H. OF R.] Apportionment Bill. [JAN. 17, 1832. this motion to insert 46,000 is carried, and is reported to the Un'on. They would retain, at least, their present the House. There 46,000 is disagreed to-of course, number; and this would be right. There is not to be found 48,000 stands in the bill. There is no necessity of recon- any particular principle governing the adoption of the sideration in the case. Every thing done in committee is ratio fixed by the committee; and he was wholly at a revised in the House, which only acts definitely upon bills. loss to know how they came to hit upon forty-eight thouMr. CRAIG said he was glad to hear of any mode by sand. Is the representation of the country, in the aggre. which they could be relieved from the embarrassments gate, sufficiently numerous? If so, then the ratio of into which the committee had been for three days plunged. the committee fails to accomplish that object. It in effect He would go even further in the spirit of compromise increases the representation. It takes from four States than he had before stated. If a majority shall fail to vote a portion of their present representation, and adds twenin favor of any ratio, he would pledge himself to support ty-four to the representation of other States. He said he the plurality. He would prefer any constitutional number was one of those who was of the opinion that there was to not passing the bill the present session. little danger of giving too great an increase to the popu The question was taken upon Mr. STEWART's amend-lar branch of the Government, by any ratio which should ment to insert 46,000, and lost. be agreed on. He was much more concerned that the Mr. STEWART said, when he had proposed the amend- increase would bear no just proportion to the increase of ment just lost, he had stated that he would move to amend the population of the country. There was another imby inserting every number from 46 to 55,000, in order portant fact in favor of the proposed amendment: it left to ascertain if any of them could obtain a majority. But, a less number, by eighty thousand, in the aggregate of as gentlemen seem inclined to try the question directly on fractions, unrepresented, than would be unrepresented if striking out 48,000, he would not now follow that course. we should adhere to the ratio of the committee. In fact, He was afraid, if it was expunged, we should be in the the aggregate of fractions would be less, by adopting open sea-that we should get into no other port--and that forty-four thousand as the ratio, than any other number, we shall have blockaded that harbor. with one exception, within the range of calculations. He would only add that if, in the opinion of the committee, the representation of the country in the aggregate was suffi Mr. ROOT said, though the question was impatiently ciently numerous, then let us establish a ratio which shall called for, he rose, not to produce delay, but to propose carry that principle fully into effect. But, if a different a mode to avoid the difficulty on the point of order, which sentiment prevails, let us not agree to any ratio which it had been painful to witness. He would move to amend shall do injustice to any single State in the Union. He the motion to strike out, by adding "for the purpose of would reserve to himself the right, hereafter, of answerleaving it blank to insert the ratio." By adopting this ing any objections which should be urged against his amendment, he said the motions to amend by inserting motion. The CHAIRMAN said the House would have perfect control over the proceedings of the committee. other numbers, coupled with 48,000, would be superseded. Mr. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, rose in support of Mr. The CHAIRMAN said that the proposition of the gen- HUBBARD'S motion, observing that the House, which, in tleman did not substantially add to, nor diminish, the ori-his opinion, had hitherto been fighting the wind, bad now ginal proposition, and did not come within the rules of amendment. The question on striking 48,000 out of the bill was taken and lost--yeas 84, nays 93. Mr. HUBBARD moved that the words "forty-eight," wherever they occur in the bill, be stricken out, and the words "forty-four" be inserted. Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, rose to a question of order. He remarked that, as the committee had just decided that the words "forty-eight" should not be stricken out, he presumed that a motion to strike out those same words, and insert others in their stead, could not be within the rule of order. Mr. HUBBARD rose to reply; when The CHAIRMAN announced that the motion of the gentleman from New Hampshire was strictly in order. arrived at the point where each member might propose the number he most preferred, and state at length the reasons of his preference. His objection to the number "48" was, that its operation took one representative from the State of New Hampshire, one from Massachusetts, one from Maryland, and one from Virginia. The effect was injurious in a twofold point of view: first, it took one member from each of two adjoining States; it left be. tween Massachusetts and New Hampshire, fractions almost sufficient to entitle those States to two other representatives, and between Maryland and Virginia it also left frac tions, which, though not so great, were sufficient to give one more representative. These fractions, added to the actual reduction, produced a result depriving Massachusetts and New Hampshire of nearly four members, and Maryland and Virginia nearly three. Besides which, Mr. HUBBARD remarked that he could not be insensi- there had heretofore always been maintained a certain ble of the solicitude of the committee to take the ques-balance between what were ordinarily denominated the tion, but he must ask their indulgence for a short time, different sections of the Union. But the bill, as reported, while he very briefly stated the reason which had induced would alter this balance by taking from two out of the him to present that motion. This was a question of great four sections two of their representatives. There was interest to the State he had the honor, in part, to repre- another reason why he preferred the number "44.” sent, and he should be unfaithful to his constituents, did While it took away no member from the present reprehe fail to present this motion to the consideration of the sentation of any State, it gave an increased number to committee. The practical effect of retaining forty-eight those States which had been so fortunate as to become thousand as the ratio of representation, will be to deprive entitled to it. To this result, those States which were four of the States in this Union of one in number of their comparatively stationary in their population could not ob representation. It deprives New Hampshire of one-sixth ject. They must submit to the depreciation of their rela part of her representation. True, that is a small State; but, tive force with what patience they could, since it prosince the last census, she has increased in population ceeded from an arrangement which inflicted upon them no nearly thirty thousand; and notwithstanding that increase, positive injury; but, should the number 48 be retained, a the ratio reported by the committee will deprive her in positive injury would be sustained. Besides, the number future of one in the number of her representation. This 44 would produce a House of Representatives containing would not be that even-handed justice which should be 259 members, a body which would bear exactly the same administered. The practical effect of substituting forty-proportion to the present population of the Union, which four thousand as the ratio, would be, not to take any from that did whose number was originally fixed by the constithe number of the present representation of any State in tution. At that time a House of Representatives consisting JAN. 17, 1832.] Apportionment Bill. [H. OF R. of 68 members, represented a population of 3,200,000, | State should be deprived of any of its present representaand now there would be a House containing four times the tion. If this committee were a convention to settle the number of representatives to represent a population four number of the House for all coming time, he did not knew times as numerous. Mr. A. briefly considered the objec- but he might be inclined to limit it to two hundred. But tion arising from such an increase in the number of the as we are representatives whose acts will not bind those House, observing that he had little fear of a too numerous who come after us, he thought it the duty of the House to representation, but thought with the gentleman from Rhode keep within a more direct principle; that the present reIsland [Mr. BURGES] that there should be some propor- presentatives of no State should now be lessened. It had tion between the prodigious and unexampled increase of been remarked that this would give us too large a House. our population, and that of their representatives. He had He thought it would not for many years to come. The rather see from 12 to 14,000,000 of people represented proportion of the British House of Commons was one-third in that House by 300 men, than on the ratio adopted which greater. We have 200 for 13,000,000. They have 600 had been first fixed by the constitution. He referred to for 24,000,000. He was satisfied that, under all circumthe objection made to that constitution by a number of the stances, the principle of not diminishing the represenStates, and to the fact that President Washington person-tation of any State was the only principle that could be ally interfered to have the number reduced from 35 to adopted at this time. If alteration should be necessary 30,000. hereafter, it could be done. By acting upon this basis we did not diminish the relative power of the States. Mr. MERCER said he thought the committee were under great obligations to the distinguished gentleman from Mr. CARSON had hoped, after the result of the vote Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] for drawing their attention to that had been taken, there would have been no further the true principles and real merits of the question. He debate. He was surprised to hear the distinguished genhad been astonished at the course of the debate--at the tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] state that until light and trivial manner in which a question of such grave now we had been fighting the wind--that for the first time and solemn moment had been discussed--a question in the committee had taken up a definite point, and this only which the honor and the rights of the nation were deeply when the motion was to strike out 48,000 and insert 44,000. involved. The gentleman from Massachusetts had traced There have certainly been before this committee motions the connexion and relations between this House and the to strike out 48,000 and insert various other numbers; but people-but had not turned his attention to the other why all of them were considered by the gentleman to be branches of the Government. He would briefly call the fighting the wind, he knew not. The only question before attention of the committee to this point. The number of the House is, what shall be the number of people to rethe House, upon the ratio now proposed by the motion of quire one representative? On this question the committhe gentleman from New Hampshire, [Mr. HUBBARD,] tee have decided. He hoped the discussion would be bears the same ratio to the number of the people, as the stopped. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MENCER] original House first formed under the constitution. The suggested that the check should not be more powerful grounds of that proportion have not come before the com- than the moving spring. Sir, this has always been the mittee. Why is it, that, by the constitution of the United case. It is so by the constitution. We could not alter it States, and of the several States, the Legislature is divid-if we would. ed into two distinct branches? In order to produce a check Mr. POLK said the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. upon each other. Upon what principle is this object to ADAMS] had objected to the ratio proposed in the bill, bebe attained in this House? As the reflection of popular cause four States lose by it each a representative. If this opinion. Upon what principle was the Senate formed? had been the first time such an instance had happened, it As a bulwark against the current of popular feeling. would be thought worthy of more consideration than it Would it be proper that the Senate should consist of the now is. At the former apportionment, Connecticut and greatest number--that the check should be more power- Vermont, contiguous States, each lost a representative, as ful than the direct action? The relative proportion between did Delaware and Virginia. The question is not therefore the two branches should be regarded. He thought the new. Delaware lost half of her representation-leaving ratio of 44,000 would not produce too great a number of a large fraction--a stronger case than any presented here. representatives. It was proper to regard the executive The gentleman makes a more serious question, that conand judicial powers of the Government, as to their relative tiguous States, in two distant sections of the country, each preponderance. We should consider the possible power lose one member; adverting to the former law, Connec of the Executive upon the action of this House-the extension of the operations of the Government--the increase of patronage. The number of the members ought to be fixed in reference to all these considerations. Without intending the slightest imputation, he would ask whether the number of the members of this House ought not to be so large as to destroy all suspicion of Executive influence. Men must be expected to be influenced by the common passions of their race. We ought to consider the incentives to the favor of the Executive branch, should the number be small, rather than to regard their immediate dependence upon their constituents. He did not intend to excite any improper feelings. Such views were large ly gone into by the convention which formed the constitu- Mr. BATES, of Massachusetts, would put it to the gen tion, and we, who are called on to apply the principles tleman from North Carolina [MP. CARSON] to say whether established by that convention, ought not to overlook them. it was surprising that New Hampshire should object to As officers are necessarily multiplied, from the increasing losing one-sixth, Massachusetts one-thirteenth, and Maryextent of our country, we ought to multiply the number land one-ninth part of their delegation here. of the members of this House, to take away all improper Mr. CARSON explained, by saying that his surprise was and undue sources of influence. expressed at the remarks of the gentleman from MassaMr. DEARBORN thought the ratio ought to be go-chusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] that before this motion was made verned by one of two principles: either the numbers of we were warring with the wind, but that now, and only the House be restricted to the present number, or that no now, had we come to the merits of the question. It was ticut and Vermont, contiguous States, cach lost one, and H. OF R.] Erie Commercial Bank.--The Tariff. [JAN. 18, 1832. In order to give a further opportunity for discussing this important subject, he would move that the committee rise, which was carried, and The House adjourned. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18. Mr. BATES repeated the facts to be so. These States have all great and increasing population-large and growing interests invested in them. Is a representation of 259 too numerous for a great people stretching over so vast a region, and embracing such a variety of pursuits and interests? He thought not. Was it no argument in favor of the ratio of 44,000, that it took from no State a representative? It was surely bad enough for the old States to lose their population and capital by emigration to the new States; they ought not in addition to be deprived of the representation they have enjoyed on this floor. He thought besides there was great weight in the argument urged by the gentleman from New Hampshire, [Mr. HUB-nia for information as to the amount of the debt, and how Mr. CARSON called on the gentleman from Pennsylva BARD,] that this ratio (44,000) left less fractions unrepre- much would probably be saved to the United States by the sented than any other. Mr. JENIFER said that the gentleman who made this motion, [Mr. HUBBARD,] stated it was done upon the principle that no State should be deprived of her representation on this floor. For his part, he heard the motion with pleasure. There was no occasion for him to repeat the various arguments that had been urged by different gentlemen with so much ability in support of this motion; one additional argument had occurred to him--it was, that in 1820 two members from the original thirteen States were taken from this floor. Was there any injustice done, he would ask, by the proposed ratio? By it each of the States would retain their present representation. Those who had been more prosperous than others, would receive a correspondent increase. Does this ratio make the House too large? This was the only question for the consideration of the committee. This principle of numerous representation was the strong republican feature of the constitution. Shall it be carried into full effect? A higher ratio might not operate unfavorably in regions where the population was dense; but, in Maryland and Virginia, where the population was sparse, the representative, at a higher ratio than 44,000, would rarely have any opportunity of seeing his constitu ents. It ERIE COMMERCIAL BANK. compromise. substance these: the original debt of the bank to the Mr. INGERSOLL explained the facts, which were in United States was $12,000; the bank had failed, but possessed certain lands, which it was willing to surrender sum which would thus be obtained would probably amount to the United States, if a clearance could be given; the to about $7,000; if the compromise were not made, the whole debt would certainly be lost. Mr. HOFFMAN inquired if it was the sentiment of the Committee of Ways and Means that the Secretary of the Treasury should have the same power in reference to all also from individuals. debts owing to the United States from other banks, and had actually been given to that officer by a bill which had Mr. INGERSOLL stated, in reply, that such authority passed this House at the last session; but the department thought special authority necessary in the present case. opinion that the proposed authority should be conferred; Mr. CAMBRELENG expressed his concurrence in the but, wishing the House to have opportunity for further information and reflection, he proposed that the subject be postponed for a few days. Mr. WHITTLESEY (whose residence is in the vicinity of the bank in question) made a further statement of the facts involved, and showed that, unless something should speedily be done, the amount due would be lost. Mr. INGERSOLL expressed his willingness to assent to some delay; when, after some further conversation, Mr. CAMBRELENG withdrew his objection, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to morrow. THE TARIFF. On motion of Mr. POLK, the House resumed the con sideration of the resolution offered by Mr. BOULDIN, of Virginia, on the 27th December ultimo. Can the spirit of the system be preserved without some bond of connexion between the representative and the represented? He thought not. He agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] that the question had not before come fairly up for discussion; it has heretofore turned entirely upon points of order. would seem that 48,000 was the favorite ratio. Those who were in favor of a larger or smaller one, had not, until to-day, assigned any reasons. The only reasons were those given by the chairman of the committee who reported the bill. He did not impeach his conduct, although it happens that this ratio of 48,000 has a more favorable operation upon his State than upon any other in the Union. He would not now go into the question at Mr. STEWART resumed the course of his remarks, length. He hoped gentlemen would consider that this which had been suspended yesterday. He concurred in duty of fixing the ratio of representation was one of the the opinion that this discussion was premature; he would most responsible and important duties that devolve upon therefore detain the House with but a few additional reus. It is to determine whether this Government is verging marks, in which he would introduce no new topic, but towards aristocracy, or whether we will still cling to our limit himself to a reply. The gentleman from New York republican institutions. Some of the principles that had [Mr. CAMBRELENG] has said that the protecting policy had been suggested he thought bordered very far upon anti- not only imposed taxes and burdens upon the country, republican principles. He thought the number of re- but also had built up and cherished monopolies and presentatives ought to be as large as possibly might com- gambling at the expense of the agricultural interests of port with the convenience of doing business in the House. the nation. So far from this being the fact, Mr. S. con. Mr. WAYNE said the hour had become late; and when tended that precisely the reverse was its effect; instead of he reflected upon the importance of the suggestions of encouraging, it destroyed monopoly; instead of injuring, the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] and it benefited the agriculture. By affording adequate proparticularly from Virginia, [Mr. MERCER,] he wished for time to consider. Besides, at that time he did not possess the physical ability to take part in the discussion as he had wished. He hoped the committee would rise. He would admonish gentlemen that this was the place to fight the battle. If they went into the House, the gentlemen in favor of the ratio of 48,000 would cut them off from discussion by moving the previous question, tection, you invite an enlarged investment of capital-you increase the number of manufacturing establishments, increase the quantity of manufactured goods, and thereby necessarily diminish their price; while, on the other hand, you increase the markets and the demand for every thing produced by the farmer--wool, cotton, provisions of all kinds, and, by increasing the demand, you as necessarily increase their price. This was an established law of trade, JAN. 18, 1832.] The Tariff. [H. OF R. invariable and universal in its application. If, for instance, throughout our country--a measure which, for one, he in a given district of country there be a single manufac- would never consent to abandon, to satisfy an opposition, turing establishment, say of woollens, having the mono- which, originate where it may, at home or abroad, he bepoly, it was enabled to dictate to the surrounding farmers lieved in his soul to be utterly unfounded. the prices of both its own and their productions; but, Mr. CAMBRELENG here stated that it was his hope suppose, by increasing the protection, you invite new in- the gentleman from Pennsylvania would not make the vestments, attract new capital into the business, and, instead few remarks which he [Mr. C.] had offered on a preceding of one, there spring up four other woollen establishments day, an apology for a long tariff debate. As to the term in this immediate neighborhood: what is the practical applied to the tariff of 1828, that it was a "bill of effect? Is it not to encourage monopoly at the expense abominations," he could assure the gentleman he was of the farmer? Or is it not to destroy the monopoly, and not its father. It came from one of his [Mr. S.'s] own encourage agriculture? The increased protection would associates. thus create a demand for four times as much wool, and Mr. STEWART resumed. He had no wish to protract provisions of all kinds; and thus, by increasing the market the debate. He should not have entered at all into it, had and demand for every thing the farmer had to sell, would it not been for the nature of the observations pursued by necessarily increase his prices and his profits; while, on the gentleman from New York. Mr. S. concluded by the other hand, there being four times as much cloth expressing his wish that the inquiries of the committee to manufactured and thrown into the market, the price of which the resolution should be referred might be further cloth would as necessarily decline. Thus the encourage-extended, so as to show the difference of prices now paid ment afforded to manufactures, by increasing the demand, for certain articles, and those paid at the time of passing would improve the price of agricultural productions, the tariff laws. He would, for that purpose, propose an while, by increasing the quantity, it would reduce the price amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from of the manufactured goods. This, Mr. S. said, was the Massachusetts, [Mr. DAVIS.] plain and practical operation of the protecting system; yet, in the face of these facts, we are told by those who ought to know better, that the effect of this policy was to tax the farmer for the benefit of the manufacturer! His country and his constituents were essentially agricultural; it was to create a home market for them; it was to promote their interests and advance their prosperity, that he advocated the tariff policy. He concurred with the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. DAVIS,] that every dollar of capital employed in the manufacture of wool gave employment to five dollars of capital employed in agriculture. This position had been fully demonstrated, so that $200,000 invested in manufactures gave profitable employment to a million of dollars invested in agricultural pursuits, so that its benefits were as five to one in favor of States; and to accompany their report, if they shall the farmer. The SPEAKER said that amendment had not yet been offered to the House. Mr. DAVIS then submitted the following amendment: Strike out all before and after the word "Resolved," and insert the following: That the Committee on Manufactures be instructed to inquire into, and report to the House, (if they possess the information,) the practical effect of the revenue laws upon the commerce, agriculture, and manufactures of this country; also, whether frauds are not perpetrated in the importation of goods, and the revenue thereby reduced, and how such frauds may be suppressed; also, whether the statute value of the pound sterling ought not to be so modified as to conform to the actual value in the United make one, by the evidence upon which it shall be pre The gentleman from New York, referring to the tariff dicated. of 1828, has called it a bill of abominations. This was a Mr. WICKLIFFE said that he felt gratified at observname familiar to his ear. He well recollected that it was ing that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEWART] so called at the time of its passage. We were then told, was aware of the inexpediency of entering into a lengthnot only by the gentleman from New York, but by all its ened discussion upon the subject in its present stage. A opponents, that this bill, if passed, would destroy the debate of this nature upon a resolution of inquiry was revenue, compel a resort to direct taxation, annihilate certainly not out of order, but it appeared to him to be commerce, ruin the farmers, and crush the community out of time and place to get up now a discussion upon the under an intolerable load of taxes and burdens. Well, tariff generally. There would, no doubt, be abundant sir, it passed, and has been some three or four years in opportunities afforded to argue that question, both pro operation; and what has been the result? Have these and con, during the present session, when every gentleinan prophecies been fulfilled? Has it destroyed the revenue? would be enabled to express his sentiments upon it. It No, sir; it has paid off your national debt at the rate of seemed to be admitted upon all hands, by both the advotwelve or fifteen millions a year. And we are now told cates and adversaries of the tariff, that something must be by the same gentleman that the tariff must be repealed; done with it before they separated, and the time would not because it has destroyed, but because it has produced soon arrive when they should be called upon to take it too much revenue! Has it destroyed commerce? Com- into consideration. The difficulty he feared would then merce, like the revenue, has increased and flourished arise of adjusting it on such principles as would meet the beyond all former example. Has it ruined the farmer and sentiments of a majority of that House. The resolution wool grower? Let them answer; they will tell you their of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BOULDIN,] he obbusiness was never more prosperous. Has it taxed and served, called for information not only for those of his own burdened the community? No, sir; the prices of all the opinion with regard to that great question, but also for manufactures embraced within the range of its protection information which would equally serve to enlighten those have been greatly reduced. Thus had this measure, so who differed from him in their views with regard to it. loudly denounced here and elsewhere, falsified all the He [Mr. W.] was for eliciting information for each; but predictions of its enemies, and more than fulfilled the as they were at present going on, instead of obtaining highest hopes of its friends. To England, truly, it had the information required by either, they would spend been a bill of abominations; but to us it had been a bill the session in debating amendments. Let the gentlemen fraught with benefits and blessings. Well might the who advocate the tariff system, submit their propositions British Chancellor call it a bill of abominations! But such of inquiry, distinct and separate from the resolution of language ill became an American statesman on that floor, the gentleman from Virginia, and they should receive his in reference to a measure which had vindicated its adop- [Mr. W.'s] vote; he would vote also for the proposition of tion by all its fruits--by all its happy and glorious results--those opposed to it, in order that both sides of the question by the high prosperity it had every where produced might be laid open. With a view, therefore, of getting VOL. VIII.-99 H. OF R.] Apportionment Bill. [JAN. 18, 1832. the information by setting the committee--he was almost ject, they would, perhaps, find they had less reason to indifferent which--to work upon it, he should, if it met complain of the fractions left their respective States, than with the approbation of the House, move the previous they had supposed. They would then be prepared to question. vote on principle, and we should find less difficulty in Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, asked if the effect passing a bill. He was not partial to a ratio of 48,000; it of the previous question would not be to cut off the would leave his State a large fraction-a fraction of more amendment. than 41,000. But if even that number suited a majority of the House, he presumed the State of New York The call for the previous question was seconded by a would not complain. We had heard that Virginia and Maryvote of yeas 96, nays 77. land would have large fractions by which they would Mr. VANCE called for the yeas and nays on the pre-suffer injustice. Well, what ought to be their fractions? vious question, and the call being sustained by the requisite number, they were ordered. The SPEAKER said it would. Mr. ADAMS asked if the previous question precluded amendments afterwards. The SPEAKER observed that it would. The question would then recur on the original resolution and preamble. The SPEAKER then propounded the previous question in the words following: "Shall the main question now be put?" N. B. The main question was on agreeing to Mr. BOULDIN's resolution without amendment, and it was decided by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS.—Messrs. Adair, Alexander, Anderson, Archer, Ashley, John S. Barbour, Barnwell, Barringer, Barstow, James Bates, Bethune, James Blair, John Blair, Boon, Bouldin, Branch, John Brodhead, John C. Brodhead, Cambreleng, Carr, Carson, Chandler, Chinn, Clay, Coke, Conner, Craig, Daniel, Davenport, Warren R. Davis, Drayton, Duncan, Fitzgerald, Foster, Gaither, Gordon, Griffin, T. H. Hall, W. Hall, Hammons, Harper, Hawes, Hawkins, Heister, Hoffman, Holland, Horn, Howard, Hubbard, Isacks, Jarvis, Jewett, R. M. Johnson, C. Johnson, C. C. Johnston, Kavanagh, A. King, J. King, H. King, Lamar, Lansing, Lecompte, Lewis, Lyon, Mardis, Mason, Maxwell, McCarty, W. McCoy, McDuffie, McIntire, T. R. Mitchell, Newnan, Nuckolls, Patton, Pierson, Polk, E. C. Reed, Rencher, Roane, W. B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd, Soule, Standifer, W. Thompson, Verplanck, Ward, Wardwell, Weeks, C. P. White, Wickliffe, Worthington.-93. At a ratio of 48,000, the aggregate of fractions would be 547,483, which, divided amongst the twenty-four States, would give an average of 22,812. The fraction of Virginia would be 21,843, and that of Maryland, 15,503. Virginia would be favored about 1,000, and Maryland about 7,000. These would be favored States. If gentlemen were determined their States should have no fractions at all, or even less than the average fractions, it would be evident that no ratio whatever could unite a majority of votes, and, of course, we could not pass a bill. Mr. SPEIGHT understood the question now before the House to be on a proposition to strike out 48 and insert 44. He should vote against that proposition. No member of that House was more disposed than himself to accommodate the views and consult the interests of what were termed the old States, and he should be willing to do so in the present case, if he did not think the means by which that end was proposed to be accomplished were at variance with the public interest. In settling the ratio of representation, it was his opinion that the public interest required that the members of that House should be lessened; for, by so doing, they would increase not only its order and decorum, but facilitate the despatch of business. For these reasons he was against the number 44. It had been said that a low ratio was consistent with the pure principles of democracy. He thought those principles would be better sustained by a smaller disbursement of the public money, and a greater despatch of public business. Did not the experience of every day in that House bear testimony in favor of this position? Was not the most NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Allan, Allison, Angel, Ap- trivial proposition swallowed up in endless debate? What pleton, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, Noyes Barber, I. C. would be the consequence of adopting the number 44? It. Bates, Beardsley, Bergen, Bouck, Briggs, Bucher, Bul- would swell the number of that House to 259. On the lard, Burd, Burges, Cahoon, Choate, Claiborne, Collier, same principle of increase, in a few years, instead of L. Condict, S. Condit, E. Cooke, B. Cooke, Cooper, building a capitol, they would have to provide barracks Corwin, Coulter, Crane, Crawford, Creighton, J. Davis, for their representatives. One reason brought forward Dayan, Dearborn, Denny, Dewart, Dickson, Doddridge, against 48 was, that some of the old States would lose a Doubleday, Ellsworth, G. Evans, J. Evans, E. Everett, representative. Had not Delaware lost one on a former H. Everett, Findlay, Ford, Gilmore, Grennell, Hughes, apportionment? And had not Virginia been subjected to Hunt, Huntington, Ihrie, Ingersoll, Irvin, Jenifer, Kendall, a similar forfeiture? If the principle was acted on in 1821, Kennon, Leavitt, Mann, Marshall, R. McCoy, McKennan, why not adhere to it now? He feared that another princiMercer, Milligan, Muhlenberg, Newton, Pitcher, Plum- ple might operate in some cases against a higher number; mer, Potts, Randolph, J. Reed, Root, Russel, Slade, he feared that it was wished to make our treasury disburseSouthard, Stanberry, Stephens, Stewart, Storrs, Suther-ments larger; and the adoption of 44 would increase our land, Taylor, P. Thomas, J. Thomson, Tompkins, Tracy, expenditure thirty or forty thousand dollars. But he Vance, Washington, Watmough, Wilkin, Wheeler, E. hoped a different policy would be pursued in that House. Whittlesey, F. Whittlesey, E. D. White, Young.--95. He believed the true principles of democracy consisted So the House decided that the main question should not in an economy of the public money; and he likewise now be put, which decision, according to a rule of order, thought that the country would be better satisfied with a removed the subject to which it related from the conside- fixed number, than with an extensive representation. ration of the House for one day. APPORTIONMENT BILL. The House then, on motion of Mr. POLK, went into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. HOFFMAN in the chair, and took up the apportionment bill. The question was on the amendment moved by Mr. HUBBARD to strike out 48,000, and insert 44,000, so as to make the latter the ratio. Mr. GRENNELL, of Massachusetts, said he was in favor of the amendment which proposed to fix the ratio of representation at 44,000. That ratio would give a House of Representatives, consisting of 259 members, and more numerous, by 46, than the present. In briefly assigning the reasons for the vote he should give on this question, it was not his purpose, he said, to call the attention of the committee to any minute calculation of the effect of various ratios. Every practical calculation of Mr. DOUBLEDAY said that he rose merely to correct that sort, on ratios as high as 60,000, seemed to have a false impression that appeared to prevail in respect to been laid before the House, and must be familiar to the the fractions. If gentlemen would investigate this sub-members. |