The daily union., 1852-04-10

the returns have been received as to those States in
which we have fu returns and then adopt an equitable
10 have an appofionment under that act.
Mr.; DOWNS. Mr. President. shall endeavor to be
very brief ia the few Arguments which propose to make
upon the position assumed by different indiyid espe
caly as feel somewhat ndsposed to-day seems 10 me
TO commence where others left off, that there nsuper
able objections 70 the suggestion OF the senator from
Missouri Mr. GEYER.l that this apportonment should
be postponed because have not got the returns from
Caornla There Is 10 time postpone it, We are with
10 very short time OF the presidential election and be-
comes necessary and essential that this apporlionment
should be made known very speedily. because, ii we do
not we permit this matter TO lie over will be an in
justice not TO State alone but to half dozen States
or more whose representation will be increased by the
new apporonment We cannot therefore, postpone, or
delay, or avoid the question at this time without doing
sui greater injustice than would possibly be done by de-
cdlng upon now, the information that have goi
TO California therefore take il for granted that il IS
out OF the question that this matter should be delayed
think we have put of already to the last moment and
i is now ecessary to decide it, and to decide il speedily
One radical error. in my opinion, has through the
whole OF the Arguments on this subject the part Of
those who advocate this amendment The foundation
OF Their arguments is based upon position, which
think wrong and that is, that there are no re-
turns from California. That, in my Judgment is very
great mistake The honorable senator from South Caro-.
lima lMr KaTrI YESTERDAY, n proposing his proyiso.
OF the majority OF the committee that could not 90
into estimates in matter OF this kndthat the constitu-
on does not authorize IT; and he placed the amendment
which he offered different ground, which think is en-
hrely untenablelhat although. according to the enume
ration and according 10 the constitution, California was
not entitled TO Two members, yet by the provision of the
act admitting her into the Union she was entitled to two
until new enumeration takes place, and that therefore
she rs Is entitled 70 two now cannot 50 understand
I The language OF the act admitting California into
the Union is very smilar-l think in the identical
words-to the acts admitting other States-that until
new enumeration takes place this representation shall
stand exactly the language used in the admission
OF all the States before enumeration is made and pre-
cisey the language used IN the before first
enumeration made. What does il mean II means
only that she shall be entitled to that representation until
new apporionment and census take place. and nothing
more. put i to the senators to say il single Of
those who voted for that measure supposed that the act
admitting California into the Union ever contemplated
or can De construed to mean anything more or less than
should take place There is no implied pledge and no
binding obligation on the part OF the government OF the
United States TO continue TO California her two members
any more than 10 continue to Maine, Massachusetts,,
any other State the representation of the last apporon
ment any longer than the present apporonment AS l
observed yesterday. there is no vested right the rule
was intended to be fixed for ten years and when that
expired no State had right to claim the number
OF representatives; butt the contrary il any State could
continue to hold it. while others are better entitled, it
would operate with great injustice to the rest
But Mr. President, wish to advert to some facts TO
show that the position assumed. that there re-
tha. all the argument in favor OF this amendment being
based that if the position is found untenable falls 10
the ground All the principal arguments take the ground
let US look at the official data upon the subject and
] what these returns amount to- will state that this
matter s materially dferen, according to the record
from what it when the Secretary OF the Interior made
his report to the President Teen il probable that
he could say with great proprey that the returns were
defecive-hat there a great number of counties
from which he had returns. He perfectly
rect also, in stating at tha, time that he had second
ary evidence by which 10 arrive at the population OF
those counties that were wanting That very true
at the time this letter sent in, but now the state OF
the facts is different The very information which the
Secretary was in want of-he want Of which had pre-
cluded him from making the apportionmeni-we have
now upon tables and one OF the principal objects
calling upon Congress is in fact removed And so clear
is this 10 my mind, that am strongly impressed that il
the facts stated TO the Senate had been presented at
the time this message about TO be sent in, il would
not have been sent in, but apporionment would have
been made as the law contemplated
Nlr. GWlN. This very testimony was brought by me.
THIS very book that before The Senate was before the
Judiciary Committee; but they did not feel themselves
thorized to consider these returns.
MIR. DOWNS. II was not before the Secretary of the
Interior, because the language contained in the report
shows that the returns burnt up. | will read his
report lie goes the ground that they official
returns, as shall show before am done He goes
the ground that except for certain countless nneeen in
number,) there official returns. and he says
expressly that Tor these counties there returns at
all, because the tables were burnt up al San Francisco
Now whether the Secretary knew !, or not, presume
known to the committee, and they have reported-to
wit, that previous 10 that fire, return OF those counties
which missing had been made 10 the secretary Of
State OF California and that, therefore, they be sup
piled, and supplied stated before, not by evidence
secondary in it's character. but by evidence which is dis
ded that these census officers shall make return to the
Secretary OF the Interior and another TO the secretary OF
the State. Now, cannot be denied that IL those
which made to the secretary OF the Stale had been
made 10 the Secretary Of the INTERIOR would have been
perfectly regular and Official The act authorizing
him 10 do one authorized him 10 do the other; and yet
you are told that these returns 10 the secretary of the
State OF California returns all and do show
The fact Clearly that is The returns OF San
francisco and two other counties shown by the
turns made to the egisaiureas authentic, and entitled
TO Just much weight those 10 the Secretary OF The
Interior.
But, as wish TO make this point very clear would
refer 10 that portion o the report of the Secretary OF the
Interior Here is his letter, in which he says;
"Fd have been received from the agents en-
gsg~d in taking the OF all the States CALI
fornia Complete have been received from nice
teen counties Of that State"
Now that is pretty good fraction to begin with II
- pretty hard thing 10 say, when the Secretary says
that complete returns have been received from nineteen
counties OF that State that there returns at all.
but that is not all. He proceeds 10 say:
And partial from vo Others vzi Butte Sac.
fameno san Joaquin, Trinity, and Tuolumne From the
, remaining four couniiesvizi Klamath Santa Clarn,
Contra Costa, and San Fancisco-no returns whatever
have been received Information has been ted
10 the department TO tle effect that census those
counues was duly taken, bat that the schedules de-
sfoyed by OF the gaions laid great part
OF theciy OF San Francisco a.hes No copies OF these
scednles preserved, and there no legal me ms
OF supplying the loss oocasoned by their destruction"
Evidently, then, the Secretary was totally unaware Of
the returns made 10 the Secretary Of State;
there the at hi. hand TO supply this defect
/ Mr.. GWIN. There tveniy.seven counties in the
State and the senator has only accounted for twenty