The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-04-15
Debate In the senate an the Ad"aissaon
.---.--. Us ,sis as >s>sH, ...
(cosrnrEp vxox LAST wxxrLY.l


bill, the question being On the amendment
offered to section two by Mr.. Mason Of Va,
a. follows:
THAT the said state shall be entitled TO one
Representative in the Congress Of the United
States"
Mr.. HcSTEa Of Va, favored the amend.
ment--basing his position on the ground
that the actual census taken, showed the
State was entitled 10 but one representative,
with fraction Of population even not equal
to one half the ratio Of representation.
Mr.. PrGH, Of Ohio. addressed the Senate
as follows.
Mr.. Pugh. II the Senate is disposed 10
vote on the question ] will desist other
wise ! should Ike to make some reply 10 the
suggestions made by the Senator from Nir-
vinia. lMr Mason, aud the Senator from
Kentucky, lMr. CfittendeD, at the Inst ses-
sion Of he Senate but If no other Senator
wishes TO peak, will deslst. go on
The burden Of their argument VIA, that IN.
nsmuch "a by the Constitution Of the Uni.
ted States there was general census re-
quired 10 be taken every ten years with u
view 10 the apporfionmcnt Of Representa-
tiycs In the 0th,r House, therefore the census
required by the enabling act II the last Con
grcsa 10 be- taken 10 Minnesota Is entitled 10
peculiar soleinnity and even conclusiyencss.
That understand TO be tho weight Of the
whole argument in favor Of the pending
amendment.
Now, sir, IL ia obvious, think. or will be
on reflection, that the regular decennn mp
poriionment can have no manner Of applica-
ton TO the case Of new State. What is
the object 0l that census II il to ascertain
the population Of the various States ut the
time II IL taken, with view 10 the appor
tionmcnt at that time Of Representatives.
That was done almost or quite eight years
ago. II IL impossible for us TO imagine that
this deccnnial census can reach any degree
of accuracy, or ut least can retain It's accu
racy Tor any length Of time. But the rule
never was applied TO the case Of any new
State and II Ia only necessary 10 look at
the manner in which the last apportionment
was made to 20 satisfied Of the fact. As
understand the law u particular number
was assumed for the members Of the House
Of Representatives the House was not to
exceed 20 many members, and that mum
Der was apportioncd among the States then
in the Union. The very principle Of that
apportionmcnt excludes its application to
any new State. II can have no manner Of
application and no legitimate argument, IN
my judgement, can be derived for that census
In iact, SIR in the case ofall new States, we
never have attached any importance to the
dccennial census. ] do not mean to say that
the ratio ascertained by that act ought to
be dlsrogarded, though ! say II IL not con.
elusive. l!ut when II is sought from the
circumstances Of the last census, aud from
the ratio then ascertaipcd, To carry forward
the argument that the census Of Minnesota,
taken under the enabling act Of the last
Congress. stands on the footing Of the dccen.
NAL census, AMI Is entitled TO the same con
trolling force il seems TO me that the inter.
cnco fails.
Why, air, not 20 fur as can ascertain or
have ever heard, has there been census
taken in the case OF any new State except
this ont. This Is the first instance. We
have settled the representation Of Nil new
States before this time without reference TO
any particular census. | do not mean TO
say that this census taken in Minnesota
ought not to bc regarded, but say that it
is not conclusive, that II does not stand on
the same foundation with the regular jeccn.
NAL census, II seems TO me, therefore. that
the line Of argument pursued by the Senator
from Virginia not now In his seat. Mr.
Mason, and the Senator from Kentucky
Mr.. Crittenden. is completely broken 10y
the suggestion of these two facts.
Now. on what principles are We 10 deal
with this discussion! For the first time so
far rs am aware. IN su enabling act Con
grcss required "A census to be taken for Min
ncsota. Has that census been truly taken
That IL the question. II it has been truly
taken IL ough, To bind Us but here The
Committee ON Ierritorics--i think major.
ity al them. certainly several memhtrs--,
have stated To us, that from the evidence in
their possession, they are satisfied the Ccn
Gus was not fair one that IN many places
the deputy marshals threw the returns into
the fire: tina, in other districts Of the coun
try they did not pretend to complete them
that in still Others they made It mere for
NAL matter. adding few names and the
constitutional convention, or rather this
double-hca,lcd convention in MINES "a from
the Information which it, members had, aud
from oaicial documents. | suppose laid b.
forc them from the authorities " the Terri
tory ur some other sources, arrived at th,
conclusion tina, the population OF Minnesota
was much larger than the official returns
Of the 0nSus showed | do not prcsum,
there can he reasonable question OF that
| think that Minnesota has Tar more popua
tion than would ,u,itt her To two Reprcscn
ta,ives according TO the m,io established 10y
the last census
Ny friend, the Senator from Kentucky,
thought We ought to tvgari the TACT TIA,
our states have bvn increasing in yopula.
ton since the last c,usas and that w
should be cu,,led TO an incrro~,l rvpryscn
tation and therefore, We ought 10 restrain
Minnesota Wei. sir, 10 doubt, in SON,
sections oi the Union. there has bcvu an in
erase Of population since the census, and
I Vrnh.l,lp "A Kt.skf - AN tnaf,su.,si IA