The daily union., 1852-04-09

meubcfss and commune 10 be 80 enuleu until the
next actual enumeration OF her inhabitants Now,
have not heard il disputed, notwithstanding what un-
derstand 10 be the axumsnl Of the honorable senator
led States himself adults thai there has been no actual
enumeration Of the inhabitants OF California that the
enumeration is imperfect that i s partial and that
the returns for sections OF that State have not been
made all Then there is actual enumeration OF the
Inhabitants OF California. Now. we have law upon
our statute book providng that until there an actual
enumeration under the constitution, California shall be
entitled to tgo representatives. Then have the act OF
1885, providing that the whole number composing the
House Of Representatives shall not exceed 233 We
in dilemma in regard to California, where cannot
refuse to let her have two representatives for she can
very well stand up here and say, You gave repre-
sen.aves by law, upon the presumption that you were
not giving us too great Representation and upon what
authority you say you have before allowed us
too many representatives, Ii would be violation OF
the conditions upon which California was admitted into
the Union ii you now dvsst her OF OF her repre-
ssnteyes before you have taken enumeration OF her
Inhabitants in pursuance o the requirements Of the con-
sti!uton.
Now, would like to know from my friend from Geor-
gia Mr.. DAwsoNl whether he has re-examined the
Staemens contained in this document before and is
prepared TO state that the officers of the United States
have reported that they have made perfect enumeration
Of the inhabitants of California in accordance with the
act passed for that purpose.
stand il.
MI. BELL. / do not wish the gentleman to explain
Mr.. DAWSON. thought you wanted an answer 10
Mr.. BELL. wanted merely an answer to my ques-
ton.
Mr. DAWSON The officer states tina, the enumera.
ton was imperfect in those counties 10 which have
before alluded.
Mr. BELL Then understand that il is an imperfect
enumeaOn-that there is no actual enumeration. Now,
cannot indulge in speculation conjecture how
many more there were who ought TO have been
rated il the officers of the government had done their
duty We cannot do that without giving great dssas-
faction to the people OF California, and violating the law
under which California was admitted into the Union.
In Lnod hot loaua he .,uJnr tie II
1850 That is the reason why wanted to PROFOUND
question to the honorable senator from Texas, lMr.
RusK.l and the honorable senator from Illinois. Mr..
SHIELDs,] in regard to South Carolina They seem 20
upon the presumption that South Carolina entitled to the
member that claimed for her under the OF 1850 The
act Of 1850 provides that the whole number composing
the House OF Representatives shall not exceed 233 II
you allow California to have members then there is
no fraction to be represented under the act OF 1885, for
the full number will have been made up without the frac-
ton II seems 10 me- them that the question back
70 the case stated by the senator from Massachusetts
lMr DAyIs.] whether you will allow South Carolina 10
have the benefit OF her fraction, let the representation
stand provided for by the law, which provides that
California shall have ttco representatives until you have
another actual enumeration, which will leave the
TO stand IN regard to California, for ten years
Al you assume that, you obliged to allow California
fUo members. That would constitute the full number
of 233. and South Carolina would not be entitled to
representative tor her fraction Now, admit that this
hard case-that If the enumeration had been complete,
California would have been dvested OF OF her rep
Iesenlalves. and South Carolina would have been en,i
tied to anoherslill, until have that enumeration
which will enable 10 do that, South Carolina has
right to complain OF because this act OF 1850 having
been passed in anticipation of actual enumeration.
she took her chance with the rest OF the States and run
the risk Of having her fraction unepresened Louisiana
stands upon grounds aordng less for complaint
upon her part II does seem TO that, il depart
from the act of S50 and make the number OF represent
aives asa there might be found great inconvenience in
having the even number. member more will also un-
settle the ratio OF representation established by the act OF
1850.
But ask the question again of the honorable senator
from Texas, lMr RvsK and the honorable senator from
Illinois, I'M. SHELDs,l upon what grounds they take il
for granted that South Carolina is entitled to this repre-
sentative for her fraction OF 1000 II seems 10
that the is between South Carolina and Cali
fornia Now, II the case is so situated that we cannot
deprive California of of her representatives, then
think South Carolina is not entitled TO representative
Mr. RUSK That would be true if you were fixing
the representation OF California by this act But you do
not do that The amendment proposed by the senator
FROM Maine Mr. BRABBuRYl is that the representation
Of the State Of California consequences Of the incor-
rectness Of the OF that State shall stand il
now is She is entitled, under her ACT OF admission to
iiSo representatives until actual enumeration takes
place, and that has not taken place yet is proposed
let her remain she is. 1 admit the fact. sug-
gsssd BY the senator from Tennessee LMI Bs tina,
turns from California, we are thrown into difficulty in
determining what number we shall divide by-what ratio
shall establish get the number OF 233 Tor the House
Of Representative That is difcuy-it is in our way.
and we cannot get entirely clear Of IT, Now, propose
TO get clear OF n the best wayby assuming for the pur
u
take the returns we have them made 10 That 10
still detective; but is very immaereal, because
would change the number for the ratio by but very
small amount
Mr. BELL. My objection to il is that Il unseitles the
law. ntC f #eN
Mr. RUSK. But il you make up for California by ex-
GLIDING South Carolina you commit still greater
Certainly extend the point further because you have
to assume not only that the returns from California
not correct. but larger than they say they are.
ic Mr.. SHIELDS I admit the dilemma suggested by
the honorable senator from Tennessee lMr BrLL But
& we must get out OF il some way Now, assume that
The case OF California IL abnormal case, as il were
that we must provide for il by ITSELF as II there
law upon the matter. II is peculiar The ques-
ton 10 ths will you leave California without represent
alton That is point. Another is, will you increase
her representation And another is, will you diminish
nf What data have you upon which 10 do either the
hrst the second, or the third Then you must legisate
fos California precisely If there law in ques-
toa, You must make law, and apply il 10 that par
Gcnlnr case
Every one admits that South Carolina is entitled to
representative under the general law for her fraction OF
population Therefore you must let South Carolina have
that 10 which she is entitled, because arrangement
confusion, rreg ulany which has occurred in Cal
ornia oughtto deprive ber OF her member II would be
injustice 10 South Carolina to deprive her OF her member
because you have data upon which 10 60 in regard
10 California. therefore agree with the honorable
n'or from Tennessee Mr. Br1Ll that you have 10 aban
don your law and must legislae for California by IL
self.
Mr.. HALE. Mr.. President. I have no desire 10 do
anythag except 10 vote ought upon This subject
bu' II strikes me that there have been two mis-
takes made here in point in fact Several gentlemen
who have spoken on this question have gone upon the
ad F,aI IA IN