Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1870-07-13
Rnmnrks Of Judge Poland.
ON Tnr Wv ArroRTi0NNFNT.

bination embraces some Republicans living IN
parlicular section of the country, and some
very bad Democrats, the two uniting in oppo-
stion to this
Now, would like to have my friend take
census Of the supporters Of this bill aud
see whether they are all members on one par
ticuar political party. Does my friend from
| Illinois, Mr. Logan, agree with my friend
from Kentucky, Mr. Beck, who has made
altogether the best argument that has been
made in favor Of this bill, unless | except
that Of my friend from lllnois2 Do they
agree perfectly in all their views concerning
Ipolitical questions la my humble judgment
they have not always conceded perfectly here.
/ do not suppose MIR Speaker, that either
the friends Of this measure or the opponents
Of it are so perfectly disintorested IN their
motives "a. men are in relation to some other
things IL is undoubtedly true that the
members from the New Esgland and the At
untic State. generally oppose this bill because
| they think that by 1t they will be improperly
deprived Of portion Of the representation
which they now have and TO which they are
coustitutionally aud legally entitled Aud 1t
/ is undoubtedly true also that the gentlemen
| from Illinois MIR Judd and Mr.. Logan, and
other gentlemen from the Western and from
the Southern States, support this bill because
| by il the representation Of their states would
| he enlarged | think there is about as much
of DISTINGUISHED motives ON the one side as the
other. and about as much Of sclGshuess on the
one side as ON the other. And do not think
| it becomes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
/ Logan, to stand up here and charge US with
sclfshncss aud claim that he has none himself
Now, it is undoubtedly true that under the
provisions ofthis bill, if it shall become law,
oven with the number Of Representatives,
three hundred, which the Senate provide by
| their amendment, the little State Of Vermont
| which / 10 part represent, will lose one mem
/ Der of this House. 1t is not matter Of any
very great Importance, for my friend from ILL.,,
Mr. Logan.) or perhap, my friend from the
Chicago district, MIR judd or some other
equally able gentleman, will run for Congress
In that State ON the ticket at large and come
here in the place of the one We would lose
so that it would not be matter Of any very
great account
But sir, we have lived in this country for
nearly a hundred years since this Government
was first established and We have got along
by having an apportionment made every ten
years. and go, along very well. Although
there has been an inequality in the represon-
tation before the expiration Of each decade,
although at times there has been a very con-
siderable inequality, yet nobody has ever be-
fore talked of having q rebellion about ii, a.
does my eloquent friend from Ohio, Mr.
Bingham Nobody has ever before started
up and said Our representations unequal
and unless you make IL equal there will b,
trouble 10 this country That has been loft
TO be proclaimed by my friend from Ohio
OR Biugham,) who always puts great deal
OF rainbow into the Constitution as well as 10
|. everything else. I.aughier
Now, Mr. Speaker, why should We depart
from what has been the settled policy, th,
settled course Of business in this country
upon thi. subect2 My friend from Kentucky
p Mr. Beck) ntimated that il ought TO be done
/ because the South and the West have beer
uniustly treated AMI he complained, among
other things that the East has the largest
amount Of currency, abiding to this anC
other topics which are brought up here oc-
casioually to engender sectional prejudice
Now | cannot take time to clear up all thos,
matters but ! say that the Representatives
from New England and the Atlantic State
have not been unjust to the West either il
their legislation or otherwise We know
that the West has been settled from New
England and the eastern States that tn,
western people are bone Of our bone ant
4 flesh Of our flesh. We never have been un
just to them We never intend to be an,
any attempt to influence the votes Of gentle
men from the West or the South, by urgin.
! that they must 90 in favor Of thi- bill il
! order to protect themselves against injustice
from New England New York, and the othe
eastern States, is an appeal to prejudice /
i, not an appeal to truth or reason.
Why should this change in the apportiou
} ment be made at this timc2 IL Is said Their
is an inequality Has this not existed here
totore3 New States have been constantly
growing up, population has been steadily To-
creasing and toward the end of every de
} cade there has always been an inequality
Il may be true that the inequality is greater
now than it has ever been before, in con
sequence Of the increased representative pop
ulation Of the South growing out Of tn,
abolition Of slavery. 1t is on this account
that my friend from Kentucky Mr.. Beck /,
in favor Of this bill, not on account of the
great growth of the Northwest.
think, Mr.. Speaker, that the Constitu-
ton never contemplated that there should be
an apportionment until after the census had
been taken, until after the people had been
enumerated. The intention was, according
to my view, that Congress should have
the enumeration before it prior to making an
apportionment. Some discussion has been
had as to whether the Constitution does not
require that this enumeration shall be made
at set periods of ten years. | concede that
the language Of the Constitution does not in
terms require this, but think such is the fair
spirit OF the instrument. Such has been the
practical construction of the Constitution from
its formation down to the present time. My
friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Woodward
and other legal gentlemen here are familiar
with the well recognized principle that a
practical and settled construction of consti-
tutiona provision or a law is entitled to great
weight. 1t has never before been questioned
that this is the true meaning and spirit Of the
Constitution.
But ] have constitutional objection to
this bill which, to my mind, is very formd.
able one Who, according to the terms of the
Constitution, Is to make the superintendent?
The Congress Of the United States. BY this
bill is it proposed that we shall make the ap.
portonment? We provide to be sure, a
rule Of apportionment; but we say that the
Secretary the Interior and his employees
are to make the apportionment in fact.
Now, Mr. Speaker. it may be said if we
provide the rule of apportionmont, we may
properly leave it to somebody to figure it out.
1t is not a delegation of power which the
Constitution gives this House. If it is true
this is merely sum in arithmetic; if the
whole duty of the Secretary of the Interior
consisted in ciPherlng out given proposition
we put to him, there would be considerable
! toYp1 in hut NJ, II