The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-05-29

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 were Delaware, with a population of
$1,000; Rhode Island, with n population of
646S9; and Georgia, with population of 80 ,54S.
And even now, while | speak, there are at least
two States, with Senators on this floor, which
according to the last census, do not contain the
population now required of Kansas. | refer to
Delaware with a population of 81 ,635, and Flor
ida, with population of freemen amounting only
to AZ ,203. So much for precedents of population
But in sustaining this objection, it is not I'M
common to depart from the strict rule of numeri-
cal precedent, by suggesting that the population
required in new State has always been, in point
of fact, above the existing ratio of representation
for member of the House of Representatives.
But this is not true; for at least one State Flor
ida, was admitted with a population below this
ratio, which at the time 10000. So much,
again, for precedents. But even if this coinci-
dence were complete it would be impossible to
press it into binding precedent. The rule
seems reasonable, and, in ordinary cases. would
not be questioned; but it cannot be drawn or
implied from the Constitution. Besides, this ra-
ito is, in itself, sliding scale. At first it was
$1,000, and thus continued till 1911, when it was
put at $4,000. In 1922, it was 40, 900; in 1882,
it was AT roo; in 1912, it was 7O,68O; and now,
it is SO APO. If any ratio is to be made the found
alton 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 acquired from France, under SOL
emn stipulation that it should abe incorporated
into the Union of the United States as soon as
may be consistent with the principles of the
Federal Constitution" But this whole objection
Is met by the memorial of the people of Florida,
which, if good for that State, is also good for
Kansas. Here is passage:
But the people of Florida respectfully insist
night to be admitted into the Federal Union State is
not dependent upon The fact of their having popula-
lion equal to such ratio. Their right admission il
conceived sguaraned by the pledge in the sixth
article of the treaty before quo'ed and If any rule to
the number of the population is to tshoud be that
In existence at the time of the cession which was thirty
five thousand. They submit, however, that ratio of
representation dependent upon legislative action based
solely on convenience and expediency, shiihnS ana
vacillanng the opinion of majority Of Congress may
make il, greater Than at a previous apporuoninen
cannot be one of the constitutional PRINCIPLES" referred
to in the treaty, consistency with which, by It's TERMS is
required is, in truth but mere regulation not found
ed principle No specified number of population is
required by recognized principle as necessary in the
establishment of free Government
at is in wise inconsistent ,c the principles of The
Federal Constitution that the population of State should
The very is provided for in the Constitution With
such deficient population, she wooa be entitled
Representative any event should canse decrease of
the population Of one OF the States number be-
low the nininum ratio of representation prescribed by
Confederacy, and be entitled 10 such Representative
is respectfully urged that rule prnc which would
Justify the exTNlson OF u State with a deficient popu
laon the ground of Inconsistency with the Const,u-
ton, should not exclude or prohibit admission ~ sec
Doc, 9Th Cong, 2d sess., Vol A. No. aGl
Thus sir, do the people of Florida plead for
the people Of Kansas.
Distrusting the objection from inadeouacv of
population, 1t is said that the proceedings for Ms
tormat'o" Of new State are fatclly defectiUe an
form 1t Is not assorted that previous enabling
Act OF Congress is Indispensable for there are no.
torious precedents the other way, among which
are Kentucky in l791; Tennessee in 1856; Maine
In 1920; and Arkansas and Michigan in 1886.
hut IL is urged that IN no instance has State
been admitted, whose Constitution was formed
without such enabling Act, or without the au-
thority OF the Territorial Legislature. This is
not true; for California came into the Union with
Constitution, formed not only without any
previous enabling Act, but also without any
sanction from Territorial Legislature. The
proceedings which ended in this Constitution,
were initiated by the military Governor there,
acting under the exigency of the hour. This
instance may not be identical in all respects with
| that OF Kansas but it displaces completely one
of the assumptions which Kansas now encoun-
| ters, and il also shows completely the DISPOSE
ton to relax all rule, under the exigency of the
hour, In order TO do substantial justice.
| But there is memorable instance, which con,
tains in itself every element Of rregularty wIica
| you denounce in the proceedings Ct Kansas Mich
| igan, now cherished with such pride as a sister
State, achieved admission into the Union in per
sistent defiance of all rule. Do you ask for pre-
cedents Here is precedent for the largest iati-
tude, which you, who profess Difference TO pre-
cedent, cannot disown. Mark now the stages Of
this case The hrst proceedings of Michigan
We're Without any previous enabling Act of Con-