The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-25

have hitherto felt some decacy in referring to this point
fer relates to the representatives., arising from the
s spss q s U
think We must dismiss this subject and leave Il them
SIR. when the question properly comes upn regard 70 The
interesting cases ia both bodies thai win settle many nice
points N the doctrine Of contested elections will not
M Mr BERR ll Mr President. il the honorable
senator from Illinois had done the favor attend e
my Argument he might have been spared the trouble q
citing and dwelling upon the cases OF Florida i9wa, Nh
sssppi, and Texas FOR In relation 70 them, aith9ugn
had been taken in every case but that o. Texas
by the federal territorial authority, yet tne pro-
vision for census IN the % wn,s eeay r.
number OF the population, nevertheless did not declare
be the only mode did not present = a. conslu
sus had been taken The argument was, and it is now
repeated that In giving 70 STATE more man one represent
ays better evidence qIgn' % 81 pod y, F sn Una.
was census in 1914, and her admission took place
10 Is45 The deficiency ID the enumeration 10 that case
arose from the Indian n I existing y poron
the result of necessity which did not exist in this
as shown by the report OF the committee in the
California Convention BUTT not necessary 10 that
case show that the population OF Florida amounted
900. though reliable evidence produced 10 prove
that this was the fact and that evidence was applied only
those portions Of the territory where these disurban-
ces existed Elsewhere. the actual enumeration hadbeen
made
Now, il there were any parallesm between the case
senator might have farce. The paTallelsm fails in
these two particulars 4 Florida claimed one representa-
vs w S,s z aow y TIE h 4
only be entitled by showing that her population amounted
to the number required BY the superintendent law In
made Il impossible to complete il No such difficulty ex
listed in CALIFORNIA; yet the convention declined 70 au
!horize il, when it was proposed 10 them But, sir
have not stated the absence Of census presenting
constitutional difficulty have met the claim of Cali
fooa to have two representatives upon the actual state
Of the evidence and have assumed the Office OF proving
the negative OF the proposition, when the affirmative
ought to be proved BY those who sustain it.
have said that the population Of California did not
amount according TO nnquestonable testimony here fur
nshed by their representatives. to 100000 persons
al the time when this constitution was formed and when
these and these representatives elected
January. 1850. il amounted 10 LOT 900 persons That is
the evidence of the parties here who applying Tor adj
mission Look now, al the statement referred 10 BY the
from Illinois, and how little is calculated
sustain his assertion The population, by estimate
in the absence OF the enumeration required by the
siiuton. is ret down that day al LOT 900 persons or
various parts Of the Old and New World who had come
6e = y As
persons form portion Of The people Of California en-
titled be represented 10 the Congress OF the United
States II not his number is reduced to something be-
low 100000 instead OF standing at 100000 he repre-
sens it. Unless he is disposed to maintain that these
$1,000 foreigners constitute part oil the resident popula
FORE the necessity Of acknowledging from the very docu
which be has relied that the population did not
amount to the number which was necessary. taking his
own view OF the number which necessary to entte
them 10 two representatives. on the lst OF January
1850, when "the overland emigration" had arrived.
s a a1e heard new do
ines from the honorable senator from Illinois, but none
that apply the constitutional objection stated BY
ne have. objection
terms which TO me appear 10 be sufficiently clear.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Gn,erposing) 4 did understand the
argument upon this subject offered by the honorable
tailor. In saying that did not appreciate it. did not in
10 be understood as saying that did not under
MT. BERRIEN. That, repeat, is my misfortune. The
question is for the decision of the Senate The senator
from Illinois refers 10 the action OF the House OF Repre-
sentatives in admitting members elected by general ticket
from New Hampshire and other States, alter the passing
OF the district law. Am to understood the senator
contendng that that law Observation-Disclosures this de-
cson Of the House OF Representatives has declared il to
be sol Such an inference might be deduced from the
attempt 70 maintain the proposition, Uf such the
intention Of the SENATOR that because the constitution
10 escd house the right Judge OF the election returns,
and affiliations OF its members. the number Of those OF
the House of Representatives be the subject OF
general legislation Besides that the uniform practice OF
the government contradcts such propose ion, since
every act OF Congress- admitting new State has spec
4 ned the number of Its representatives The proposition IL
self seems to principle to be utterly untenable.
II the senator from Illinois will do the favor give
me his attention. think he will both understand and APP
preciate the distinction which about to present
TO him. Unquenonably II ~ the exclusive privilege OF
each house 70 decide upon The qualifications OF lie own
members. When member presents himsel 10 take hls
seat n the Senate, the Senate alone decides upon his
right and so Of the House OF Representatives; but when
new State is 10 be admitted into the Union. il is the
general legislative power OF Congress, not the peculiar
and exclusive power OF either House. which Is 10 be
ercised and when bill Tor such purpose provides for
given number OF representatives be said that the
Senate is precluded from exercising lis judgment the
constItutIonay and expediency OF such provision 4
confess surprised by such aproposltion. II u not
proposed that the Senate shall decide the question OF in
diriduai rgh. but that in the exercise OF its general
Representatives. shall determine the number Of repre-
senfafipe The difficulty, il would SEEM might be solved
bya single inquiry Can the House OF Representatives
by its separate acfion determine what number Of repre-
,enfafrss any State shall have II Motif this
OF general legislation, in which both houses must unite
then surely the Senate which is fequred 70 participate in
il, must have the right The exercise OF ts Judgment
Am to be required 10 affirm, in the language OF this
BILL that California shall be entitled to two representa-
have right TO Judge OF the propety and constitution
atty OF the provision which am thus required TO affirm
or deny The distinction ~ an obvious one. The
right OF each individual TO seat in either house 10
question for the exclusive determination OF the house in
which be proposes 10 take but law which provides
for the election OF the members OF the House OF Repre-
sensives act Of general legislation, and each house.
when called upon TO act upon II, must Judge for ITSELF
am not entitled TO say whether these gentlemen now
of the House OF Representatives, and entitled TO take
their seats that House when they present themselves
there That question belongs TO the exclusive urisdc
ton Of that House But when am called upon 10 pro-
vide for the number OF representatives 10 which the
State OF California shall be entitled, required 70 par