ascertainment of that quantum, out of the whole portionment of representatives among the sevemass of the representative power, which each ral Stales according to their respective num. State may claim.

bers, and stops there. It makes no provision But it is said that, although a State may re. for the representation of districts, of States, or ceive a number of representatives which is for the representation of any portion of the peo. something less than its exact proportion of re. ple of a Siate less than the whole. It says nopresentation, yet, that it can, in no case, con. thing of ratios or of constituent numbers. All stitutionally receive more. How is this propo. these things it leaves to State legislation. The ezt sition proved? How is it shown that the con- right which each State possesses to its own due *** stituation is less perfectly fulfilled by allowing a portion of the representative power, is a State 3 State a small excess, than by subjecting ber to right, strictly: it belongs to ihe State, as a a large deficiency? What the constitution re- State; and it is to be used and exercised as the tra quires, is the nearest practicable approach to Siale may see fat, subject only to the constitute precise justice. The rule is approximation; and tional qualifications of electors. In fact, the we ought to approach, therefore, on whichever States do make, and always have made, differ? side we can approach nearest.

ent provisions for the exercise of this power. But there is still a more conclusive answer to In sume, a single member is chosen for a cerbe given to this suggestion. The whole num. tain defined district; in others, two or three fier of representatives of which the House is members are chosen for the same distriet; and, to be composed, is, of necessity, limited. This in some again, as New Hampshire, Rhode Isl. number, whatever it is, is that which is to be and, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Georgia, ? apportioned, and nothing else can be appor. the whole representation of the State is exert. tioned. This is the whole sum to be distribu- ed as a joint, úndivided representation. In ted. If, therefore, in making the apportion. these last mentioned States, every member of ment, some States receive less than their just the House of Representatives has for his consti

. share, it must necessarily follow that some other tuents all the people of the State; and all the States have received more than their just people of those States are consequently represhare. If there be one State in the Union with sented in that branch of Congress

. If the bill less than its right, some other State has more before the Senate should pass into a law, in than its right, so that the argument, whatever its present form, whatever injustice it might do be its force, applies to the bill in its present to any of those States, it would not be correct form, as strongly as it can ever apply to any to say of them, nevertheless, that any portion bill.

of their people was unrepresented. The well But the objection most usually urged against founded objection would be,as to some of them the principle of the proposed amendment, is, at least, that they were not adequately, comthat it provides for the representation of frac- petently, fairly, represented; that they had not tions. Let this objection be examined and con- as many voices and as many votes in the House sidered. Let it be ascertained in the first place, of Representatives as they were entitled to. what these fractions, or fractional numbers, or This would be the objection. There would residuary numbers, really are, which it is said be no unrepresented fractions; but the State, will be represented should the amendment as a State, as a whole, would be deprived of prevail.

some part of its just rights. A fraction is the broken part of some inte On the other hand, if the bill should pass as gral number. It is, therefore, a relative or it is now proposed to be amended, there would derivative idea. It implies the previous exist- be no representations of fractions in'any State; ence of some fixed number, of which it is but for a fraction supposes a division and a remain. a part or remainder. If there be no necessity der. All that could justly be said, would be, for fixing or establishing such previous num- that some of these states, as States, possessed ber, then the fraction resulting from it, is itself a portion of legislative power a little larger no matter of necessity, but matter of choice or than their exact right; as it must be admitied, of accident. Now, the argument which con- that, should the bill pass unamended, they siders the plan proposed in the amendment as would possess of that puwer much less than a representation of fractions, and therefore un- that exact right. The same remarks are subconstitutional, assumes as jts basis, that, ac stantially true, if applied to those States which cording to the Constitution, every member of adopt the district system, as most of them do. the House of Representatives represents, or In Missouri, for example, there will be no fracought to represent, the same, or nearly the tion unrepresented, should the bill become a same, number of constituents; that this number law in its present form; nor any member for 9 is to be regarded as an integer; and any thing fraction, should the amendment prevail; beless than this is therefore called a fraction or a cause the mode of apportionment which assigas residuum, and cannot be entitled to a repre., to each state that number wbich is nearest to sentative. But all this is not the provision of its exact right, applies no assumed ralios, the Constitution of the United States. That make no subdivisions, and, of course, produces Constitution contemplates no integer, or any no fractions. In the one case, or in the other, common number for the constituents of a mem- the State, as a State, will have something more, ber of of the House of Representatives. It or something less, than its exact proportion of goes not at all into these subdivisions of the representative power; but she will part out population of a State. It provides for the ap- this power among her own people, in either

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

case, in such mode as she may choose, or ex- plicable and applied impartially to all the States, ercise it altogether as an entire representation it is quite frue. But, if that which is intended of the people of the State.

be, that the population of each State must be Whether the subdivision of the representative divided by a hxed ratio, and all resulting frac

power within any State, if there be a subdivi- tions, great or small, disregarded, this is but 10 of the

sion, he equal or unequal, or fairly or unfairly take for granted the very thing in controversy. It son

made, Congress cannot know, and has no au- The question is, whether it be unconstitutional bere i thority to inquire. It is enough that the State to make approxima:ion to equality, by allowing signse presents her own represen.ation on the floor of representatives for major fractions. The affir.

Congress in the more she chooses to present it. mative of this question, is, indeed, denied, but la State were to give to one portion of her ter it is not disproved, by saying that we must abide ritory a representative for every twenty-five by the operation of division, by an assumed ra. thousand persons, and to the rest a representatio, and disregard fractions. The question still tire only for every fifty thousand, it would be remains as it was before; and it is still to be an act of unjust legislation, doubtless, but it shown what there is in the constitution which would be wholly beyond redress by any power rejects approximation as the rule of apportion. in Congress, because the constitution has left ment. But suppose it be necessary to find a diall this to the State itself.

visor, and to abide its results. What is a divi. These considerations, it is thought, may show sor? Not necessarily a simple number. It may that the constitution has not, by any implication be composed of a whole number and a fraction, or necessary construction, enjoined that which it may itself be the result of a previous process; it certainly has not ordained in terms, viz. that it may be any thing, in short, which produces every member of the House shall be supposed accurate and uniform division: wbatever does to represent the same number of constituents, this, is a common rule, a common standard, or, and, therefore, that the assumption of a ratio, if the word he important, a common divisor. us representing the common number of consti. The committee refer, on ibis part of the case, tuents, is not called for by the constitution. All to some observations by Professor Dean, will a that Congress is at liberty to do, as it would table, both of which accompany this report. teem, is io divide the whole representative As it is not improbable that opinion has been power of the Union into twenty-four parts, as- a good deal influenced on this subject by what signing one part to each State, as near as prac took place on the passing of the first act mak. ticable, according to its right, and leaving all ing an apportionment of representatives among subsequent arrangement, and all subdivisions, the States, the committee have examined and to the State itself.

considered that precedent. If it be in point to If the view thus taken of the rights of the the present case, it is certainly entitled to very States, and the duties of Congress, be the cor- great weight; but if it be of questionable aprect view, then the plan proposed in the amend. plication, the text of the Constitution, even if ment is, in no just sense, a representation of it were doubtful, could not be explained by . fractions. But suppose it was otherwise; sup- doubtful commentary. In the opinion of the pose a direct provision were made for allowing committee, it is only necessary that what was a representative to every Slate in whose popu- said on that occasion should be understood in lation, it being first divided by a common ra- connexion with the subject matter then under tio, there should be found a fraction exceeding consideration ; and, in order to see what that half the amount of that ratio, what constitution. subject matter really was, the committee think al objection could be fairly urged against such it nccessary to state, shortly, the case. a provision? Let it be always remembered that

The two Houses of Congress passed a bill, the case here supposed provides only for a after the first enumeration of the people, profraction exceeding the moiety of the ratio, for viding for a House of Representatives which the committee admit, at unce, that the rep.e. should consist of 120 members. The bill ex. sentation of fractions less than a moiety is un pressed no rule or principle by which these constitutional; because, should a member be members were assigned to the several States. allowed to a State for such a fraction, it would It merely said that New Hampshire should have be certain that her representation would not be five members, Massachusetts ten, and so on; to near her exact right as it was before. But going through all the States, and assigning the the allowance of a member for a major fraction whole number of one hundred and twenty. is a direct approximation towards justice and Now, by the census, then recently taken, it equality . There appears to the committee to appeared that the whole representative

popu. be sathing, either in the letter of the spirit of lation of the United States was 3,615,920; and the constitution, opposed 10 such a mode of ap. it was evidently the wish of Congress to make poriaoment

. On the contrary, it seems entire- the House as numerous as the Constitution y consistent with the very object which the would allow. But the Constitution has said constitution contemplated, and well calculated that there should not be more than one memto accomplish it. The argument commonly ber for every thirty thousand persons. This urged against it, is, that it is necessary to apply prohibition was, of course, to be obeyed; but Some one commun divisor, and 10 abide by ils did the Constitution mean that no State should

have more than one member for every thirty If by this it be meant that there must be thousand persons ? or did it only mean that the une common rule, or common measure, ap. whole House, as compared with the whole po.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


pulation of the United States, should not condent Washington said: “The Constitution has tain more than one member for every thirty prescribed that Representatives shall be appor. thousand persons ? If this last were the true tioned among the several States according to construction, then the bill, in that particular, their respective numbers; and there is no one was right; if the first were the true construc- proportion or divisor, which, applied to the retion, when it was wrong ; because so many spective numbers of the States, will the nummembers could not be assigned to the States ber and allotment of Representatives proposed without giving to some of them more members by the bill." than one for every thiriy thousand. In fact, This was all undoubtedly true, and was, in the bill did propose to do this in regard to se. the judgment of the committee, a decisive obveral States.

jection against the bill. It is nevertheless to President Washington adopted that construc. be observed, that the other objection completetion of the Constitution which applied its pro. ly covered the whole ground. There could, in hibition to each State individually. He thought that bill, be no allowance for a fraction, great or that no State could, constitutionally, receive small; because Congress had taken

for the ralio more than one member for every thirty thou. the lowest number allowed by the Constitution, sand of her own population. On this, there- viz. thirty thousand. Whatever fraction a State fore, his main objection to the bill was found. might bave less than that ratio, no member ed. That objection he states in these words : could be allowed for it. It is scarcely necessa.

“The Constitution has also provided that ry to observe, that no such objection applies to the number of representatives shall not exceed the amendment now proposed. No State, one for every thirty thousand ; which restric- should the amendment prevail, will bavc & tion is, by the context, and by fair and obvious greater number of members than one for every construction, to be applied to the separate and thirty thousand; nor is it likely that that objec. respective numbers of the States ; and the bill tion will ever again occur. The whole force has allotted to eight of the States more than of the precedent, whatever it be, in its appli one for every thirty thousand.”

cation to the present case, is drawn from the It is now necessary to see what there was other objection. And what is the true import further objectionable in this bill. The number of that objection? Does it mean any thing more of one hundred and twelve members was all than that the apportionment was not made on a that could be divided among the States, with common rule or principle, applicable, and apout giving to some of them more than one mem plied alike to alline States? ber for thirty thousand inhabitants. Therefore, President Washington's words are, "there is having allotied these one hundred and twelve, no one proportion or divisor, which, applied to there still remained.eight of the one hundred the respective numbers of the States, will yield and twenty to be assigned; and these eight the the number and allotment of Representatives bill assigned to the States having the largest proposed by the bill." fractions. Some of these fractions were large, If, then, he could have found a common pro., and some were small. No regard was paid to portion, it would have removed this objection. fractions over a moiety of the ratio, any more He required a proportion or divisor. These than to fractions under it. There was no' rule words lie evidently uses as explanatory of each. laid down, stating what fraction should entitle other. He meant by divisor, therefore, no more the States to whom they might happen to fall, than by proportion. What ke sought was, some or in whose population they might happen to common and equal rule by which the allotment be found, to a representative therefor. The had been made among the several States; he assignment was not made on the principle that did not find such common rule; and, vn that each State should have a member for a fraction ground, he thought the bill objectionable, greater than half the ratio; or that all the States In the opinion of the committee, no such ob should have a member for a fraction, in all cases jection applies to the amendment recommendwhere the allowance of such member woulded by them. That amendment gives a rule, bring her representation nearer to its exact pro- plain, simple, just, uniform, and of universal portion than its disallowance. There was no application. The rule has been frequently common measure or common rule adopted, but stated. It may be clearly expressed in either the assignment was maiter of arbitrary discre- of two ways. Let the rule be, that the whole tion. A member was allowed to New Hamp- number of the proposed House shall be apportioned shire, for example, for a fraction of less than among the several States according to their reone ha f the ratio, thus placing her representa. spective numbers, giving to each State that numtion further from her exact proportion than it ber of members which comes nearest to her exact was without such additional member ; while a mathematical part or proportion; or, let the rule member was refused to Georgia, whose case be, that the population of each State shall be diclosely resembled that of New Hampshire, both vided by a common divisór, and that, in addition having what were thought large fractions, but to the number of members resulting from such diboth still under a moiety of the ratio, and dis- vision, a member shall be allowed to each State tinguished from each other only be a very whose fraction exceeds a moiety of the divisor. slight difference of absolute numbers. The Either of these is, it seems to the commite comunittee have already fully expressed their tee, a fair and just rule, capable of unifortin ap opinion on such a mode of apportionment. plication, and operating with entire impartialia

In regard to this character of the bill, Presi. iy. There is no want of a common proportion,

[ocr errors]


mem. memmemmem

ubon be or a common divisor: there is nothing left to agreeably to the rule of the constitution; that is be app arbitrary discretion. If the rule, in either of to say, there shall be chosen within the State ording to these forms, be adopted, it can never be doubt of Maine, members, within the Stale of is nie ful how every member of any proposed number New Hampshire, members; within the to them for a House of Representatives ought to be assign. State of Massachusetts, members; within the

udd. Nothing will be left in the discretion of the State of Rhode Island members; with. prope

Congress; the right of each State will be alin the State of Connecticut, members,

mathematical right, easily ascertained, about within the State of Vermont, members, dani

which there can be neither doubt nor difficulty; within the State of New York, members; cisiet and, in the application of the rule, there will within the State of New Jersey, members; theles be no room for preference, partiality, or injus within the State of Pennsylvania, members;

tice. In any case, in all time to come, it will within the State of Deleware, -members; Protondo all that human means can do, to allot to within the State of Maryland, members;

every State in the Union its proper and just within the State of Virginia, members,
propor:ion of representative power. And it is within the State of North Carolina,
because of this

, its capability of constant appli- bers; within the State of South Carolina, oe cation, as well as because of its impartiality and members; within the State of Georgia,

justice, that the committee are earnest in re- members; within the State of Kentucky, commending its adoption to congress. If it members; within the State of Tennessee, shall be adopted, they believe it will remove a members; within the State of Ohio,

cause of uneasiness and dissatisfaction, recur. bers; within the State of Louisiana, brey sing, or liable to recur, with every new census, bers; within the State of Indiana, fent and place the rights of the State, in this re-bers; within the State of Alabama,

spect, on a fixed basis, of which nonc with bers; within the State of Missouri, mem-
reason can complain. It is true, that there may bers; the number of representatives l.ereby as-
be some numbers assumed for the composition signed and apportioned to each and every state
of the House of Representatives, to which, if respectively, being found to be that number
the rule were applied, the result might give a which is nearest to the exact proportion of each
member to the House more than was proposed. State in a House of members, according
But it will be always easy to correct this, by al. to the last constitutional enumi-ration of the
tering the proposed number by adding one to people of the United States, and the said num-
, or taking one from it; so that this can be ber of representatives in any State not exceed.
considered no objection to the rule.

ing one for every thirty thousand persons, acThe committee, in conclusion, cannot admit cording to said enumeration. that it is sufficient reason for rejecting this mode of apportionment, that a different process has heretofore prevailed. The truih is,

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. the errors and inequalities of that process were PROM THE BUENOS AYRES BRITISUPA CKET. at first

t_not obvious and startling. But they have gone on increasing; they are greatly aug.

FALKLAND ISLANDS. mented and accumulated every new censu-,

These Islands seem s:ill destined to occupy and it is of the very nature of the process ia prominent place in the affairs of nations, and self, that its unjust results must grow greater the dispute relative to them in the year 1770, and greater in proportion as the poplulation of between Great Britain and Spain, is now in a the country enlarges. What was objectionable manner revived, between the descendants of though tulerable yesterday, becomes intolera. these two nations. ble to mirmw. Á change, the committee are

Considerable excitement was caused in persuaded, must come, or the whole just ba. Buenos Ayres, on Tuesday last, upon the Lance and proportion of representative power arrival of the schooner Flor del Rio, from among the Sinies will be disturbed and broken Montevideo, bringing an account of thel proup.

ceedings of the United States sloop of war The committee therefore, recommend to Lexington, Capt Duncan, against the Colony strike out the whole bill, after the enacting at the Falkland Islands. Several individuals clause, and insert the following amendment:

from thence came in the schouner, and gave That, from and after the third day of March, the following detail: Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and That the Lexingtor, arrived on the 28th of thirty three, the House of Representatives shall December, below the Islands in Berkely consist of

members; and, in order that the sound, where she anchored under the French taid representatives may be apportioned among Aag, with a signal at the fore for a pilot, and the several States as near may be, according to having in tow

a small sballop, built among the their respective numbers, they shall be chosen Islands, and which was going to Port Louis to in the following manner, that is to say, there obtain Buenos Ayres papers, in order to seal on shall be chosen within euch state that number account of the colony - Capt. Duncan had told of sepresentatives which is the nearest to its be master of the shallop, that the fishery on Lact proportion of representation in a House the coast was open to all the world, and he of members as aforesuid, according to its would give him a sea letter to sail under the population, compared with the whole popula- American flag; upon which, those in the shallop tion of the United States, both being computed separated themselves from the colony. A gale

[ocr errors]

of wind detained the Lexington three days at provisions, it was nearly a fortnight after the her anchorage-she then made sail and an arrival of the Lexington, before the schooner chored abreast of the colony: a Lieutenant and Dash was sent to take them away. a number of men landed in a boat from the

Mr. Vernet has given notice through the shallop. Captain Brisbane and Mr. Metcalf, public press of Buenos Ayres, that he shall (the latter had been left in charge of the publish a statement of all the circumstances colony,) were walking the beach unsuspicious connected with the case, to prove how scrupu. of danger. The Lieutenant invited them in the lously he acted, and that nothing has been name of the Commander to go on board the one but what was perfectly justifiable on his Lexington, which they did -oiher boats had

part. come on shore with marines, who took off

The Governinent of Buenos Ayres is far from forcibly all the men they could find. Most of the natives of Buenos Ayres, escaped to the persuading itself, that that of the United

States interior; the cannon was spiked, first arms of nations, and contrary to the good under

can approve conduct so opposed to the rights broken to pieces and thrown into the water; powder set fire to, &c. All the persons who the last Message of the President of the United

standing existing between both Republics. By had thus been forcibly taken away, were put Stetes to Congress, it appears that he is about on shore, except Captain Brisbane and six

to send a Minisier to this Government, who Buenos Ayreans--the latter were placed in irons. The seal skins and some trifling articles

will remove any difficulty or doubts that may

have arisen, which had been embargoed, awaiting the de. cision of the Prize Court of Buenos Ayres,

The Government trusts, that all will be were taken from Mr. Vernet's store-house, and amicably arranged, and that the rights of the delivered to Captain Davison, of the Harriett, nation it is charged to defend, will be preserved, who had gone from Buenos Ayres in the sloop and worthily sustained. of war as pilot. This property was then

JUAN RAMON BALCARCE. shipped on board the American schooner Dash,

MANUEL JOSE GARCIA. Capt. Keating, which at the time was lying there. Capt. Duncan had told Davison to go into the store house and take away any thing Circular to the different Provinces.. he thought was his property-he accordingly

The delegate Govornment of this Province took a few boat oars, a boat, keel, some loose bias the honor to address His Ex. the Governor pieces of toat, three bags of shot, some pow.lof. si, to inform him that the political der, a little sheet lead, a whale boat and oars, and military Government of the Falkland Island muskets. Neither the boat or muskets ands having embargoeil three North American belonged to him. Davison posted on the door vessels, which had been sealing against orders of Mr. Vernet's, a proclamation of the Government, it proceeded immediately

, in writing, signed by Capi. Duncan, declaring to the investigation of the affair. The Consul the capturs of the vessels to be piracy, &c. of that Republic forwarded to the Government announcing at the same time, freedom of his remonstrances : these were answered, but fishery. During the stay of the Lexington, she without concluding the inquiry, or a decisive Buenos Ayreans who had fled into the interior, sentence being pronounced: the Commander returned, and Captain Duncan gave their head of the U. S. corvette Lexington, which sailed man a document, 'stating that he was a peace from this port, with the avoved ubject to take able person, &c. Captains Duncan and Davi- off some men, who had been left on one of the son, it is stated, spread a variety of reports, in Island, s invaded on the 31st December last, order to alarm the settlers, such as, that they the port of La Soledad, went on shure with would never be safe from the resentment of the armed men, destroyed the artillery, burned the American whalers—that Mr. Vernet would not powder, disposed of the public and private again return to the Islands, that the Govern property, and keeps under arrest, on board said ment of Buenos Ayres disapproved of the cap. corvete, the direc:or of the fisheries of the Co. ture of yessels, &c. &c. and Captain Duncan lony, and in irons six citizens of the Republic. offered a free passage to those who wished to leave the colony. The consequence was, thai

We are informed that Mr. George W. Sloall the female residents, as well as Mr. Vernet's

cum lias been suspended from his consular slaves and various individuals, went on board attributed to him in the proceeding of the cor

functions, in consequence of the in:erference the Lexington. The families killed all the milch cows which

velte Lexington in the Falkland Islands. -Ga

ceta Mercantil. Mr. Vernet had lent them, and most of the beef and hides were sold to the Lexington;

A communication from D. Santiago Vasquez, which ship finally quitted the Falklands on the Minister of State of the Oriental Republic of 220 Janu iry, and arrived at Montevideo, with the Uru, uay, dated Monteviden, 6th instant, Capt. Brisbane and the six Buenos Ayreans, states the arrival of the U. States ship Lexingprisoners. It is added, that, notwithstanding ton at Montevideo, with the colonists from the the anxiety expressed relative to the seven Falkland Islands, and that every thing has been Americans, who were left on Staten land by done to alleviate their misforlunes. the schooner Superior, for the purpose of seal The Lexington had sailed from Montevideo ing, and who were reported to be destitute of for Rio de Janicro.

« ForrigeFortsett »