The daily union., 1852-04-10

But The honorable senator from California lNr Gwis
there. will show him that the remaining counties are
accoused for by much later report to the Census Bu-
reau. Here Is the statement made March 0, l652-one
OF the last dates have--table No. A:
Aggregate OF counties in the State ie............"..ss
i Soans returned 40 an .,;.'' '''''.'',.'.-'..'.sS
Counties nom which have been received.
When he sent his report in, he said there nineteen
counties complete. Now he says there are twenty two
complete. This table makes up the whole number, and
among them are included the three that mentioned be-
fore And here wish 10 show, in order that the facts
may 80 TO the public that so lar as the census con-
cerned the number Of counties ought 10 be considered as
only twenty instead OF twenlyeigh because there
was some doubt with the committee whether in 1850 the
county OF klamath was 70 existence hut that is made
clear by the statement of Mr.. McCorkle--hat il
created afterwards; SO that really was returned with
the others before it was laid of of you could
not put il in, then, separate cosnty and the
mitiee went the supposion that that county was
unacconned for OF course il was created after June,
1850 and alter The census ought 10 have been taken.
Mr. McCorkle distinctly states the fact believe, that II
was probable this county created since. Then, ac-
counting for the county OF Klamath in that way leaves
the number unretuned but three. We have, then only
these three counties, which are the very mentioned
in the report OF the committee, of which returns
made TO the secretary Of State OF California. #
Now, are those returns correct or not have shown
il they had been sent to the Secretary OF the Interior
Is there any impeachment OF those returns have not
heard yet They sent 10 the secretary of States
office at the lime they printed there they acted
on and they were brought here and incorporated in the
other tables and do not see any question raised as to
these three counties; yet they do raise question as TO
whether there is defect in these two counties Other
wise the census Is complete According to the statement
have referred TO, twenty-five counties have complete
returns, and two have imperfect returns Now, we
have shown that, since so long time has elapsed with
out any correction being made ia those counties must
therefore consider them perect for the four counties
from which there said to be returns Of them
was made after the taken, and for the other
three we account fully and satisfactorily BY getting re-
turns from the secretary of State OF California. ask
gentlemen them after taking all these fects into consd
Grafton. how they say there returns from the
State OF California There is not county which was
in existence in 1850 from which official returns have not
been received, and with regard to but tioo counties is
there official suggestion that the returns not COM
pete and in reference to one OF hem-the county OF
Iuoumne-the agent appears 10 have received returns
which he held back from some cause other for what
reason know not. Now, with this state of facts; with
Complete returns from nineteen counties, as the secretary
says--irom twenty-five counties, the agent himself
says with the fact stated by Mr.. McCorkle that the
county OF klamath was not created until after the census
nt 1850 was taken and therefore must have been en-
braced in the returns for of the other countless with
the fact that the returns from the other counties have
been received ;-in consideration of all these facts
ask with what grace, with what countenance, get
up here and say that there from Catifor-
MIA II cannot be done without exercising arbitrary
power OF calculation based upon foundation OF logic
or reason.
There is another circumstance connected with this sub
ject TO which wish TO call the attention OF the Senate
or, rather wish 70 extend The very proper argument
yesterday upon this subject. The argument upon the
other side is constantly based upon the idea that these
returns are erroneons that they too small that they
ought be increased And yet this record shows this
very strange fact-that in the majority of the counties
where any correction has been made there is dim-
mutton in respect TO the first teturns Yet gentlemen
tell you now that must that there larger
populations there than first returned Let us look
al this matter little. have Marked for the purpose
OF reference those counties where change is shown
from the FIRST returns and those made about year ago
10 the secretary Of State of California. In the one.
Butte county put down 7S6 while in the other il
i 80 ~. ke iniu
when time has elapsed for Correction and has been
made Then another couniy-the county OF Sacramento
put down IN the one al 900. while in the other it
only 9,0s7-showing a difference OF 1000 nearly.
That is very important couny-one of the popu-
lous IN the State There are tour other counties IN the
Santa Cruz, There are six counties in all which
returned TO the legislature year ago reinyesgation
has been had and yet so far from their being
there has been reduction, and think very material
reduction. Now, present TO the Senate whether, under
state OF facts we can assume that very great errors
have been made in regard 10 California There
few counties in which there has been very slight In
crease
MI WELLER VIII the senator inform me of the
i Mr. DOWNS. do not know that the date is given ;
| but il was sent TO me on the 5th OF March, 1857.
Mr. WELLER Then how do you assume that those
returns were made after the which sent 10 the
/ legislature Of California, when you do not know the
fact' That is an important point
/ Mr. DOWNS. We sant to the agent for the
most correct returns, and these the us,
and we took 1t for granted OF course that they were made
last.
i Mr. WELLER But when the senator complains Of
the discrepancies between these two returns, he must
show that the returns to the Census Office subsequent
TO the returns made 10 The legislature OF California Un-
less he shows that his argument will be OF no weight
i Mr. DOWNS. am not sure that that is shown, but
presumed that was the fact, because the communication
Is OF the latest date There is nothing in the paper that
know ofnoihlng in the Teturnsto show the date But
am impressed with the belief that such the case
Tor called for the latest corrections and returns and
these were sent here under the date Of March 5, 1852
think that Is the rational Inference although have not
the documents show that such was the cese There are
two statements here which correspond very materially
the one which read, made by the secretary the 9th
March, and the other made 10 the honorable senator from
California MT GwfN1 the 25th OF last February.
do think. then that there s strong presumption for sup
posing that those who urge the adoption OF this amend.
ment are mistaken in supposing that the population of
California is so great they would have us believe
i Now, II II be allowed in any 10 make estimates,
cleares and most ndsputable grounds And when these
corrections made, and instead OF the amount OF popu
aion being increased i is rather diminished, do think
Il would be very forcibe construction assume that
large portion oil the population has not been returned
shall not undertake 10 enter into analysis of the
statements made by the honorable member from Cafor
mia in The other House, IMr McCoRKLrl do not dis.
pue their correctness at all But object them because
they not the kind Of evidence all upon which we
act here Once open this question here in this way
and you will find that there is not State but can
show you great many inaccuracies 10 their returns
Bot we do not rely upon evidence Of that kindt is not
contemplated by the law is not such should be re-
ceiyed. But II we look into that testimony, what
does II amount iol II he had submitted to US facts
which he has Motif he had shown that the legislature
had ascettaned the population OF particular countess and