Question by Mr. StanBERY.–Did Mr. Buck. Question by Mr. Byark.--Will you state der state that while Stanbery lay on his back, whether you and M. S. are particular friends? he, Stanbery, put up his feet, and Houston Answer.-I bave been intimate with S. ever struck him elsewhere!

since I came to the bar; we have practised toAnswer.--I do not recollect. I can't say 1 gether about fifteen years, and have been remember the minutiæ of Mr. Buckner's slate friends. ment more than I have already stated. I do Question by Mr. Hawes.--Was the convernot recollect that which is stated in the interro-sation to which you allude held at the seat of gatory. One thing has occurred to me since the Hon. Mr. Mangum, in the Senate Chamber. give the evidence. Mr, Buckner stated that Answer. It was not; I had no conversation after Mr. Houston ceased striking Mr. Stanbe. with Mr. Buckner there: it was behind the co. ry, he got up, took hold of his coat, and shook lonnade and beyond the Vice President's chair: the mud off of it, which is the only additional it is perhaps material to state that it was about circumstance ihat I remember.

the chair of Mr. Mangum, there I first saw the Question by the accused. —Did or did not Col. group I have already spoken of in conversaBuckner remark to you that Mr. S. behaved tion, and heard the expressions which induced very cowardly and begged very much-and me to suppose he, Col. Buckner, had been that he deserved a good whipping for not mak present at the meeting over night; I then went ing a better fight, or words to that effect, and round behind the colonnade and met him, and did you not express to Col. Buckner your re we conversed. gret at the conduct of said Stanbery as related Question by Mr. HawBS.-- What do you by Bruckner in that affair.

think is the age and weight of Mr. Stanbery? Answer.--I do not recollect Mr. Buckner To this interrogatory an objection was made, making use of these expressions contained in and the objection was sustained by the House. the first clause of the interrogatory. The sub. Question by the accused.- Did or did not stance of that which is contained in the second Col. Buckner tell you that both ihe men were clause

, he did say after Col. Buckner's detailing strangers to him, and that he felt no interest in what have already stated of the transaction. 1 the affair, nor partiality for either of them? said to him in substsnce, to Col. Buckner, that Answer. I think he did, in substance, state Stanbery was not a stout man, that he had not that he mentioned in addition some very slight much oudily strength, and little or no action. acquaintance with Gov. Houston, having seen I said to him also, ihat Stanbery had been to him at some of the rooms. tally unused 10 a rough and tumble--and I The Hon. ALEXANDER BUCKNER was again supposed was not very well prepared for it. I examined, and testified further as follows: expressed regret that he had failed to fire his Question by the accused.- Are you convinced pistol; I think I added, 100, that I-tliought Col. that Mr. S. made use of the exclamations "O Beckner must be mistaken, as to the pistol's dont,” mentioned in your evidence-was it or flashing, that Mr. Stanbery had probably fail was it not made repeatedly. ed to draw the trigger. I did not hear Buck Answer.-I am perfectly certain that he did ner say, in these words, that Mr. Stanbery be- say “O dunt," pu!lig his hands up over bis haved very cowardly, and begged very much head, and that he said it repeatedly, and made What he did say to ine is exactly given in my use of many other wild beterogeneous expresmain statement already given as I can state it. sions, which it is unnecessary to repeat here. One expression of sır. Buckner has occurred Question by the accused.--If he made use of to me. I recollect his using these words: that any other exclamations, state them? Stanbery grunted at every blow; that I think Answer.--He stated "dont strike me," "dont was the expressior, he used to me. One other strike me any more,'

." "please sir," "ob Lor. expression of Mr. Buckoer has occurred to me dy," and many other such expressions. which he used in conversation at the time he Question by Mr. WORTHINGTON.- Had you said Stanbery could have stuck Houston with on the evening of the affray, or at any otwer his dirk. I said it was doubtful whether Mr. time previous to the affray, any conversation 9. had his dirk with him. Col. Buckner said with ihe accused on the subject of his differa that S. deserved to be well whipped, if he hadence with Mr. Stanbery? neglected that

To this interrogatory an objection was made, Question by the accused. —Did you or did you and the objection was sustained by the House.

say that Mr. S. thought the accused had The further hearing of this case was then kin in wait for bim, and did not Col. Buckner postponed until to-morrow 11 o'clock A. M. tell you that that was a mistake, that the meet Sainuel Houston was then removed into the ing was entirely accidental?

custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Answer.-I did say that, and Colonel Buck. And then the House adjourned until to-morder replied as is supposed in the interrogatory. row, 11 o'clock, A. M.

Question by the accuesd.-Were you sure which it wa, Stanbery or Houston, that Col. APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTA

TIVES. Backer told you grunted at the striking of ihe blowa!

IN SENATE, APRIL 5, 1832. Answer.“I thought it was S. he referred Mr. WEBSTER maile the following report: to ; I cannot be certain; I may have got a wrong The Select Committee to whom was referred, idea.

on the 27th of March, the bill from the House

[ocr errors]


of Representatives, entitled “ An act for the must necessarily speak of particular States, but apportionment of reprtwentatives among the it is hardly necessary to say, that they speak of stene several States according to the fifth census," them as examples only, and with the must pere di have bad the subject under consideration, fect respect not only for the States themselves, et use and now ask leave to report:

but for all those who represent them here. This bill, like all laws on the same subject, Although the bill does not commence by fix. baterie must be regarded as of an interesting and deli. ing the whole number of the proposed House cate nature. It respects the distribution of po. of Representatives, yet the process adopted in a litical power among the States of the Union. It by it brings out the number of two hundred and are is to determine the number of voices which, forty members of these two hundred and for ten years to come, each State is to possess forty members, forty are assigned to the State in the popular branch of the legislature. In the of New York, that is to say, precisely one-sixth on opinion of the committee, there can be few or part of the whole. This assigiment would seem no questions which it is more desirable should to require that New York should contain one be settled on just, fair, and satisfactory princi- sixth part of the whole population of the Vaia, ples, than this; and, availing themselves of the ted siates, and would be bound to pay one. benefit of the discussion which the bill has al. sixth part of all her direct taxes. Vei neither ready undergone in the Senate, they have gi. of these is the case. The whole representative ven io it a renewed and anxious consideration. pupulation of the United States is 11,929,005; The result is, that, in their opinion, the bill ihat of New York is 1,918,623, which is less ought to be amended. Seeing the difficulties than one-sixth of the wliole by nearly 70,000. which belong to the whole subject, they are of a direct tax of two hundred and forty thou. fully convinced that the bill has been framed sand dollars, New York would pay only 38,59, and passed in the other Huuse with the since: But if, instead of comparing the numbers asrest desire to overcome those difficulties, and signed to New York with the whole numbers to enact a law which should do as much justice of the House, we compare her with other as possible to all the States. But the commit. States, the inequality is siill more evident and tee are constrained to say, that this object ap- striking. pears to them not to have been obtained. The To the State of Vermont, the bill assigns unequal operation of the bill on some of the five members. It gives, therefore, eight times States, should it become a'law, seems to the as many representatives to New York as to Vercommittee most manifest; and they cannot but mont; but the population of New York is not express a doubt whether its actual apportion. equal to eight times the population of Vermont ment of the representative power among the by more than three hundred thousand. Verseveral States, can be considered as conforma. mont has five members only for 280,657 pere ble to the spirit of the constitution. The bill sons. If the same proportion were to be ap. provides, that, from and after the 3d of Marchi, plied to New York, it would reduce the num1833, the House of Representatives shall be ber of her members from forty to thirty-fourcomposea of members elected agreeably to a making a difference more than equal to the ratio of one representative for every forty-seven whole representation of Vermont, and more thousand and seven hundred persons in each han sufficient to overcome her whole power in State, computed according tu the rule pre the House of Representatives. scribed by the constitution. The addition of A disproportion, almost equally striking, is the seven hundred to the forty-seven thousand manifested, if we compare New York with in the composition of this ratio, produces no ef Alabama. The population of Alabama is 262,fect whatever in regard to the constitution of 208, for this she is allowed five members. The the House. It neither adds to, nor takes from, rule of proportion which gives to her but five the number of members assigned to any State. members for her number, would give to New Its unly effect is, a reduction of the apparent York but thirty-six for her number: yet New amount of the fractions, as they are usuaily call. Yurk receives forty. As compared with Alaed, or residuary numbers, after the application bama, then, New York has an excess of repre. of the ratio. For all other purposes, the resentation equal to four-fifths of the whole reg sult is precisely the same as if the ratio had presentation of Alabama, and this excess itself been 47,000.

will give her, of course, as much weight in the As it seems generally admitted that inequali. House as the whole delegation of Alabama, ties do exist in this bill, and that injurious con- within a single vote. Can it be said, then, that sequences will arise from its operation, which representatives are apportioned to these States it would be desirable to avert, if any proper according to their respective numbers? means of averting them, without producing The ratio assumed by the bill, it will be per others equally injurious, could be found, the ceived, leaves large fractions, so called, or te. committee do not think it necessary to go into siduary numbers, in several of the small States, a full and particular statement of these conse to the manifest loss of a part of their just pro. quences. They will content ihemselves with portion of representative power. Such is the presenting a few examples only of these results, operation of the ralio, in this respect, that New and such as they find it most difficult to recon. Pork, with a population less than that of New cile with justice, and the spirit of the constitu. England by thirty or thirty-five thousand, has tion.

yet two more members than all the New Eng. In exhibiting these examples, the committee land Stales; and there are seven Stales in the

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Union, whose members amount to the number and undeniable. The main question has been, stes, te of 123, being a clear majority of the whole whether the principle itself be constitutional ? spedal House, whose aggregate fractions, altogether, and this question the committee proceeded to who amount only to fifty-three thousand; while Ver- examine, respectfully asking of those who have

mont and New Jersey, having together but ele. doubled its constitutional propriety, 10 deem

ven members, have a joint fraction of seventy- the question of so much importance as to justiz byl fire thousand.

fy a second reflection. Pennsylvania by the bill will have, as it hap The words of the Constitution are, “repreadepat pens, just as many members as Vermont, Newsentatives, and direct taxes, shall be apportionIredai Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New Jersey ; ed among the several States, which may be in. med but her population is not equal to theirs by a cluded within this Union, according to their re. be sa bundred and Ibirty thousand ; and the reason spective numbers, which shall be determined Muit of this advantage derived to her from the pro. by adding to the whole number of free per. ald sent visions of the bill, is, that her fraction, or resi. sons, including those bound to service for a

duum, is twelve thousand only, while theirs is term of years, and excluding Indians, threebe lost abundred and forty-four.

fifths of all other persons. The actual enume. But the subject is capable of being present. ration shall be made within three years after

ed in a more exact and mathematical form. The the first meeting of the Congress of the United mai ales House is to eonsist of two hundred and forty States, and within every subsequent term of

members. Now, the precise proportion of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law 30 power, out of the whole mass represented by direct. The number of representatives shall

the numbers two hundred and forty, which New not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but York would be entitled to according to her pu each State shall have at least one representapulation, is 38.59 ; that is to say, she would be tive." entitled to 38 members, and would have a resi There would seem to be little difficulty in duum or fraction, and, even if a member were understanding these provisions. The terms given her for that fraction, she would still have used, are designed, doubtless, to be received but thirty-nine ;

but the bill gives her forty. in no peculiar or technical sense, but according These are a part, and but a part, of those re to their common and popular acceptation. To sults produced by the bill in its present form, apportion, is to distribute by right measure; to which the committee cannut bring themselves sec off in just parts; to assign in due and proper to approve. While it is not to be denied that, proportion. These clauses of the Constitution under any rule of apportionment, some degree respect not only the portions of power, but the fo relative inequality must always exist, the portions of the public burden, also, which committee cannot believe that the Senate will should fall to the several States; and the same sauction inequality and injustice to the exten language is applied to both. Representatives in which they exist in this bill, if they can be are to be apportioned amung the States accord. avoided.' But recollecting the opinions which ing to their respective numbers, and direct had been expressed in die discussions of the taxes are to be apportioned by the same rule. Senate, the committee have diligently sought the end aimed at is, that representation and to learn whether there was not some other num taxation should go hand in hand; that each ber which might be taken for a ratio, the ap- Slate should be represented in the same explication of which would work out more jus-tent to which it is made subject to the public tice and equality. In this pursuit, the com. chargés by direct laxation. But, between the mittee have not been successful. There are, apportionment of representatives and the apit is true, other numbers, the adoption of which portionment of taxes, there necessarily exists would relieve many of the States which suffer one essential difference Representation found. under the present; but this relief would be ed on numbers, must have some limit, and obtained only by shifting the pressure on to being, from its nature, a thing not capable of other States, thus creating new grounus of indefinite subdivision, it cannot be made pre. complaint in other quarters. The number for- cisely equal. A tax, indeed, cannot always, ty-four thousand has been generally spoken of or often be apportioned with perfect exactness; as the most acceptable suostitute for 47,700; as, in other matters of account, there will be but should this be adopted, great relative ine fractional parts of the smallest cuins, and the quality would fall on several states, and, among smallest denomination of money of account, yet, them, on some of the new and growing States, by the usual subdivisions of the coin, and of whose relative disproportion, thus already great, the denomination of money, the apportionment would be constantly increasing. The commit- of taxes is capable of being made so exact, tee, therefore, are of opinion that the bill should that the inequality becomes minute and in be altered in the mode of apportionment. They visible. But representation cannot be thus think that the process which begins by assum. divided. of representation, there can be ing a ratio should be abandoned, and that the nothing less than one representative; nor by bill ought 10 be framed on the principle of the ouc Constitution, more representatives than one amendment which has been the main subject of for every thirty thousand. It is quite obvious, discussion before the Senate. The fairness of therefore, that the apportionment of representhe principle of this amendment, and the géne. tative power can never be precise and perfect. mal equily of its results, compared with those There must always exist some degree of inwhich Bow from the other process, seem plain equality. Those who framed, and those who

adopted the Constitution, were, of course, the qnestion before the Senate, taking for
fuly acquainted with this neces sary ope granted that such is the true and undeniable
ration of the provision. In the Senate, the meaning of the constitution.
States are entitled to a fixed number of Sena.

The next thing to be observed is, that the tors; and, therefore, in regard to their repre. constituion prescribes no particular process by byl sentation, in that body, there is no consequen. which this apportionment is to be wrought out. tial or incidental inequality arising. But being It has plainly described the end to be accomrepresented in the House of Representatives plisheci, viz. the nearest approach to relative e accordir.g to their respective numbers of quality of representation among the States; and people, it is unavoidable that, in assigning to whatever accomplishes this end, and nothing each State its number of members, the exact else, is the true process. In truth, if, without proportion of each, out of a given number, any process whatever, whether elaborate or cannot always or ofien be expressed in whole easy, Congress could perceive the exact pronumbers; that is to say, it will not often be portion of representative power rightfully be. found that there belongs to a State exactly one longing to each State, it would perfectly fulfil tenth, or one-twentieth, or one-thirtieth of the ils duly by conferring that portion on each, whole House; and, therefore, no number of without reference to any process whatever. It representatives will exactly correspond with would be enough that the proper end had been the right of such State, or the precise share of attained. And it is to be remarked further, representation which belongs to it, according that, whether this end be attained best by one to its population.

process or by another, it becomes, when each The Constitution, therefore, must be under process, has been carried through, not malter stood not as enjoining an absolute relative (of opinion, but matter of mathematical certain. equality--because that would be demanding an ty. ' If the whole population of the United impossibility--but as requiring of Congress to States, the population of each State, and the make the apportiunment of representatives proposed number of the House of Representa among the several States according to their tives, be all given, then, between two bills apo respective numbers, as near as may be. That portioning the members, among the several which cannot be done perfectly, must be done States, it can be told, with absolute certainty, in a manner as near perfection as can be. If which bill assigns to any and every State the exaciness cannot, from the nature of things, be number nearest to the exact proportion of that atlained, then the greatest practicable approach Stale; in other words, which of the two bills, to exactness ought to be made.

if either, apportions the representatives acCongress is not absolved from all rule, cording to the number of the States, respecmerely because the rule of perfect justice can lively, as near as moy be. If, therefore, i par not be applied. In such a case, approximation ticular process of apportionment be adopted, becomes a rule; it takes the place of that other and objection be made to the injustice or inerule which would be preferable, but which is quality of its result, it is, surely, no answer to found inapplicable, and becomes, itself, 'an such objection to say, that the inequality nes obligation of binding force. The nearest ap. cessarily results from ihe nature of the process. proximation to exact truth or exact right, when Before such answer could avail, it would be that exact truth or that exact right cannot necessary io show, either that the cons ilution itself be reached, prevails in other cases, not as prescribes such process, and makes it necessaa maiter of discretion, but as an intelligible and ry, or that there is no other mode of proceed. definite rule, dictated by justice, and conforming which would produce less inequality and ing to the common sense of mankind; a rule of less injustice. If inequality, which mighi bave no less binding force in cases to which it is otherwise been avoided, be proluced by a girapplicable, and no more to be departed from, en process, then that process is a wrong one. than any other rule or obligation.

It is not suited to the case, and should be rea The committee understand the constitution jected. as they would have understood it, if it had Nor do the committee perceive how it can be said, in so many words, that representatives matter of constitutional propriety or validity or should be apportioned among the States ac. in any way a constitutional question, whether cording to their respective numbers, as near as the process which may be applied to the case ma, be. If this be not its true meaning, then be simple or compound, one process ur many it has either given, on this most delicate and processes; since, in the end, it may always be important subject, a rule which is always im. seen whether the result be that which has been practicable, or else it has given no rule at all; aimed at, namely, the nearest prac:icable ap. because, if the rule be that representatives proach to precise justice and relative equality. sball be apportioned exactly according to num. The commiitee, indeed, are of opinion, in this bers, it is impraciicabie in every case; and if, case, that the simplest and most obvious way for this reason, that cannot be the rule, then of proceeding is also the true and constitution. there is no rule whatever, unless the rule be al way. To ihem it appears that, in carrying that they shall be apportioned as near as into effect this part of the constitution, the first

thing naturally lo be done is, to decide on the This construction, indeed, which the com- whole number of which the House is to be mittee adopt, has not, to their knowledge, been compose:/; as when, under the same clause of denied; and they proceed in the discission of the constitution, a tax is to be apportioned

[ocr errors]

may be.

[ocr errors]

among the States, the amount of the whole tax Missouri qught to be satisfied, when it is said king lie is , in the first place, to be settled.

that this obvious injustice is the necessary reWhen the whole number of the proposed sult of the process adopted by the bill? May

House is thus ascertained and fixed, it becomes they not say, with propriety, that since three is the te the entire representative power of all the peo- the nearest whole number to their exact right, Ces hi ple in the Union. It is then a very simple mat- to that number they are entitled, and the pro. glit etter to ascertain how much of this representative cess which deprives them of it must be a wrong ucent power each State is entitled 10 by its numbers. process? A similar comparison might be made latives 1 for example, the House is io contain 240 between New York and Vermont. The exact nies # members, then ihe number 240 expresses the proportion to which Vermont is entitled in a reDistanta representative power of all the Staies; and a presentation of 240, is 5.646. Her nearest whole w plain calculation readily shows how much of number, therefore, would be six. Now, two waste this power belongs to each State. This por. things are undeniably true : first, that to take 4. tion, it is true, will not always, nor often, be away the forlieth member from New York, utils de expressed in whole numbers, but it may always would bring her representation nearer to her 2)(be precisely exhibited by a decimal form of ex. exact proportion, than it stands by leaving ber

pression. If the portion of any State be seldom, that fortieth member. Second, that giving the or never, one exact tenth, one exact fifteenth, member thus taken from New York, to Verof one exact twentieth, it will always be capa-mont, would bring her representation nearer to

ble of prcise decimal expression, as one-tenth her exact right than it is by the bill. And both bred and two-bundredths, one-twelfth and four-hun. these propositions are equally true of a transfer

dredths, one-fiteenth and six hundredths, and of the twenty-eighth member assigned by the 80 on; and the exact portion of the State being bill to Pennsylvania, to Delaware, and of the thus decimally expressed, will still always show, thirteenth member assigned to Kentucky, to to mathematical certainty, what integral number Missouri; in other words, Vermont bas, by her comes nearest to such exact portion. For ex- numbers, more right to six members, than New ample

, in a House consisting of 240 members, York has to forty. Delaware, by her numbers, the exact mathematical proportion to which has more right to two members, than Pennsylber numbers entitle the State of New York, is vania has to twenty eight; and Missouri, by her 38 59: it is certain, therefore, tbat 39 is the inte- numbers, has more right to three members,

gral or whole number nearest to her exact pro-than Kentucky has to thirteen. Without disa care portion of the repr lative power of the turbing the proposed number of the House, the

Union. Why, then, should she 'not have thir. mere changing of these three members from ty-nine! and why should she have furty? She is and to the six States respectively, woul I bring not quite entitled to thirty-nine; that number the representation of each of the whole six, is something more than her right. But, allow. nearer to their due proportion, according to ing her thirty-nine, from the necessity of giving their respective numbers, than the bill

, in its ber whole numbers, and because that is the present form makes it. In the face of this innearest whole number, is not the Constitution disputable truth, how can it be said that the bill fully obeyed when she has received the thirty-apportions these members among those Siates ninth member? Is not her proper number of according to their respective numbers, as near representa.ives then apportioned to her, as near as may be? as may be! And is not the Constitution disre. The principle on which the proposed amendgarded, when the bill goes further, and gives ment is founded, is an effectual corrective for her a fortierb member? For what is such a for these and all other equally great inequalities. tieth member given? Not for her absolute num It may be applied at all times, and in all cases, bers : for hier absolute numbers do not entitle and its result will always be the nearest apber to thirty-nine. Not for the sake of appor-proach to perfect justice. It is equally tioning her members to her numbers as near as simple and impartial. As a rule of appor. may be, because thirty-nine is a nearer appor tionment, it is little other than a transcript tonment of members to numbers than forty-of the words of the constitution, and its results But it is given, say the advocates of the bill, are mathematically certain. The constitution, because the process which bas been adopted, as the committee understand it, says, represenBives it. The answer is, nu such process is en tatives shall be apportioned among the States joined by the Constitution.

according to their respective numbers of peoThe case of New York may be compared or ple, as near as may be. The rule adopted by Catrasted with that of Missouri. The exact the committee, says, out of the whole number preportion of Missouri, in a general representa- of the House, that number shall be apportioned sa of 240, is two and six tenths: that is to say, to each Slate which comes nearest to its exact comes nearer to three members than to two, right according to its number of people. yet it is confined to two. But why is not Mi.

'Where is the repugnancy between the con-' betri entitled to that number of representatives stitution and the rule? The arguments against which comes nearest to her exacı proportion the rule seem to assume that there is a necesIs the Constitution fulfilled as to her, while sity of instituting some process adopting some hat number is withheld, and while, at the sume number as the ratio, or as that number of peo. tme, in another State, not only is that nearest ple which each member shall be understood to minder given, but an additional member given represent; but the committee see no occasion ado? to it an answer with which the people os for any other process whatever, than simply the

« ForrigeFortsett »