« ForrigeFortsett »
Quasion brist. Stasarar-Did Mr. Buck. her state that while Stanbery lay on his back, * $ober, put up his feet, and houston struck him elsewhere? *—I do not recollect. I can't say I *member the minutiz of Mr. Buckner's state. *m' more than I have already stated. I do * recollect that which is stated in the interro* One thing has occurred to me since 1 * the evidence. Mr. Buckner stated that of Mr. Houston ceased striking Mr. Stanbe. The got up, took hold of his coat, and shook *mud off of it, which is the only additional trumstance that I remember. Vition by the accused—did or did not Col. Bickner remark to you that Mr. S. behaved * cowardly and begged very much—and that he deserved a good whipping for not mak, * * better fight, or words to that effect, and to you not express to col. Buckner your re Foot the conduct of said Stanbery as related by Bickner in that affair. *—I do not recollect Mr. Buckner making use of these expressions contained in the first clause of the interrogatory. The substance ofto: which is contained in the second clause, he did say after Col. Buckner's detailing ***e already stated of the transaction. i *"him in substance, tocol. Buckner, that Sanbery was not a stout man, that he had not **ily trength, and little or no action. Isaid to him also, not Stanbery had been to. tally unused to a rough and tumble—and I opposed was not very well prepared for it. . I *P*4 regret that he had failed to fire his Pool;" think I added, too, that I thought Col. Rockner *t be mistaken, as to the pistol’s flashing, list M. Stanbery had probably fail td to daw the trigger. I did not hear Buckher so, in these words, that Mr. Stanbery belood *} owardly, and begged very much. What he did soy to one is exactly given in my on statement already given as I can state it. One expression of Mr. Buckner has occurred to me. I recollect his using these words: that Stanbery grunted at every blow; that I think ***xpressor he used to me."one other *P*ion of Mr. Buckner has occurred to me with *used in conversation at the time he *Sanboy could have stuck Houston with his disk. Isaid it was doubtful whether Mr. * had his disk with him, col. Buckner said
htglected that. * tyle accused—Did you or did you **) that Mr. S. thought the accused had in wait for him, and did not Col. Buckner *}” that that was a mistake, that the meet. **as entirely accidental? *—I did say that, and Colonel Buck.
which it was, Staubery or Houston, that Col. ; old you glunted at the striking of the Owal
Question by Mr. Boo-k.--Will you state whether you and Mr S. are particular friends? ...Answer.-I Lave been intimate with S. ever since I came to the bar; we have practised to— gether about fifteen years, and have been friends. Question by Mr. Hawes.—Was the conversation to which you allude held at the seat of the Hon. Mr. Mangum, in the Senate Chamber. .Answer.--It was not; I had no conversation with Mr. Buckner there: it was behind the colonnade and beyond the Vice President's chair: it is perhaps material to state that it was about the chair of Mr. Mangum, there I first saw the group I have already spoken of in conversation, and heard the expressions which induced me to suppose he, Col. Buckner, had been present at the meeting over night; I then went round behind the colonnade and met him, and we conversed. Question by Mr. Hawks.--What do you think is the age and weight of Mr. Stanbery? To this interrogatory an objection was made, and the objection was sustained by the House. Question by the accused—Did or did not Col. Buckner tell you that both the men were strangers to him, and that he felt no interest in the affair, nor partiality for either of them? ..?nswer.—I think he did, in substance, state that he mentioned in addition some very slight acquaintance with Gov. Houston, having seen him at some of the rooms. The Hon. Alexandeh BuckNER was again examined, and testified further as follows:" Question by the accused.—Are you convinced that Mr. S. made use of the exclamations “O dont,” mentioned in your evidence—was it or was it not made repeatedly. .ánswer.—I am perfectly certain that he did say “Odont,” putti g his hands up over his head, and that he said it repeatedly, and made use of many other wild heterogeneous expressions, which it is unnecessary to repeat here. Question by the accused.—If he made use of any other exclamations, state them? .Answer.--He stated “dont strike me,” “dont strike me any more,” “please sir,” “ob Lordy,” and many other such expressions. Question by Mr. Wonth ingrox. — Had you on the evening of the affray, or at any other time previous to the affray, any conversation with the accused on the subject of his difference with Mr. Stanbery? To this interrogatory an objection was made, and the objection was sustained by the House. The further hearing of this case was then
postponed until to-morrow 11 o'clock A. M.
APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTA-
o of Representatives, entitled “An act for the must necessarily speak of particular States, but loo apportionment of representatives among the it is hardly necessary to say, that they speak of aw;
several States according to the fifth census,” have had the subject under consideration, and now ask leave to report: This bill, like all laws on the same subject, must be regarded as of an interesting and deli. cate nature. It respects the distribution of po. litical power among the States of the Union. It is to determine the number of voices which,
for ten years to come, each State is to possess in the popular branch of the legislature. In the opinion of the committee, there can be few or no questions which it is more desirable should be settled on just, fair, and satisfactory princi
les, than this; and, availing themselves of the
enefit of the discussion which the bill has al. ready undergone in the Senate, they have gi. ven to it a renewed and anxious consideration. The result is, that, in their opinion, the bill ought to be amended. Seeing the difficulties which belong to the whole subject, they are fully convinced that the bill has been framed and passed in the other House with the sincerest desire to overcome those difficulties, and to enact a law which should do as much justice
as possible to all the States. But the commit
tee are constrained to say, that this object appears to them not to have been obtained. The unequal operation of the bill on some of the States, should it become a law, seems to the
committee most manifest; and they cannot bu express a doubt whether its actual apportion
ment of the representative power among the several States, can be considered as conformaThe bill
ble to the spirit of the constitution.
1833, the House of Representatives shall be composed of members elected agreeably to a ratio of one representative for every forty-seven
thousand and seven hundred persons in eacl State, computed according to the rule pre scribed by the constitution. The addition o
them as examples only, and with the most per of
the seven hundred to the forty-seven thousand in the composition of this ratio, produces no ef fect whatever in regard to the constitution of It neither adds to, nor takes from, the number of members assigned to any State. Its only effect is, a reduction of the apparent amount of the fractions, as they are usually called, or residuary numbers, after the application For all other purposes, the re. suit is precisely the same as if the 1atio had
of the ratio.
o o * . o o o o o o o
Union, whose members amount to the number of 123, being a clear majority of the whole House, whose aggregate fractions, altogether, amount only to fifty-three thousand; while Wer. mont and New Jersey, having together but ele. ven members, have a joint fraction of seventyfive thousand, Pennsylvania by the bill will have, as it happens, just as many members as Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New Jersey; but her population is not equal to theirs by a hundred and thirty thousand ; and the reason withis advantage derived to her from the protions of the bill, is, that her fraction, or resi. dium, is twelve thousand only, while theirs is shundred and forty-four. But the subject is capable of being present. td in a more exact and mathematical form. Thelt House is to eonsist of two hundred and forty members. Now, the precise proportion of t power, out of the whole mass represented by the numbers two hundred and fort y, which New York would be entitled to according to her po pulation, is 38.59; that is to say, she would be entitled (0.38 members, and would have a residuum or faction, and, even if a member were given her for that fraction, she would still have but thirty-nine but the bill gives her forty. These are a part, and but a part, of those re
fifths of all other persons.
understanding these provisions.
The main question has been, whether the principle itself be constitutional 2
and this question the committee proceeded to examine, respectfully asking of those who have doubted its constitutional propriety, to deem the question of so much importance as to justify a second reflection.
The words of the Constitution are, “repre
sentatives, and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a
erm of years, and excluding Indians, threeThe actual enume.
he first meeting of the Congress of the United
States, and within every subsequent term of
en years, in such manner as they shall by law The number of representatives shall
o their common and popular acceptation. To
folls, produced by the bill in its present form, apportion, is to distribute by right measure; to
which the committee cannot bring themselves
in which they exist in this bill, if they can be
ourthousand has been generally spoken of
withould this be adopted, great relative ine
quality would fall on several States, and,among **, on some of the new and growing States, *:Telative disproportion,thus already great, would be constantly increasing. The commit*therefore,are of opinion that the bill should *Altered in the mode of apportionment. They tink that the process which begins by assum"#" ratio should be abandoned, and that the ologht to be framed on the principle of the *ndment which has been the main subject of *ision before the senate the fairness of the Principle of this amendment, and the gene. hl equily of its results, compared with those *hich flow from the other process, seem plain
adopted the Constitution, were, of course,
fuly acquainted with this necessary ope
ration of the provision. In the Senate, the
States are entitled to a fixed number of Senators; and, therefore, in regard to their representation, in that body, there is no consequential or incidental inequality arising. But being represented in the House of Representatives according to their respective numbers of people, it is unavoidable that, in assigning to each State its number of members, the exact proportion of each, out of a given number, cannot always or often be expressed in whole numbers; that is to say, it will not often be found that there belongs to a State exactly onetenth, or one-twentieth, or one-thirtieth of the whole House; and, therefore, no number of representatives will exactly correspond with
the right of such State, or the precise share of
representation which belongs to it, according to its population.
The Constitution, therefore, must be understood not as enjoining an absolute relative equality—because that would be demanding an impossibility--but as requiring of Congress to make the apportionment of representatives among the several States according to their That which cannot be done perfectly, must be done If exactness cannot, from the nature of things, be attained, then the greatest practicable approach
respective numbers, as near as may be.
in a manner as near perfection as can be.
itself be reached, prevails in other cases, not as
a matter of discretion, but as an intelligible and
definite rule, dictated by justice, and conform
ing to the common sense of mankind; a rule of
the question before the Senate, taking for
State; in other words, which of the two bills, if either, apportions the representatives ac
tively, as near as may be. If, therefore, a par. ticular process of apportionment be adopted, and objection be made to the injustice or ine
cessarily results from the nature of the process. Before such answer could avail, it would be necessary to show, either that the cons itution
ry, or that there is no other mode of proceed: ing which would produce less inequality and less injustice. otherwise been avoided, be produced by a given process, then that process is a wrong one. It is not suited to the case, and should be rejected. Nor do the committee perceive how it can be matter of constitutional propriety or validity, or in any way a constitutional question, whether the process which may be applied to the case be simple or compound, one process or many processes; since, in the end, it may always be seen whether the result be that which has been aimed at, namely, the nearest practicable approach to precise justice and relative equality. The committee, indeed, are of opinion, in this case, that the simplest and most obvious way of proceeding is also the true and constitutionalway. To them it appears that, in carrying into effect this part of the constitution, the first thing naturally to be done is, to decide on the whole number of which the House is to be
mittee adopt, has not, to their knowledge, been] composed; as when, under the same clause of denied; and they proceed in the discussion of the constitution, a tax is to be apportioned
wumber nearest to the exact proportion of that
cording to the number of the States, respec
quality of its result, it is, surely, no answer to such objection to say, that the inequality ne:
prescribes such process, and makes it necessa
If inequality, which might have
among the States, the amount of the whole tax is, in the first place, to be settled. When the whole number of the proposed House is thus ascertained and fixed, it becomes the entire representative power of all the neople in the Union. It is then a very simple mator to ascertain how much of this representative power each State is entitled to by its numbers. for example, the House is to contain 240 members, then the number 240 expresses the mpresentative power of all the States ; and a •o him calculation readily shows how much of one; this power belongs to each State. This por** ton, it is true, will not always, nor often, be foressed in whole numbers, but it may always i he precisely exhibited by a decimal form of exto pression. If the portion of any State be seldom, to or never, one exact tenth, one exact fifteenth, yo tone exact twentieth, it will always be capa* | *k of prise decimal expression, as one-tenth wal otwo hundredths, one-twelfth and four-hun. a dredths, one-fifteenth and six hundredths, and soon; and the exact portion of the State being
Missouri qught to be satisfied, when it is said that this obvious injustice is the necessary result of the process adopted by the bill? May they not say, with propriety, that since three is the nearest whole number to their exact right, to that number they are entitled, and the process which deprives them of it must be a wrong process? A similar comparison might be made between New York and Vermont. The exact proportion to which Vermont is entitled in a representation of 240, is 5.646. Her nearest whole number, therefore, would be six. Now, two things are undeniably true : first, that to take away the fortieth member from New York, would bring her representation nearer to her exact proportion, than it stands by leaving her that fortieth member. Second, that giving the member thus taken from New York, to Wermont, would bring her representation nearer to her exact right than it is by the bill. And both these propositions are equally true of a transfer of the twenty-eighth member assigned by the bill to Pennsylvania, to Delaware, and of the thirteenth member assigned to Kentucky, to
Fo to thus decimally expressed, will still always show, to tomathematical certainty, what integral number o' comes nearest to such exact portion. For ex* imple, in a House consisting of 240 members, of the tract mathematical proportion to which to her mumbers entitle the State of New York, is on 3839;itiscertain,therefore, that 39 is the inteow onlor whole number nearest to her exact proof portion of the representative power of the o, Union. Why, then, should she not have thirat Womine? and why should she have forty? She is * | *ot quite entitled to thirty-nine; that number * is something more than her right. But, allow. ca ingher thirty-nine, from the necessity of giving * her whole numbers, and because that is the o nearest whole number, is not the Constitution te fully obeyed when she has received the thirty* ninth member? is not her proper number of is representatives then apportioned to her, as near a is may be! And is not the Constitution disrea garded, when the bill goes further, and gives * her a fortieth member?" For what is such a for * | Heth member given? Not for her absolute num * I of for heribsolute numbers do not entitle or to thirty-nine. Not for the sake of apporoning her members to her numbers as near as
* be, because thirty-nine is a nearer appor onment of members to numbers than forty.— *it is given, say the advocates of the bill, *use the process which has been adopted, *il. The answeris, nu such process is en*1 by the Constitution. The case of New York may be compared or *sted with that of Missouri. The exact *posion of Missouri, in a general representa* of 240, is two and six tenths: that is to say, ones nearer to three members than to two, | "it is confined to two. But why is not Mi. *ntitled to that number of representatives "oth comes nearest to her exact proportion *the Constitution fulfilled as to her, while *number is withheld, and while, at the some * in another State, not only is that neares *er given, but an additional member given
Missouri; in other words, Vermont bas, by her numbers, more right to six members, than New York has to forty. Delaware, by her numbers, has more right to two members, than Pennsylvania has to twenty eight; and Missouri, by her numbers, has more right to three members, than Kentucky has to thirteen. Without dis. turbing the proposed number of the House, the mere changing of these three members from and to the six States respectively, woull bring the representation of each of the whole six, nearer to their due proportion, according to their respective numbers, than the bill, in its present form makes it. In the face of this indisputable truth, how can it be said that the bill apportions these members among those States according to their respective numbers, as near as may bez The principle on which the proposed amendment is founded, is an effectual corrective for these and all other equally great inequalities. It may be applied at all times, and in all cases, and its result will always be the nearest approach to perfect justice. It is equaily simple and impartial. As a rule of appor. tionment, it is little other than a transcript of the words of the constitution, and its results are mathematically certain. . The constitution, as the committee understand it, says, representatives shall be apportioned among the States according to their respective numbers of people, as near as may be. The rule adopted by the committee, says, out of the whole number of the House, that number shall be apportioned to each State which comes nearest to its exact right according to its number of people. Where is the repugnancy between the constitution and the rule? The arguments against the rule seem to assume that there is a necessity of instituting some process adopting some number as the ratio, or as that number of people which each member shall be understood to
represent; but the committee see no occasion
* is it an answer with which the people osfor any other process whatever, than simply the