The Ebensburg Alleghanian. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1865-1871, 1868-11-19
COnstituGiOnaI representation.

The XIVth amendment to the National
Constitution, ratified before the adjourn
ment of the last Congress, provides that
when any State shall deny to any of its
citizens the privilege of the ballot on ac-
count of race or color, the number of its
representatives shall be diminished in the
same ratio as the number so disfranchised
bears to the population of such State
Certain States, Kentucky and Maryland,
each contain a large percentage of popu-
lation to whom suffrage is denied for the
causes mentioned in the amendment, aud
consequently are not legally entitled to the
same representation in Congress which
they have heretofore had. Delaware
would be in the same predicament were it
not she has never had more than one rep
resentative, of which she cannot so long
as she remains State be deprived.
In order that this provision of the
amendment may be carried into effect, it
is necessary that Congress make a new
apportionment of the representatives
among the different States. But this,
Congress failed to do at its last session,
most probably because it would necessarily
have to be done at the close of an extra
ordinarily long sitting. The last appor-
tionment made by Congress authorized
to Kentucky nine and to Maryland five
representatives, and in pursuance of this
apportionment those States at the late
elections chose the number allotted. 1t is
evident that the number chosen is not in
compliance with the Constitution. 1t is
equally evident that they acted in perfect
good faith. The question now comes up,
shall these representatives be allowed to
hold their seats in the coming Congress !?
1t is argued by those who say they shall
not, that the number of representatives
elected is in violation Of her Constitution,
and is therefore illegal, and as it is not
proper for Congress to say which of these
representatives should anu which should
not retire, the on y RECOURSE is to deny the
right of sitting to the entire delegations
We hold the proposition to be rotten In
point of logic, and impolitic in point OF
practice. First of all, we maintain that
no State should be deprived of her repre-
sentation for light, or trivial, or mere tech
nical, cause. Next, as a principle, we say
tlat no person, real or corporate, should
or can rightfully be held to the conse-
quenccs of violating Jaw SO long as the
lawn liking power has left it Impossible Tor
him to obey it. If this is not the co,-ect
view, then not only may States be de-
privcd at any time of representation in the
National councils, but fines may be impos-
ed, property confscatcd, and the citizen
himself cast into prison for not doing what
he could not do 1t is an old and long
settled principle of constituting laws that
acts of the Legislature which command
what is impossible to be performed are of
no binding force. In the present case, it
was utterly impossible for any State to
,omnlv with the amendment until Con-
eress had paved the way by new apPor-
tionment. How, then, shall State be
,upishel for its noncompliance But 1t
IS no less against good law than against
rood common sense that while the culpa-
bility, If any, rests uFon Congress, the