H. OF R.] Apportionment Bill. [JAN. 18, 1832. the information by setting the committee--he was almost ject, they would, perhaps, find they had less reason to indifferent which--to work upon it, he should, if it met complain of the fractions left their respective States, than with the approbation of the House, move the previous they had supposed. They would then be prepared to question. Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, asked if the effect of the previous question would not be to cut off the amendment. The SPEAKER said it would. The call for the previous question was seconded by a vote of yeas 96, nays 77. Mr. VANCE called for the yeas and nays on the previous question, and the call being sustained by the requisite number, they were ordered. Mr. ADAMS asked if the previous question precluded amendments afterwards. The SPEAKER observed that it would. The question would then recur on the original resolution and preamble. The SPEAKER then propounded the previous question in the words following: "Shall the main question now be put?" N. B. The main question was on agreeing to Mr. BOULDIN's resolution without amendment, and it was decided by yeas and nays as follows: vote on principle, and we should find less difficulty in passing a bill. He was not partial to a ratio of 48,000; it would leave his State a large fraction-a fraction of more than 41,000. But if even that number suited a majority of the House, he presumed the State of New York would not complain. We had heard that Virginia and Maryland would have large fractions by which they would suffer injustice. Well, what ought to be their fractions? At a ratio of 48,000, the aggregate of fractions would be 547,483, which, divided amongst the twenty-four States, would give an average of 22,812. The fraction of Virginia would be 21,843, and that of Maryland, 15,503. Virginia would be favored about 1,000, and Maryland about 7,000. These would be favored States. If gentlemen were determined their States should have no frac tions at all, or even less than the average fractions, it would be evident that no ratio whatever could unite a majority of votes, and, of course, we could not pass a bill. Mr. SPEIGHT understood the question now before the House to be on a proposition to strike out 48 and insert 44. He should vote against that proposition. No member of that House was more disposed than himself to accommo date the views and consult the interests of what were termed the old States, and he should be willing to do so in the present case, if he did not think the means by which that end was proposed to be accomplished were at variance with the public interest. In settling the ratio of representation, it was his opinion that the public interest required that the members of that House should be les sened; for, by so doing, they would increase not only its order and decorum, but facilitate the despatch of business. For these reasons he was against the number 44. It had been said that a low ratio was consistent with the pure principles of democracy. He thought those principles would be better sustained by a smaller disbursement of the public money, and a greater despatch of public business. Did not the experience of every day in that House bear testimony in favor of this position? Was not the most NAYS.-Messrs. Adams, Allan, Allison, Angel, Ap- trivial proposition swallowed up in endless debate? What pleton, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, Noyes Barber, I. C. would be the consequence of adopting the number 44? It Bates, Beardsley, Bergen, Bouck, Briggs, Bucher, Bul- would swell the number of that House to 259. On the lard, Burd, Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Claiborne, Collier, same principle of increase, in a few years, instead of L. Condict, S. Condit, E. Cooke, B. Cooke, Cooper, building a capitol, they would have to provide barracks Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crawford, Creighton, J. Davis, for their representatives. One reason brought forward Dayan, Dearborn, Denny, Dewart, Dickson, Doddridge, against 48 was, that some of the old States would lose a Doubleday, Ellsworth, G. Evans, J. Evans, E. Everett, representative. Had not Delaware lost one on a former H. Everett, Findlay, Ford, Gilmore, Grennell, Hughes, apportionment? And had not Virginia been subjected to Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersoll, Irvin, Jenifer, Kendall, a similar forfeiture? If the principle was acted on in 1821, Kennon, Leavitt, Mann, Marshall, R. McCoy, McKennan, why not adhere to it now? He feared that another princiMercer, Milligan, Muhlenberg, Newton, Pitcher, Plum- ple might operate in some cases against a higher number; mer, Potts, Randolph, J. Reed, Root, Russel, Slade, he feared that it was wished to make our treasury disburseSouthard, Stanberry, Stephens, Stewart, Storrs, Suther-ments larger; and the adoption of 44 would increase our land, Taylor, P. Thomas, J. Thomson, Tompkins, Tracy, expenditure thirty or forty thousand dollars. Vance, Washington, Watmough, Wilkin, Wheeler, E. Whittlesey, F. Whittlesey, E. D. White, Young.--95. YEAS.-Messrs. Adair, Alexander, Anderson, Archer, Ashley, John S. Barbour, Barnwell, Barringer, Barstow, James Bates, Bethune, James Blair, John Blair, Boon, Bouldin, Branch, John Brodhead, John C. Brodhead, Cambreleng, Carr, Carson, Chandler, Chinn, Clay, Coke, Conner, Craig, Daniel, Davenport, Warren R. Davis, Drayton, Duncan, Fitzgerald, Foster, Gaither, Gordon, Griffin, T. H. Hall, W. Hall, Hammons, Harper, Hawes, Hawkins, Heister, Hoffman, Holland, Horn, Howard, Hubbard, Isacks, Jarvis, Jewett, R. M. Johnson, C. Johnson, C. C. Johnston, Kavanagh, A. King, J. King, H. King, Lamar, Lansing, Lecompte, Lewis, Lyon, Mardis, Mason, Maxwell, McCarty, W. McCoy, McDuffie, McIntire, T. R. Mitchell, Newnan, Nuckolls, Patton, Pierson, Polk, E. C. Reed, Rencher, Roane, W. B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd, Soule, Standifer, W. Thompson, Verplanck, Ward, Wardwell, Weeks, C. P. White, Wickliffe, Worthington.-93. So the House decided that the main question should not now be put, which decision, according to a rule of order, removed the subject to which it related from the consideration of the House for one day. APPORTIONMENT BILL. The House then, on motion of Mr. POLK, went into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. HOFFMAN in the chair, and took up the apportionment bill. The question was on the amendment moved by Mr. HUBBARD to strike out 48,000, and insert 44,000, so as to make the latter the ratio. But he hoped a different policy would be pursued in that House. He believed the true principles of democracy consisted in an economy of the public money; and he likewise thought that the country would be better satisfied with a fixed number, than with an extensive representation. Mr. GRENNELL, of Massachusetts, said he was in favor of the amendment which proposed to fix the ratio of representation at 44,000. That ratio would give a House of Representatives, consisting of 259 members, and more numerous, by 46, than the present. In briefly assigning the reasons for the vote he should give on this question, it was not his purpose, he said, to call the attention of the committee to any minute calculation of the effect of various ratios. Every practical calculation of Mr. DOUBLEDAY said that he rose merely to correct that sort, on ratios as high as 60,000, seemed to have a false impression that appeared to prevail in respect to been laid before the House, and must be familiar to the the fractions. If gentlemen would investigate this sub-members. JAN. 18, 1832.] Apportionment Bill. [H. OF R. Sir, said Mr. G., I prefer the ratio proposed by the venture the assertion, that the same jealous care for a amendment to any above it that has been mentioned, in full popular representation still pervades the nation. And the bill, or in debate; because it will not reduce the pre- could the sense of the people themselves be collected sent number of representatives on this floor from any on this momentous question, it would be decisive in State in the Union. Nor will it, in my apprehension, favor of it. swell the numbers of this House to an inconvenient size But, said Mr. G., a numerous popular representation for the transaction of the public business. I acknowledge has not only been regarded, through all our history, as a myself an advocate for a numerous House of Representa- favorite feature of our republican system, most consonant tives, as being most consistent with the genius and de- with its spirit and design, and as most of all reflecting sign of this Government. Is it not constituted to reflect the character of the country, but it must ever remain the the popular will? But the perfection of the representa- safest depository of power. It is a common complaint, tive principle is only found where the public agents ex- that the tendency of power, in a free Government, is to hibit, most truly, the sentiments, wishes, feelings, and in- the hands of a few. If an aristocratic influence shall terests of the whole people. This great object is most ever arise, under any administration of this Government, completely attained by forming a numerous House on a here, in this Hall of the people's representatives, must comparatively small ratio. On such a body of representa be found the remedy, the counteracting power. Could tives, the people will impress their own character. But a numerous House ever be subjected to such control? the higher you raise the ratio, the further you remove the Sir, it would be detested and repelled by the charactermember from his constituents, from their intercourse and istic jealousy, independence, and firmness of a popular sympathies, and the further you depart from the true prin- representation. I see other reasons for a rigid adherciple of representation. If this be so, said Mr. G., how ence to this cardinal principle in our Government. can a body of representatives be said to reflect the charac- The time may come when Executive influence will be ter and will of the people, when, either from the extent brought to bear upon this House, to awe it into subservof their districts, or the great number of their constitu- iency, or corrupt its action. It may be attempted to be ents, they can hardly be supposed to understand their exercised among the members, not, perhaps, by direct sentiments or interests? On the other hand, how, in such assaults upon their integrity, but by the arts, and flattea state of things, is the member to make known to them, ries, and favors which ambition knows so well how to clearly and effectually, the measures, the men, and the employ. In such times, where is the people's first relipolicy of their Government? The representative stands, ance? In a small body of representatives? No, sir; they in some sort, between the Government and his constitu- would find safety in numbers. ents, the medium of communication and action. They Mr. Chairman, I am the more confirmed in my opidesire to hold him to a fair responsibility for his public nion on this subject, when I consider the great powers acts. This necessary estrangement, of which I speak, vested by the constitution and laws in the Executive of between members and the people they may have been this Government, and the patronage in his power to bechosen to represent, will open the way for demagogues, stow. Having the power of nomination (which may, in by arts and imposition, to excite the popular jealousy, some future period, and with a subservient Senate, be and supplant the representative in their favor and con- equivalent to the power of appointment) of cabinet offifidence. cers, ministers to foreign courts, of officers in the army But, sir, I find some support for my position, in the and the navy; appointments to the almost countless offices fact stated by my honorable colleague, [Mr. ADAMS,] that and employments connected with the Indian Department, the first House of Representatives under the constitution, and the sales of the public domain-holding, I say, this which consisted of 65 members, bore the same propor- prodigious amount of patronage, would it be marvellous, tion to the population of the country, which the number if some Executive, in future time, with a view to carry given by the amendment to the bill bears to our present some favorite measure through a very limited House of population. I am glad to find the coincidence; for I Representatives, should dispense a share of this patronlove to revert to that glorious period, and to the men age among the friends of its measures? Would attempts of that period. I fear we are fast departing from their like this ever be made to bring over the majority of a safe examples, and discarding their lessons of political large House? Which could be most easily bought up? wisdom. It was intended by the constitution that power should When the people accepted the constitution, they sup-be so distributed among the several departments of this posed they discovered great security for their dearbought Government, that no one should ever acquire an undue rights, in the provision for a body of representatives weight and influence, and that neither should be dechosen by themselves. It was their chief hope. To them pressed. But, sir, have we not, for years, witnessed an alone were they willing to confide the power of originat- undue accumulation of power in the hands of the Execuing laws by which they were to be taxed. No matter tive, and in the Executive and Senate? The treaty-making whence they derived the hint for this wise and cautious power alone is of amazing extent, in their possession, provision, I refer to the fact, simply as illustrating the with all its train of incidental influences. And some policy of the people of that time, in constructing that have feared that it might be attempted to be exercised branch of the National Legislature, which, by its mem- in derogation of the legislative power. To guard as far bers, issuing from among themselves, would alone be com- as possible against the abuse of any or all of these powers, petent to carry out their purposes, speak their language, this country wants the vigilance, firmness, and integrity, sustain their spirit, and embody their character. Another which could be combined in a full and numerous House fact gives some testimony to the point in question. By of Representatives. In every view, therefore, a large the constitution, 30,000 was established as the first ratio House presents decided advantages; and if my reasoning of representation. This was a startling feature. It was be not deceptive, is less liable to bad influences--more opposed in many of the State conventions. In that of safe for the people, and for the constitution. Massachusetts, many considered 30,000 people as too It has been sometimes asked by the advocates of a great a number to be represented by one individual. But small House, how we would limit the numbers; and what still it was finally judged that the House of Representa- rule shall be adopted for that purpose. Sir, I answer, as tives, as it was then constituted, in numbers and in powers, the population of the country increases, I would enlarge might be a just counterpoise to the Executive Depart- the representation here until it should be apparent that ment of the Government. Sir, the people are slow to an additional number would produce embarrassment and change their sentiments of political expediency; and I inconvenience in legislation. It should not be so large H. OF R.] Apportionment Bill. [JAN. 18, 1832. as to be unwieldy in action, nor yet so small as to reflect proportion to the increase of population. That was the imperfectly the character of the country. Has any evil gentleman's rule, and he invited the House to examine its resulted from the increase of numbers here? What is practical operation; and the influence which, if adopted, the experience of the country on this subject? Is there it must exert on the condition and even on the future desin this House less despatch of business, than in some earlier tinies of the country. periods of the Government? Less wise deliberation? The House in forty years would have grown from sixtyLess decorum of debate? Have the sessions of Congress five to two hundred and fifty-nine members. According in late years been protracted beyond the period occu- to the same ratio of increase, it must at the end of forty pied by them when the numbers of this House were less? years more contain more than one thousand members, and If this were so, the reason would be found not in the de- in the course of a century the country would possess an lay produced by excessive numbers here, but in the new army of four thousand Congressmen. Should such a interests and multiplied objects of legislation that are principle, or any thing like it, prevail, he would venture constantly rising up throughout our widely extended to pronounce it impossible to transmit our free institutions to posterity. Congress now occupied a building three hundred and fifty feet in length, containing one hundred rooms, and covering an acre and three-quarters of ground, but, on the gentleman's principle, it would require a building covering ten acres. country. Mr. Chairman, I see and deprecate the tendency, in this country, to adopt the habits, manners, and sentiments of the old Governments of Europe. It becomes us to hold back, to rest upon the republican plainness of our national character, and the political doctrines of earlier The very experienced and learned gentleman had adtimes. It would be strange, indeed, if, while England vanced another argument in opposition to the number and France, and the latter under the guidance of the il- forty-eight. It was, that four of the States would lose, lustrious Lafayette, are endeavoring to perfect their re- each, one representative; a result which would not only presentative systems, the people of this enlightened coun-impair their relative weight as States, but also that of the try should be found adopting a course of policy in refer- respective sections of the Union to which they belonged; ence to our own, illiberal and unwise. and thus the balance which now existed between differ. Sir, I have expressed the wish that the ratio which is ent portions of the country would be disturbed. From to determine the representation here for the next ten the premises laid down, he must say that the same concluyears should be such that each State should retain at sion did not strike him. How was the number of the least its present number on this floor. I will not deny House to be determined? By the ratio of representation that it would be to me matter of deep regret that the adopted. But, supposing the number to be doubledState from which I come should be deprived of one re- would that alter the relative weight of the different States presentative in Congress. Such will be the case, if the on that floor? When two scales were equally poised, ratio be fixed at forty-eight thousand. Is it expedient? Is should equal weights be added, or equal weights subtractit wise to raise it so high? For Massachusetts I ask no fa-ed from both, the balance would not be in the least af vor at the hands of this Government. I only demand for fected; neither would that of the Northern and Southern her justice. Nor will I, in advocating her claims, refer sections of the Union be altered should each lose two rethe committee to her earlier history. No, sir, I would presentatives. speak only of the resources and the great interests of that Mr. A. said he would not advocate a proposition to decommonwealth, as they stand connected with those of tract the smallest mite from the weight of any one State, our common country. And in any view that I can take of as their weight was measured by the constitution. But this subject, I can discover no national considerations he could not think there was any thing in the result the that seem to demand the sacrifice. But her people will gentleman had stated, of importance sufficient to justify so acquiesce in the decision. And though it may affect radical a movement as the addition of forty members, at her political influence unfavorably, they will be content once, to the members of that House. to know that no untoward legislation here can disturb The gentleman from Virginia, in his usual forcible and the moral and social condition by which they are distin- lucid manner, had commented on the relation which this guished, nor the wise and liberal institutions which they House sustained to the other branch of the Legislature, cherish as the fairest inheritance of their puritan ancestors. and to the Executive Department, and had argued to show Mr. ALLAN, of Kentucky, addressed the House in op- that the number of the House ought to be increased in position to the amendment. He agreed in the sentiment order to increase the weight of the popular branch. Mr. expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. A. said he could not comprehend how such a result would ADAMS,] and the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. MERCER,] follow; but, supposing the gentleman to be right, how that the question before the House was one of great im- did the two Houses now stand? If their relative numeriportance; but as to the number of members which the cal weight, as fixed at first by the constitution, was then House ought to contain, he differed widely from them duly regulated, it was manifest that the House had got both. For their experience, learning, and matured wis- greatly in advance of the Senate; for, while the number dom, he had long entertained the most profound regard; of the Senators had not even doubled, that of the Repre and to be obliged to oppose them, added to his embarrass- sentatives had become nearly fourfold. There could, ment on the present occasion. Thus far the question had therefore, be no necessity of enlarging upon that ground. in general been treated as one of purely an arbitrary na- But the gentleman had further said that as the Governture, and subjected to no certain rule. Two, however, ment grew older the Executive power increased, and of the gentlemen from Massachusetts had proposed to would continue to increase yet more; and a large House lay down a rule, which he should now proceed to examine. of Representatives was necessary in order to put this body One of the gentlemen [Mr. ADAMS] had reminded the further from the reach of Executive influence. Now, to House that the first Congress contained but sixty-five his apprehension, the very reverse of this proposition was members, since which the population of the country had in- true, and in support of his opinion he would appeal to hiscreased fourfold; and should the number "44" be adopted, tory. All history concurred in showing that large num and its results produce a House of two hundred and fifty-bers of men were more readily actuated by impulse and nine members, there would be exactly the same increase sudden excitement, and were more apt to be broken into in the number of representatives as had taken place in the parties, and blindly to follow artful leaders, than small number of the people. From this statement of fact, Mr. ones; and the power of an extraneous influence had, in all A. said he inferred that the gentleman intended to lay times, been more commonly and more readily exerted over down this rule, that representation ought to increase in numerous assemblies than over those which contained JAN. 18, 1832.] Apportionment Bill. [H. of R. fewer numbers. It had been said that the British House a body so large as to act only in fragments, and never as of Commons contained six hundred members; but that a whole, could not be considered as a representative body; body was an example in point to support his own view; for when its members could not understand the question for, although it was so numerous, the business was actu- under deliberation, they could not, and did not, as to that ally accomplished by very few of the members. The great question, represent the public opinion. As the people mass do not even come into the House, except when they multiplied in numbers, their wants and their business bewere summoned on some great question. A quorum in the came proportionably multiplied and various. But as genAthenian assembly consisted of six thousand men; yet tlemen increased their legislative body, they proportionaevery one knew that that assembly was controlled by a bly diminished its capacity to do business. On this subject few orators. So perfectly was this understood, that when he might appeal to other times. The Congress which Philip of Macedon wished to obtain the control of that gave us our independence, and laid the foundation of our body, all he had to do was to purchase up a majority of national policy, contained but fifty-four members; and the their leaders. Congress of '89, the first under our present constitution, Mr. A. invited the House now to look at an opposite contained but sixty-five. He might appeal to gentlemen to example. The Congress of '76 had consisted of but fifty-cite a single instance where like results had followed the four members. On one side was despair, on the other deliberations of a body containing hundreds of men. all the power and wealth of England to corrupt. Yet did Mr. A. said it would be his wish to avoid both exthe result furnish as glorious a comparison as any that had tremes. He would have a House of Representatives nuever been seen on earth. There appeared, therefore, to merous enough to understand the wants and wishes of be little or nothing in the argument of the gentleman from the people, and yet not so numerous as to be unable to Virginia, that increasing the numbers of the House would screen it from the influence of Executive power. Mr. A. said that he could not agree that the subject was one perfectly arbitrary in its character. He considered it, on the contrary, subjected to as certain rules as could apply to any political or moral question. The natural endowments of man suggested an obvious rule. The powers of the human voice and ear marked the limit which should regulate the size of any deliberative assembly. That assembly was wholly unfit for its functions, every part of which could not be reached by the voice of a member addressing it. Where men could not see, hear, or understand the subject proposed to them, it was physically impossible they could deliberate upon it. act together. The relation of the size of the House to the concerns of the treasury had been alluded to by some gentlemen, and, he thought, with 'great propriety. When gentlemen reflected that the direct expenses of a single session of Congress exceeded a million of dollars, they must perceive that so large an increase of the House as would be the result of the amendment, must produce a heavy draft upon the public funds. Mr. A. observed, in conclusion, that, believing the House at present to be large enough, he should vote in such a manner as would prevent an increase of its numbers, unless, indeed, the matter should unfortunately come to a mere scramble among the States who should get the most members; in which case, it was probable he should remember Kentucky. He might appeal to gentlemen's experience here for the last month and a half. What was more common than to Mr. LECOMPTE, of Kentucky, declared his intention hear subjects announced from the Chair discussed at length, to vote for the amendment, not that Kentucky would sufand, when the House was ripe for decision, to see mem-fer by the number forty-eight, but because he was unwilbers rise in their place and inquire what was the question ling to deprive any State of a representative, whose on which they were called to vote. Yet it was now pro- population had increased since the last census. The total posed to bring forty members more into such an assem- increase would average four thousand constituents to each bly! He had heard several gentlemen say, on the first representative, and he knew how discouraging it must be, day of the session, that they had not heard a single word under such circumstances, for a State, every one of whose of the Speaker's address, although that gentleman pos- members represented now four thousand more people sessed, as they all knew, a fine commanding voice. than before 1820, to lose one of their number. He did The rule he had mentioned was laid down by nature not fear a numerous representation. The people took herself, and whenever her limits were surpassed, an as- pride in their representatives; they knew them personally, sembly became broken into fragments, and acted not as a and made them the depositories of their wants and griev whole, but in parts. Witness the constant reference of ances. Kentucky had had to bear with large fractions under subjects of every sort to the standing committees of the former censuses, and she could hold her own should forHouse. It was often objected that a majority of the mem-ty-eight prevail; but he should vote for forty-four for the bers could not get a full understanding of all the reports sake of other States. As to the fear of too large a numof those committees, and were obliged, from necessity, to ber of representatives, they could move their seats closer act on the faith that, though they themselves did not un- together; and if the gentlemen who were continually on derstand the subject, the committees did understand it. their feet would but curtail the length of their speeches, Whence such a necessity as this? From the fact that the the House could do its business, and they need not be so body was too large to act together. A gentleman from much afraid that the introduction of a few more silent Maryland [Mr. JENIFER] had contended warmly for hav- members would deprive them of the opportunity of speaking the House constituted on democratic principles. That ing as often as they pleased. position met his hearty approbation. The great principle Mr. ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, said there was one of representation lay at the very foundation of our politi- general consideration, and, he thought, but one, which cal institutions; and all the hopes of ourselves and our pos- would influence gentlemen to strike out forty-eight and terity rested upon it. In fact, the great difference be- insert forty-four; and that was whether a representation tween our Government and the republics of antiquity lay in this House should be more or less numerous. Some, in this very principle of representation; and its practical said Mr. E., declare they are in favor of increasing it even application in our system was the greatest of all improve- to some hundreds, and others, that it is large enough now: ments in the science of Government. But representation the first think that a great number will best secure the was then the best, when it was numerous enough to ena- liberties of the people, and more fully represent their dible the representatives to understand the wants and opi- versified interests; while the second class believe that a nions of the people, and at the same time enable the smaller number equally secures the same objects, and that people the most effectually to control their representa- a large increase will inevitably embarrass our legislation. largest That was the best representative body where the Twenty-eight, the increase of this House by the ratio of largest number of representatives could act together. But forty-eight thousand, is not, in my opinion, too great an H. OF R.] Apportionment Bill. [JAN. 18, 1832. Mr. TRACY, of New York, said he understood that on the present motion the merits of the whole bill were a fair subject for discussion at this time, and he should assume this to be correct in the few observations which he purposed to submit to the committee. increase. I do not, certainly, wish to see this House di- tion, that the people must be represented where they are, minished, nor, with the present population of the country, and not where they are not. increased beyond what is proposed by the ratio of fortyeight thousand. When gentlemen speak of numerous representatives in State Legislatures, or in the English Parliament, and argue from thence that two hundred and forty-one members are too few here, I must ask them to remember that local interests and small matters in detail I cannot but regret, said Mr. T., to have witnessed, for constitute extensively subjects of State legislation, which the two last days, the impatience evinced by many gentleis not the fact here; we legislate upon general and national men, while members have been expressing their views on objects. And as to the English Parliament, why, the re- the subject of the apportionment bill, which I consider one presentatives in Congress are expected, all of them, con- of grave moment, and probably as important in its effects stantly to attend and understand the business before them, on the future legislation of this country, as any which will and to participate in it, as most of them do, to the advan- be discussed here during the present session. It was protage of the country, but this is not the case in Parliament; vided in our constitution that the actual enumeration of six hundred there, does not ordinarily give as good a re- our population should be made within three years after the presentation or as large a House as two hundred here. first meeting of Congress, "and within every subsequent Should all the members of Parliament attend as we do here, term of ten years." This subject, then, is one, not of anand participate as we do in the business and debates of the nual recurrence; it never has and never can arise oftener House, the business of the nation would never be done. I than once in ten years, according to the former usages of would not object to forty-six thousand, though I think our Government. It, therefore, becomes peculiarly our forty-eight gives a better House, and is more in accordance duty to canvass the subject fairly and fully; to act with with the past. The honorable gentleman from Massachu- great deliberation and mature reflection in deciding upon setts [Mr. ADAMS] complains of the hardship of losing a its merits; and to endeavor to reconcile the discordant senmember, and almost pronounces it injustice. It is to reply timents of the different members composing this committo this consideration that I rise at this time. Why, sir, the tee. Most of those questions which are acted upon here, ratio of forty-four may do more injustice to the whole peo- present two aspects; and gentlemen, without much diffiple than forty-eight: in having four representatives, we culty, are able to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to may not have as equal a representation as in losing them their own judgments; but, from the very nature of this from certain States. We are, as to this matter, to look to subject, there might be a great diversity of opinions as the whole, to the relative representation of the States on to details, as every one who proposes an amendment prethis floor; and, if we apply the same rule, we have the sents, in fact, a new side of the question, and, in support same relative representation, whether that represen- of his opinion, is able to urge arguments both cogent and tation be smaller or greater; fractions only make the reasonable. difference, and in this the greatest States are the least sufferers. The present House of Representatives is composed of two hundred and thirteen members; the bill reported will Now, sir, the fractional difference between forty-four give us two hundred and thirty-seven; and, should we and forty-eight thousand is only about forty thousand; cer- adopt the proposed amendment, our number would be tainly too small to rest an objection upon; and, indeed, two hundred and fifty-seven; an average of forty-six betaking any number from forty-four to fifty-four, the frac-yond our present representation. tional difference does not exceed one hundred and fifty Sir, said Mr. T., I cannot but consider the report of a thousand; not enough to bring into this House three re-respectable committee of this House, to which an importpresentatives. So that, after all, there is nothing here ant subject has been referred, as deserving of great conbut a question of numbers in this House. No State can sideration, and I am generally disposed to receive their complain, if it is best to take forty-eight. Sir, if any State report as based upon correct principles, though I should has claim on this ground, it is Connecticut and Massachu- feel it my duty to scrutinize the same, when that commitsetts least of all. By the ratio of 1810, Connecticut had tee is composed of high-minded, honorable, and intelli an unrepresented fraction of sixteen thousand, and Massa- gent gentlemen, from different sections of this country, chusetts one of six thousand only; by the ratio of 1820, and who, I believe, act with a single eye to the public Connecticut had a fraction of thirty-five thousand, and good, and who possess full means of obtaining informa lost a member, as did Vermont, but Massachusetts of only tion on the subject entrusted to them. I would not for three thousand; and yet Massachusetts voted, as she had a slight reasons vary from that report. And I cannot but right to do, in phalanx, to favor her own representation. think that the number which they have reported as the Connecticut, too, was comparatively a small State, and ratio of representation, will do more equal justice than any she could not well afford to lose one-seventh of her repre- other. sentation, but she did; and now, with forty-four, as it is It was correctly remarked the other day by a gentleman wished by Massachusetts, Connecticut will have a fraction from Virginia, [Mr. CRAIG,] that we could not expect to of over thirty-three thousand. Forty-nine would be more arrive at a conclusion without a spirit of conciliation and acceptable to me, individually, than any other number, as mutual concession. I concur with him in his opinion. Unmost favoring Connecticut, but I will be satisfied with for- der the bill as reported, it is true many of the States, over ty-six, which will save Massachusetts and Virginia. I do and above their contemplated number of representatives, not speak of the past with any feeling of unkindness to- would be left with large fractions, and four, to wit, Verwards Massachusetts; but if taking away a member was not mont, Kentucky, Georgia, and New York, with over forty unjust or improper in 1820, it is not now. Sir, I am in thousand each; but were we to adopt any other basis, the favor of a full representation in this House; I wish ever to fractions of these States might be diminished by the opebe able to hear the people; but then they may be less ration; others would be placed in the same situation; heard and attended to by an overgrown representation, what would be the gain of some, would be the loss of than by one of a proper size. I believe the interests of others. It is true, by diminishing the votes proposed, the this country have been fully represented in this House, and fractional parts might be lessened; but, as in the bill reportthat twenty-eight new members is quite equal to the in- ed, these remnants would be relative, and the hardship, in creased population. It is impossible for us to act, in all this respect, not less than now. It becomes our duty to time, upon the principle of preserving to each State its disregard particular hardships, if not too flagrant, and look present representation. Such is the rule of the constitu- totally to the general welfare of this Union. Until the re |