apply to the case now before us; but it is deTied that this was the only, or indeed, the chief objection urged by President Washington to that bill. If it had been his only objection, it was unnecessary to have given any other. But another was given, and the com: ‘mittee are compelled to give to it the meaning which its language clearly imports. It was the first objection assigned. It was a substantive objection in itself—“there is no one proportion or divisor, which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and allotment proposed by the bill”—and did not depend, in the slightest degree, for its force, upon the second. Indeed, the commit. tee regard it as his chief objection; and, in confirmation of that opinion, They find it stated in Judge Marshall’s Life of Washington, that, “afer weighing the arguments which were urged on each side of the question, the Presi. dent was confirmed in the opinion'that the population of each State, and not the population of the United States, must give the numbers to which alone could be applied, the process by which the number of representatives was to be ascertained.” What process? One that should operate in some States and not in others? The objection required a process of a different character. It required a “proportion or divisor,” or, what is the same thing, some uniform rule which would apply to, and be operative upon, the separate numbers or masses of population, in each and all of the States. The question presented by the bill, and decided by the first objection, was, whether, according to the pro.

[ocr errors]

the particular case before him by a departure from it, he assigned, as a second reason for his veto on that particular bill, that it allotted to eight of the States more than one member for every 30,000 persons. But allowing the second to be a substantive and sufficient objection of itslef in that particular case, it still leaves the first to operate with all its force, and prohibits the fractional parts of the population of the several States from being consolidated, and the fractions of some States from being, in effect, represented by members arbitrarily assigned to, and chosen by the people of other States. The substance of both objections is, that, in apportioning representatives among the several States, whatever may be the proportion, ratio, or divisor proposed, it must be o to the separate and respective numbers o as such a ratio cannot be applied as a divisor to a fractional remainder in any State, which is, of necessity, less than itself, such fractional numbers found in each of the States must be rejected from all. committee think, be to recognize a principle of consolidation inconsistent with the constitution itself, and the early exposition of the clause of that instrument which they have been examining. Applying this construction of that instru- . . ment, which the believe to be the true one, to the amendment before us, and it must be rejected,although no State, in this particular case, would have a representative for less than 30,000 of its own numbers. The question thus solemnly, settled in 1792, by a President who was a member of the Convention which framed the

ach State; and

To do otherwise, would, as the

visions of the Constitution,any State could have constitution, and by a Congress many of whose

alloted to it a number representing a constitu*ncy, which, although existing in the United States, was not found in that state? Upon this 3Gestion, the President took the opinions of his cabinet, Mr. Jefferson, the Secretary of State, and Mr. Randolph, the Attorney Genetal, were of opinion that the scheme of the bill was inviolation of the Constitution. General Kno, the Secretary of War, was undecided, and Mr. Hamilton doubted, “thinking that, from the Yagueness of expression in the clause

relating to the subject, neither construction

could be absolutely rejected" with these *Posions of his cabinet before him, and upon full deliberati , President Washington thought that, “he Constitution required an apportion. lent of representatives among the several

State according to their respective numbers, the

*moratio or divisor which was applied to the umbers of any State to show its proportion of the representatives, must be also applied to the *Pective numbers of each of the States to show their several proportions. Seeing that there ** no one ratio, proportion, or divisor, which, whenso applied, would yield the number and allotment proposed by the bill before him, he Puthis veto upon it, and assigned this as his first, and, as the committee regard it, his principal reason for so doing. With a view, probably, of giving special ap. Plation of this construction of the constitution, *nd of showing what effects were produced in

members bad been members also of the Convention winich framed, or the States which ratified it, has been acquiesced in ever since, and no attempt, until the present, has been seriously, made to revive the old discussion. 'y instance since, in which such a proposition has been made, the committee find in the Journals of the House of Representatives of 1822, pending the consideration of the apportionment bill of that year; when it was proposed, that “each member hereafter elected to the House, shall represent the same number of persons, entitled to be represented, as neurly as may be practicuble, agreeably to the fourth census.”— This proposition met with no favor, and was immediately rejected by a large vote, upon ayes and noes, the vote being in its favor 43, and against it 125; it does not seem to have been seriously pressed. ton's second objection for his veto of 1792, did not apply any more than it does now in the Case before us, and the committee are bound, to conclude that the large vote of three to one by which it was rejected, rested exclusively upon the ground taken by him, and the reasons' assigned in his first objection.

The on

In this case Gen. Washing

Reason, precedent, and acquiescence, would

seem, therefore, to place this question on grounds where it ought never to be disturbed. If Congress now yield to the principles assumed by the amendment of the Senate, it must be upon the supposition, that the constitution ex

pected and intended an apportionment, which
should produce equality as to fractions, in each
State. This surely never was the case. But,
it is said, we must approach equality “as near
as may be.” This is more specious than solid.
See where such a principle will carry us. we
are at present to represent fractions greater than
one half of the cunstitutional number, taken as
a ratio or common divisor. That may not be
“as near as may be.” Descend to a represen-
tative for a fourth or an eighth, and you may be
nearer still, and the committee see no limit to
the extention of the principle down to a unit,
except, indeed, the arbitrary discretion of Con-
gress; for the representative of a fourth frac-
tion bears the same relation to the representa-
tive of a half Moction, that the latter does to the
representative of a whole, and thus an inequality
may be really produced among the States, too
intolerable to be quietly-submitted to.
There is one plain view of this question,
which may be presented in very few words,
which ought to be conclusive. According to
the amendment, eleven States out of twenty-
four are to have a representative, each, for a-
bout fuenty-five thousand persons, and each o
the other thirteen States have to produce twice
that number, or very near it, for each represen-
tative apportioned to them. The plan, there-
fore, is partial, unequal, and unknown to the
constitution, and the constructions put upon it
for forty years and upwards. . -
The views thus presented, it would seem,
ought to be entirely conclusive upon this sub-
ject; but the equality supposed to be attained
by the amendment, as the committee have as:
ready reinarked, is more specious than solid.
Eleven members are to be given for fractions.—
Of these, the State of Delaware is to have one.
Her whole populatiou is 75,432. If she, then,
is to have two representatives for that number,
and equality is the object, every other State
ought to have in the same proportion. Apply
this rule to the population of the other States,
and we will find that New York, which has on-
ly forty by the amendient, ought to have fifty-
one; that Pennsylvania, which has twenty-eight,
ought to have thirty-six. To see the propor.
tionate number to which, according to the rule
assumed by the amendment, each of the States
would be entitled, the committee beg leave to
refer to the table annexed to this report, mark-
ed A. They beg leave, also, to refer to the
table B, to show the unequal operation of the
plan of the Senate by a comparison between
different States ; from which it appears, that
the seven States of New Hampshire, New Jer-
séy, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, Lou-
isiana, and Alabama, have an aggregate popu
lation of 1,959,960. The State of New York
has a population of 1,918,552. These seven
States having but 41,407 of representative po-
pulation more than New York, have, neverthe.
less, forty-four representatives assigned to them
by the Senate's amendment, whilst New York
has only forty representatives. With a differ-
cnce of population of only 41,407, these seven
States have four more representatives than New

York. But the increase of New York, in popu-
lation, for the last ten years, has been nearly
40 1-6 per centum, whilst that of those seven
States has been but 123 per cent. Is this an
apportionment “as near as may be,” among
these States, according to their respective num.
bers, or is it not, in fact, more unequal and un-
just than the inequality complained of in the
House bill?
The committee refer, also, to the table C, to
show what would have been the operation of
representing smajor fractions, if it had beer
adopted at the several apportionments of repre
sentatives, and, also, what its operation now is
by the Senate’s amendment. From which,
among others, this fact appears, that the State
of North Carolina, at every former apportion-
ment, would have been entitled to one addi-
tional representative, whilst the State of Mas-
sachusetts would never, until now, have been
entitled to such additional representative. By
the amendment of the Senate, however, North
Carolina is now excluded from a representative
for a fraction, and Massachusetts is now entitled
to a representative for a fraction. Not is it the
least of the objections to the plan assumed by
the Senate, that it demonstrates, if the princi-
ple be correct, the injustice which many of the
States have suffered at the hands of their own
representatives at all former apportionments
nor can the committee adopt, at the presen
day, a principle, whichs if true, would be 1
reproach to all the preceding functionaries d'
the Government, both legislative and executive,
who have heretofore acted upon the subject.
There is still another light in which this sub-
ject may be presented, to show whether we
are not, in fact, further from equality if we
adopt the amendment, than we shall be if we
adhere to the bill sent from this House to the
Senate, Let us compare a few of the States
with each other under the original bill, an!
under the amendment. By the original bill,the
ingguality between the unrepresented fractions
of Maryland and Virginia was 2,440; by the
amendment, Maryland , is over represented
23,592, an additional member being assigned
to that State for a fraction, and Virginia, by the
amendment, (that State having no representa-
tive assigned to her for a fraction,) is under re-
presented 21,488; so that to Ascertain the in-

over represented in the one, and the number, under represented in the other, must be added

45,080, which denoues the exact inequality between them. Now the inequality complained of in the bill, is not so great as this between any two States. By the bill, Vermont has the largest, and Georgia the smallest, unrepresented fraction; and the difference between them is 41,636. In like manner, the inequality between the unrepresented fractions of the States of North Carolina and South Carolina was, by the bill, 6,078. By the amendment, the inequality between those two States is 41,577.By the bill, the inequality between the unrepresented fractions of the States of Maine and

equality between those two States, the number .

together, which will produce the number,


Delaware, was 9,899. By "the amendment, the inequality between those two States is 37,713. By the bill, the inequality between the unrepresented fractions of the States of Pennsylvania and Alabama, was 11,536. By the amendment, the inequality between those two States is 35,834. The committee will not extend the comparison between States further, but refer the House to table D, from which it will be easy to calculate the relative inequality between the unrepresented fractions of any two states accorèng to the bill, and also according to the amendment proposed by the Senate. And it may well be questioned whether the amend– ment attains, in any degree, the object which it professes, of making an apportionment among the respective States, “as near as may be,” According so their respective numbers. Indeed the committee are of opinion that, if the constitutional objection, which they believe to be well founded, against the principle assumed by the amendment was removed, that still, so far from being a nearer approach to equality, it is, in fict, as between many of the States, more unequal and unjust than the bill itself as it passed this House, the inequalities of which it *its professed purpose to remedy. The table D exhibits, also, the relative effects of the two plans as compared with each other, upon the States respectively. It gives the relative rate Percent of the representative population of Sach State, compared with that of the whole United States; the rate per cent. of the repre*ion of each State, compared with the whole representation according to the amendment of the Senate, the rate per cent. which each State is over or under represented by the *cheme of the Senate's amendment, and the orcase per cent of population of each State from 1820 to 1830, The committee, in conclusion, beg leave to Present one other view of this subject, for the Purpose of showing that the bill of the House *PPortions representatives to the States, resPool", according to the rules of proportion, *d that the amendment of the senate does not. * The ratio 47,700 assumed by the bill, and *PPlied as a common divisor to the population othe States respectively, produces a House of 240 members; and the number assigned to each State, is is due proportion of the whole, as may be easily ascertained by working out 24 *ums in the rule of three. Thus the census has given us the population of each state, and the population of the whole United States; the bill oves a House of 240 members; but in making the apportionment of them among the States, in each of the twenty-four States there are found fractions, which, when added together, * found to be equal, at the ratio fixed by the bill, to 10 members; add the 10, thus lost by fractions, to 240, the number of the House, and you have 250, which would be the number of the House if the ratio of 47,700 was applied to the consolidated population of the '. instead of to that of the States respectively.—

Now, work out the various proportions thus: as the whole number of people of the United States is to 250, so is the whole Å. of people in each, State to the number of representatives to which each State is entitled—and it will be seen that the number thus found to belong to each State, is exactly the number assigned to each by the bill, and that, besides the number of members assigned to each State, the amount of which is equal to 240, there will also be found in each of the 24 answers, 24 fractions of 24 different values, the aggregate of all which fractions will be exactly equal to 10, and each of which being remainders, less than integers, must be lost. So that the result is precise y the same, whether a ratio be taken and applied to the States respectively, or whether the number of which the House shall consist is first fixed in the mind, and then the proportion of each State, by a simple process in common arithmetic, is ascertained. In both cases, the due proportion between the States, each losing its own fraction, is equally preserved, and must therefore be an apportionment according to the precepts of the ConStitution. To the Senate's plan no such rule of proportion can be applied. No process or proportion based upon the population of the States, respectively, of the United States; and the number 251 assumed by the amendment as the number of the House, will give to eleven of the States the number assigned to them respectively by the amendment. The amendment, therefore, does not apportion representatives among the States according to any rule of proportion, and is inconsistent, therefore, with the requirement of the Constitution. For a more ready reference to the history of the legislation of Congress on this subject, the committee have appended to this report extracts from the Journals of the two Houses, from which it will be seen that every attempt to procure a representation of fractions has been resisted and defeated. The committee recommend to the House to adhere to the practical construction given to the clause of the Constitution in question, by the enlightened patriots and statesmon who have so solemnly and repeatedly adjudged it. They recommend to the House the following resolution: Resolved, That this House do disagree to the amendment of the Senate to the said bill. * -



The House then, in pursuance of the order

of the preceding day, proceeded with the trial of General Houston, and Mr. BURGES, in a long and eloquent argument, urged the propriety and necessity of vindicating the violated rights of the representatives of the people.

[blocks in formation]

The question was taken on Mr. Hustington's

amendment, and decided in the affirmative, as follows: * YEAS–Messrs. Adams, C. Allan, Allison, Appleton, Armstrong, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, J. Barbour, Barnwell, Barringer, Barstow, I. C. Bates. John Blair, Briggs, Bullard, Burd, Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Coke, L. Condict, S. Condi, E. Cooke, B. Cooke, Corwin, Coul ter, Crane, Crawford, Creighton, Daniel, J. Davis, W. R. Davis, Dearborn, Denny, Dewart, Dickson, Doddridge, Duncan, Ellsworth, G. E. vans, J. Evans, E. Everett, H. Everett, Felder, Grennell, Griffin, Heister, Hodges, Hughes, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersoll, Irvin, Jenifer, Kendall, Kennon, H. King, Kerr, Letcher, Marshall, Maxwell, R. McCoy, McDuffie, Mc Kay, McKennon, Mercer, Milligan, Newnan, Newton, Pearce, Pendleton, Fitcher, Potts,

Mr. EVANS, of Maine, asked for the ayes and noes on the question of the amendment of Mr. Hu No. 1 NgtoN to declare the accused guilty of a contempt, and a violation of the privi

Randolph, J. Reed, Rencher, Root, Russel, Semmes, W. B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd, Slade, Smith, Southard, Spence, Stewart, Storrs, Sutherland, Taylor, Tompkins, Tracy, Vance, Verplanck, Winton, Wardwell, Washington, Watmough, wilkin, Wheeler, Elisha Waittlesey, F. Whttlesey, E. D. White,Wick.

[ocr errors]

NAYS–Messrs. Alexander, R. Allen, Anderson, Angel, Archer, Ashley, J. Bates, Beardsley, Bell, Bergen, Bethune, J. Blair, Boon, Bouck, Bouldin, John Brodhead, J. C. Brodhead, Bucher, Cambreleng, Carr, Carson, Chandler, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Connor, Craig, Davenport, Dayan, Doubleday, Drayton, Fitzgerald, Ford, Foster, Gaither, Gilmore, Gordon, T. H. Hall, W. Hall, Hammons, Har. per, Hawes, Hawkins, Hoffman, Holland, Horn, Hubbard, Jarvis, Jewett, R. M. John. son, C. Johnson, C. C. Johnston, Kavanagh, A. King, J. King, Lamar, Lansing, Leavitt, Lecompte, Lent, Lewis, Lyon, Mann, Mardis, Mason, McCarty, Wan. McCoy, McIntire, G. E. Mitchell, T. R. Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Nuckolls, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, E. C. Reed, Roane, Soule, Speight, Standifer, Ste. phens, F. Thomas, P Thomas, W. Thompson, J. Thomson, Ward, Wayne, Weeks, and Worthington–89. *

contempt, and of a violation of the privileges of the House. The question was then of agreeing to the resolution as amended, which was carried in the affirmative. . Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, offered an amend: onent, declaring it to be inexpedient to proceed

and that he forth with be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant at-Arms. , Mr. CLAY shortly observed, in support of his motion, that the accused had already been in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms for a month, which he thought a sufficient punishtnent. . . Mr. HUNTINGTON' moved to amend, by striking out all after the word Resolved, and inserting, * . That Saml. Houston be brought to the bar of the House on Monday next at 12 o'clock, and be there reprimanded by the Speaken, for the contempt and violation of the privileges of the House, of which he has been guily; and that he be then discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Resolved, That Samuel Houston be exclud£d from the exercise of the privilege conferred y the 13th standing rule of the House. Mr. DAVIS, of South Carolina, asked if the effect of the second resolution would not be to repeal the tule of the House, and whether, as such, it would not require a vote of twothirds. The SPEAKER referred to the rule in question, and to the 104th rule of the House, and decided that the resolution went to change at of...; the rule, and would of course requiré"a vote of two-thirds,

So Samuel Houston was declared guilty of a

further in the charge against Samuel Huu-ton, . Mr. MERCER appealed from the decision of the Chair. Some further remarks were made by WICK LIFFE, and Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. LAMAR asked for the ayes and noes on the question of the appeal, and they were orred.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The SPEAKER stated the case to the House, and the reasons which had actuated the Chair in its decision. Mr, MERCER, Mr. McDUFFIE, and Mr. ADAMS, contended that the rule in question did not apply to the resolution offered by Mr. Huntington. Mr. WAYNE, Mr. SUTHERLAND, Mr. WINTON, and Mr. ARCHER, followed in a desultory discussion, and upon a vote the appeal was sustained; ayes 89, noes 106. * the resolution was declared to be in orr. The resolution of Mr. CLAr, and the amendment of Mr. HuxTINGTN, were then read." Mr. LAMAR asked for a division of the question upon the amendment. Mr. WICKLIFFE asked for the ayes and noes on the proposition to amend, and they were ordered. Mr. ARCHER asked the House to work out the proposition they had laid down, and to im: prison the respondent. It would then be com. petent to try the question before a judicial tribunal, by a habeas corpus. A reprimand was the terror of schoolboys; and supposing Gen. Houston should refuse to receive it, how were they to proceed? Mr. HUNTINGTON said, that if the honorable member wished to try the right of the House, in such a way, he might do so by moving his proposition himself, as an amendment to the amendment then offered to the House; or if he wished to send the matter to another tri. bunal, to see if they would sustain the rights of that House, it would be an easy thing to do that Mr. H. objected to the words of the gentleman from Virginia, that the proposition then offered, “looked like a wish to creep eut” of the affair. So firfrom that, he had adopted the proposition as believing it to be the best adopted to express the sense of the House upon this violation of its rights. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, said he hoped the game would be played out. After having onvicted the accused on a charge which had

* characterized as one of a most flagilious!

kind, he could not conceive that it was an ade$ote punishment merely to bring the accused "the bar of that House to receive a reprimand; *pecially when the journals of the House would ** a most respectable minority vote, to dis harge and exhonerate him altogether. As to the latter branch of the resolution, that might be considered, perhaps, as an adequate punishment, but could they carry it with effect if they adopted it. Suppose the people of Tennessee hould think proper to send Mr. Houston as their representative to this House, would they in that case be able to enforce their resolution of exclusion? He trusted that some punishment

would be awarded adequate to the crime which

been committed.
Mr. HARPER moved the previous question,
but it was not seconded.
The question was then taken on the first
amendment of Mr. Hunt INgrox, to reprimand
General Houston at the bar of the House.
It was decided in the affirmative.
YEAS–Messrs. Adams, C. Allan, Allison,
Appleton, Armstrong, Arnold, Babcock, Banks,
J. S. Barbour, Barnwéll, Barringer, Barstow,
I. C. Bates, James Blair, Briggs, Bullard, Burd,
Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Coke, Collier, L.
Condict, S. Condit, E. Cooke, B. Cooke,
Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crawford, Creighton,
Daniel, J. Davis, W. R. Davis, Dearborn, Den-
ny, Dewart, Dickson, Doddrige, Duncan, Ells-
worth, George Evans, J. Evans, E. Everett, H.
Everett, Felder, Grennell, Griffin, Heister,
Hodges, Hughes, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersol,
Irvin, Jenifer, Kendall, Kennon, H. King, Kerr,
Letcher, Marshall, Maxwell, R. McCoy, Mc-
Duffie, McKay, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan,

Potts, Randolpo J. Reed, Rencher, Root, Russel, Semmes, W. B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd, Slade, Smith, Southard, Spence, Stewart, Storrs, Sutherland, Taylor, Tompkins, Tracy, Vance, Verplanck, Vinoon, Washington, Watmough, Wilkin, E. Whittlessey, F. Whittlessey, E. D. White, Wickliffe, Williams, Young.—106. NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, R. Allen, Anderson, Angel, Archer, Ashley, J. Bates, Beardsley, Bell, Bergen, Bethune. John Blair, Bouck, Bouldin, J. Brodhead, J. C. Brodhead, Bucher, Cambreleng, Carr, Carson, Chandler, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Connor, Craig, Da

rald, Ford, Foster, Gaither, G.lmore, Gordon, T. H. Hall, Wm. Hall, Hammons, Harper, Hawes, Hawkins, Høffman, Hogan, Holland, Horn, Hubbard, Jaños, Jewett, R. M. Johnson, C. Johnson, C. C. Johnston, Kavanagh, J. King, Lamar, Lansing, Leavitt, Lecompte, Lent, Lewis, Lyon, Mann, Mards, Mason, McCarty, Wm. McCoy, McIntire, T. R. Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Nuckolls, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, E. C. Reed, Roane, Soule, Speight, Standifer, Stephens, F. Thomas, P. Thomas, W Thompson, J. Thomson, Ward, Wardwell, Wayne, Weeks, Wheel, r, Worthington.—89. So the resolution was agreed to. Mr. CARSON expressed a hope that the second member of the amendment would not be agreed to. He adverted to General Houston's honorable character and conduct when a member of that House, and to the services he had rendered, and the wound he had received in the defence of his country. Mr. HUNTINGTON shortly urged the necessity of acting upon this resolution, which had been agreed to, declaring the accused guilty of a breach of privilege. Mr. CAMBRELENG hoped this part of the amendment would be rejected; it transcended even those powers which were exercised by the

British Parliament ; according to the arbitrary

Newnan, Newton, Pearce, Pendleton, Pitcher,

a majority of that House had decided to have ,

venport, Dayan, Doubleday, Drayton, Fitzge

« ForrigeFortsett »