Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1856-06-13

But this is not all. At the adoption of
the Federal Constitution, there were three of
the old Thirteen States whose respective
populations did not reach the amount now
required for Kansas. These we're Delaware
with a population of 59096; Rhode Island
with population Of 0l6SJ and Georgia
with population of S25iS. And even now
while | speak, there are at least two States.
with Senators on this 1oor, which, accord
ing to the last census, do not contain the
population now required of Kansas. refer
to Delaware, with a population Of 81 ,635,
and Florida with a population of freemen
amounting only to 47,20j. So much for pre-
cedents of population.
But IN sustaining this objection, it is not
uncommon to depart from the strict rule of
numerical precedent, by suggesting that the
population required in a new State has al
ways been, IN punt Of fact, above the ex>
isting ratio, OF representation for a member
Of the House of Representatives. Hut this
Is not true for al least one State, Florida,
was admitted with a population below this
ratio, which at the time was 70,6S0. So
much again, for precedents But even if
this coincidence we're complete, It would be
impossible to press II into a binding preced-
dlnary cases, would not be questioned bnt
1t cannot be drawn or implied from the Con-
stltutlon. Besides, this ratio is, in itself,
sliding scale. At first, it WAS $4,000, and
thus continued till 1911, when it was put at
$4,000. In 1922, it was 10000 in 1892 it
was 200 ls42, it was 70,6S0; ind now,
It is 1920. II any ratio is to be made the
foundation Of a binding rule it should be
that which prevailed at the adoption Of the
Constitution, and which still continued, when
Kansas, as a part Of Louisiana, was acquir-
cd from France, under solemn stipulation
that should " be Incorporated into the Union
OF the United States as soon rs may be con-
sistent with the principles Of the Federal
Constitution But this whole objection IS
met by the memorial Of the people Of Flor
ida, which, It good for that State, is also
good for Kansas. Here il passage:
But tho people IT Florida respectfully insist that
their right TO bo admitted the Federal Union as
Stale b not dependent upoa The fict OF thu having
population equal o. such fauo. Ihet right 10 aips-
SION it s conceived b. guaranteed by Tho express pledge
In tho sK article OF the ueaiy b6foie quoted and
any rule numbot Of the population H. 10 gov
enu should be- that in clstenee at the tme Of The
sion which was thirty five thousand. Thoy submit,
however that ani ratio Of fopfesontou dependent up
on legislative action, based solely convenience aud
eIpcd'ence, shining and vacilni the opinion Of
iofity Of Congress may make IT, now greater than at
pieyi6u appofilonneai but which luiuta Cougro.s
may prescribe 20 be- Hss, cannot be Of ihu
hoHal rRtsciFLEs Tufafed 10 in iha tfeaiy consist
onoy with which, by iis terms, rs Tequiisd Itis DO
ruth. but m9ie regulation, not fuuniad principle
No spec d number OF population Is required by nuy
reeognEed principle as necessary in the establishment
OF hpe Government
itis 10 nowi.e iaeossistsat pbh me priae Pee qf
tie Federal CoasafoH that the population OF q state
should be- less than the ratio Of Congregation frpfeseu
taton. The vofy is provided Tor in the tonsitu-
ton Wiihsueh deficient population, she would be Gu.
fI.Hf Han ID
decrease Of tNe population of of tho state ryon
to numhof below tho minmRm iato of fepfessuttiun
pfe.cfhsd by the Constitution, sha would sill remain
memhrr of The Couiodomcy, aud bo emitted To su'h
Representative. II respectfully ufsod, that rule OF
principle Hhich would not justly tho fzpattoa Of d
state with deficient population on the ground Of
oon,isuno, Niih tho Consutuuun shunid not ,1cludo
prohibit adaissioa"Er. Doc. 2lh Coag., I'd stss,,
Vel. 4. No. 2Jn.
Thus, sir, do the people OF Florida plead
for the people OF Kansas.
DIstrustlng the objection from inadequacy
Of population, 1t Is SAID that the proceedings
for the formation Of a neV State are jatlily
defseiiUe IN Jorm IL is not asse5.od that
previous enabling Act Of Congress IA indls-
pensable for there are nolcrious precedenls
the other way, among which are Kentucky
IN l79l Tennessee m l79O Name IN
1920 and Arkansas aud Michigan IN 1886.
But il ls urged that ia no instance hasa
State been admitted, whose Constitution was
formed without such enabling Act or with
out the authority Of the reuiioral Legisa-
ture. This is not true for California came
into the uuion with a Constitution formed
not only without any previous enabling Act,
but also without any sanction from Terrific.
rial Legislature. The proceedings which
ended n this Constitution were initiated by
the military Governor there, acting under
the exigency Of the hour. This Instance