close o.
The debate. The whole Of this proved that not only
the convention, but the first Congress under it, conem
plated no other rule than that Of apportoning repre-
sen'aon according TO respective numbers. They were
aware that, no matter what should be DONE fraction:
would be left. Nothing could be more obvious than
that they never intended the fractions should be repre-
sented Mr.. Jefferson, in the letter 10 which mucf
reference had been made alludes very significantly Il
the SUBJECT He (Ar ~ referred also 10 the authorit,
of Judge Marshall to show that the analogy con,endet
Tor between direct taxes and representation did not ap
| ply When the question came up Of aPpor."nlng di
rect taxes according representation, Mr.. Ellsworth
showed the injustice Of such rule
The nnra:ying and unbroken practice of this Go
vcrnment with regard TO apporonment of represen
taon ndubahie evidence of the tulilmenl of the
intention of the Constitution There was no end Il
the entertainments which must result from the Slight