Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1867-02-07

this vast advantage in the House of
Representatives, but an equality in
the Senate, where the other States are
represented by millions. With per
haps a single exception, no such inc
quality as this has ever before been
attempted.
! know that it is claimed that the
population of the different States at
the time of their admission has varied
at different periods, but it has not
varied much moro than the popua-
ton of each decade, and the CORE
spending basis Of representation for
the different periods The obvious
intent of the Constitution was that no
State should be admitted with less
population than the ratio for q Repre-
sentative nj tho time Of application.
The limitation in the second section OF
the first article of the Constitution,
declaring that "lsach State shall have
at least one Representative, was man
ifestly designed TO protect the States
which originally composed the Union
from being deprived, in the event of a
waning population, Of a voice in the
popular branch of Congress, and was
never intended as warrant to force
Il new State into the Union with a
representative population far below
that which might at the time be re-
quired of sister members of the con-
fcderacy. This bill, in view of the
prohibition of the same section which
declares that "The number of Repre-
sentatives shall not exceed one for
every thirty thousand" is at least a
violation of the spirit if not of the
letter of the Constitution.
1t is respectfully submitted that
however Congress, under the pressure
of circumstances, may have admitted
two or three States with less than a
representative population at the time,
there has been no instance in which
an application for admission has ever
been entertained when the popula-
ton, as officially ascertained, was be-
low thirty thousand. Were there any
doubt Of this being the true construc-
tion of the Constitution, it would be
dispelled by the early aud long-con.
tinued practice of the Federal Govern
ment. For nearly sixty years after
the adoption of tho Constitution, no
State was admitted with population
believed at the time to be less than
the current rates for Representative
and the first instance in which there
appears to have been departure
from the principle was in lS45, in the
case of Florida. Obviously the result
of sectional strife, we would do well
to regard it as a warning of evil rath-
or than as aU example for imitation.
| think candid men of all parties
will agree that the inspiring cause OF
this wholesome principle of restraint
is to be found in vain attempt to
balance those antagonisms which ro.
fured to be reconciled except through
the bloody arbitrament of arms. The
plain facts of our history will attest
that the great and leading States ad
mittcd since 1s45, viz: Iowa, Wiscon
sin, California, Minnesota and Kansas
including Texas, which was admitted
that year, have all come with an am
pie population for one Representative
and some of them with nearly or quite
enough for two. To demonstrate tho
correctness of my views on this ques
tion, | subioin a table containing a list
Of the States admitted since the adop
tion of the Federal Constitution, with
the date Of admission, the ratio o.
representation and the representative
population when admitted, deduceC
from the United States census table
the calculation being made for the pei
cent. of the decade corresponding witt
the date of admission