The daily union., 1852-04-10

N, DOWNS II you give California one. you go be-
vood thai act when her traction is less Than that OF Lou
sMsd Nj BADGER This is not the largest fraction
Avs eadeayorsd to explaain why think we ought to
I've California member. In our past history | think
sshaye gwen members upon estimates but have
W w lsken away member upon estimates. without show
@ ikat upon actual enumeration they not eatitted
oha number SO that u seems 70 me II you give Lou
ana member upon this ground. Vermont may lust as
,ssI come in with claim for a member Vermont,
ssIsye has fraction OF 10000. f }A
Ar, WELLER, lin his sea,) New Hampshire has
next agss asII Ws . Nav ass q
Il and there would be end 10 the propositions for
m ,ng the House OF Representatives. take the case
men 10 be this direct the Secretary OF the Interior
~ roceed TO declare the enumeration, what will be
Ss resul9 California has member; South Carolina
noubedly has member, 70 which she entitled But
we propose to give California, account OF the peculiar
naoa OF that Satepeculiar in every respect, and
sssampled in our past historyan additional member
Whv should interfere with teo rest Of the be-
,aase we give her an additional member' Why should
interfere ws W o, don % Ie
'Ia,ye numbers OF South Carolina and Louisiana, be-
anse they have been ascertaned by complee enumera
ion But we give California member because she has
MAJ no such enumeraon there Is no way OF ascertain
ng her numbers. We have no time to wait to have
Enumeration taken now; and ii there were il is impossi-
bs 10 ascertain what were her numbers in June. 1850
Vheef0Te )
ba 4, would be- my opinion. highly unjust interfere
rnh the census any further. As to giving Louisiana
what she claims we cannot do that. in my opinion, with
ssn,na ea aam New W. Hampshire admitting also Vermont
Therefore il seems to me the tight rule and The right
cy upon the present occasion is 10 give California her
Two members and leave the census to operate as II does
uuon the other portions Of the United States adding one
member 10 the House Of Representatives
Mr., CHASE. In reply to the remarks OF the honora-
Bile senator from North Carolina, (Mr. BADGER,l may
-, sI,.tTa ~ xT
IN the history of the government in which representa-
five has been allowed to any State on estimate OF num-
hers If the senator OF any such case, should
be clad to know it, am not aware OF any such pcce-
dent unless the allowance OF representation to
State upon her admission n advance OF an actual
enumeration Of population under the laws OF the Uni
Mr. BADGER. will answer The inquiry Of the hon.
orable senator from Ohio by asking there has
been an instance in which there has not been an actual
enumeration a# ..3.
has never occurred before
MIR CHASE 1t is quite true that a case of this kind
has not occurred before but the senator from Moth Car
ona says that il two members be given to California.
and six to South Carolina, the rights OF Louisiana re-
main unaffected. Now, ls that so !! Do we not amend
the act OF $780, and increase the aggregate OF representa-
lives 10 two hundred and thirty -four Certainly we do
We make two hundred and thirty -four the basis of the
whole apporonnent and when that's done, Louisiana
comes next upon the list OF fractions, and would be
titled to another representative upon precisely the same
Argument which applies to the State OF South Carolina al
this time
is said, sir, that this is an exceptionabe case But
The fact that like hes not incurred before does moi
discharge US from our duties under the constitution. The
constitution requires TO make the apportionment
eording to numbers and not according to estimate.
does not prescribe absolutely the rule upon which we
shall ascertain the numbers but when, by whatever rule
those numbers shall have been ascerianed, the obliga
lion devoves upon US TO apportion accordingly II the
aggregate two hundred and thirty members is made
The basis and applied according tothe act OF 1850 Loui-
sana will have fraction, which will ente her to
representative, II South Carolina is entitled to
90 the basis OF two hundred and thirty three members
That cannot be denied. do not see that we get rid
the conclusion by changing the form OF the facts w,
sve, after all at resultiha there 10 be two
hundred and thirty four representatives. These repre-
seatayes the constitution reqnTes TO be apportionet
among the States according 10 their respective numbers
And you take your guide the act OF 1850, then
umaeslonably the State of Louisiana will be entitled u
h,.wsce senissvcs il South Carolina is entitled tc
sI What the honorable senator from Maine proposes
bhB amendment and what the honorable senator from
North Carolina defends, is nothing more nor less than az
Hbtrary assignment oil member 10 South Carolina, un
s you are prepared to go further and revise the whole
pottonment 10 the basis One the other OF lhes
States is not entitled, and cannot be entitled TO the mum
Der Of members proposed.
Mr.. GEYER. Mr.. President, have but very few
statements of propositions But for the failure OF the
turns from California, the subject would not now hav,
been before IL because the act of 1850 cannot b,
executed it stands tina, called upon maxi
~~se 49,
3}d Congress elected.
Now. the first proposition submit is this that tn,
Official returns under the ac OF 1850. far they go
ought TO govern. Those official returns include ali In,
States but one We have then the actual returns from
all the States, including South Carolina, to determn,
their representation under That law My proposition il
that we adhere 10 that law far as il goes That in
eludes South Carolina and excludes Louisiana But Their
one Stale that will be unprovded for. The rule of th
act Of 1850 does not extend TO that State and
al in IeleTence TO the subec,--f not oblge,
owaf until all the returns are compeie-we must adop
with respect TO tina, State which is excluded by those re
turns some principle Some honorable senator's maintain
that California ls entitled to two representatives unde
The provisions Of the act for her admission apprehend
however, thai If Il appears afirmatively by testimony
not equal. certainly, 10 returns, but such testimony
would be satistacory--that her population such a
would entle her TO two representatives, Congress nigh
allow her two. But IN the present state OF the question
he Affirmative lies upon those who deny TO her the repre-
enaives. Prmo facic she Is entitled 10 the representa-
ton allotted BY the act providing for her admission,
TO that should adhere. unless shalt be shown affirm
aiyely that she has not population which would entt
her 10 that representation.
stale again that with respect TO California we canno
.et under the act OF 1850, which adopted rule
That act provides for the case OF South Carolina and
louisiana and II the testimony which s before us wer
hken out OF tbe que am disposed to ooi
upon California entitled prpma faeie TO additiona
representative, or rather 10 twoor cannot call il
additional representative when we have no right to TAX
one from her
Then the only question which remains s whether tn
evidence which is furnished authorizes TO say tha
she has not sufficient population TO eniitle her TO tw
representatives. According 10 The examination bav
gwen 10 The subject have arrived at the conclusion tba
me population would leave n fraction over the ratio Q
one representative greater than that OF South Carolina
pW as mat testimony IS not as conclusive as return
would be, do not feel authorized TO take from Sou
Cafona the representative which, according to the Off
car returns upon which are acting, she is entitled.
fot these reasons am n favor OF the amendment o