H. OF R.] Chickasaw Treaty.-Apportionment Bill. [JAN. 26, 1832. ceed to the consideration of the resolution affirming the negotiated treaties with the Choctaws and Chickasaws; power of the Supreme Court over the criminal laws of the that the treaties were concluded, and were ready for subStates? submitted by Mr. PENDLETON on the 3d of Janua- mission. One of these treaties had been submitted to that ry instant, recurred: And the said question being put, it was decided in the negative, as follows: House, the other had not. He considered the document as a fair subject for a call and inquiry. The Indian relations were before the House--the document was an important one, and he wished to know its nature. YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Angel, Appleton, Armstrong, Arnold, Babcock, Banks, Noyes Barber, Barstow, Beards- Mr. ISACKS, while he could see no good reason for ley, Bergen, Briggs, Cahoon, Choate, Collier, Lewis Con- the proposed call, perceived a strong reason against it dict, Silas Condit, Bates Cooke, Cooper, Corwin, Coulter, from its interference with the constitutional prerogative of Craig, Crane, Crawford, John Davis, Dearborn, Dewart, the Executive and his advisers. To take out of the hands Dickson, Ellsworth, George Evans, Joshua Evans, Edward of the Senate treaties which were in progress, but not conEverett, Horace Everett, Ford, Grennell, Heister, Hughes, summated, went to defeat the intent and purpose of the Hunt, Huntington, Ingersoll, Jenifer, Jewett, Kendall, constitution. It was the right and practice of that body Lamar, Mann, Marshall, McCoy, McKennan, Mercer, Mil- to discuss treaties in secret session; but calls like this ligan, Newton, Pearce, Pendleton, Pitcher, Randolph, would expose them to all the world. He believed the treaty John Reed, Aug. H. Shepperd, Slade, Southard, Stan- in question had not been concluded, and could not be, berry, Storrs, Sutherland, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Phile- until the result of the examination by the Chickasaws of mon Thomas, Christopher Tompkins, Tracy, Vance, the lands in the West proposed to be given to them in Washington, Wilkin, Wheeler, Elisha Whittlesey, Frede- exchange for those they were to relinquish, should be offirick Whittlesey, Edward D. White, Lewis Williams, Ebe- cially known. nezer Young.-76. Mr. EVERETT observed that as he expected, from the promise of the Secretary of War, that day to see the original treaty, he would consent to the postponement of the resolution until to-morrow, and it was postponed accordingly. APPORTIONMENT BILL. NAYS.--Messrs. Adair, Alexander, Allison, Anderson, Archer, John S. Barbour, James Bates, Bell, Bethune, John Blair, Boon, Bouck, John Brodhead, Bucher, Burd, Cambreleng, Carr, Chinn, Claiborne, Clay, Clayton, Coke, Conner, Davenport, Dayan, Doddridge, Doubleday, Drayton, Felder, Fitzgerald, Gilmore, Gordon, Griffin, Thomas H. Hall, William Hall, Hawes, Hoffman, Hogan, Holland, Horn, Howard, Ihrie, Isacks, Jarvis, Cave Johnson, Charles C. Johnston, Kavanagh, Kennon, Adam King, John King, Henry King, Lansing, Leavitt, Lecompte, Lent, Lewis, Mardis, Mason, Maxwell, William McCoy, Thomas R. Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Newnan, Nuckolls, Patton, Pierson, Polk, Edward C. Reed, Rencher, Roane, Mr. HOWARD said that, before calling the attention of Root, Russel, Wm. B. Shepard, Soule, Speight, Standi- the committee to that clause of the constitution, upon the fer, Wiley Thompson, John Thomson, Verplanck, Ward-true construction of which the decision of the present mowell, Weeks, Campbell P. White, Worthington.--83. So the House refused at this time to consider the resolution. CHICKASAW TREATY. The following resolution, moved yesterday by Mr. EVERETT, of Massachusetts, came up for consideration: Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to this House a copy of the treaty negotiated with the Chickasaw tribe of Indians in the year 1830. Mr. POLK remarked that the call for a treaty which had not been presented to the Senate, or ratified, was an unusual proceeding. He should not, however, oppose the resolution. The House then, on motion of Mr. POLK, went into Committee of the Whole on the apportionment bill. The question being on the motion of Mr. HOWARD, of Maryland, so to amend the bill that the new apportionment should not take effect until after the pending Presidential election. The tion depended, there were one or two preliminary remarks that he wished to make, in justice to himself and to the point he had brought forward for consideration. He wished to disavow, in the first place, any unfriendly feeling towards those rapidly increasing Western States that would be chiefly benefited by an increased number of the members of this House, and, of course, share most largely in the corresponding increase of electoral votes for President which the bill, in its present shape, would give them. It was not necessary to refer to the votes which he had given ever since he had the honor of a seat in this body, to manifest the interest which he took in their prosperity, and his willingness to promote it upon every occasion. people of those States were identical with the people of the Atlantic border; and whatever might be the state of feeling at some far distant day, it was not to be supposed that any other than a common feeling of affection and interest would prevail when the original emigrants who setMr. BELL (chairman of the Committee on Indian Af- tled that country had not yet passed away. Looking forward fairs) could not understand the reason for this call, or how to a still closer connexion than even now prevailed, the it could be useful to have laid before the House a mere inhabitants on this side of the mountains were pushing forprovisional contract, which, as he understood, had never ward works of improvement in every direction, to act been ratified even by the officers who negotiated it; which hereafter as additional ligaments to bind together in tighter certainly had not become even an Indian treaty; a part of bonds of union these sections of our common country. In the condition having, as he believed, not yet been assent- maintaining, therefore, the constitutional rights of the ed to by the Chickasaws. The constitution had made it State which he had the honor, in part, to represent, and the duty of the Senate to inquire whether the public interest was likely to suffer by any proposed arrangement with foreign nations or the Indian tribes. That was the body whose peculiar duty it was to stand between the Indians and any injustice that might be meditated against them. He believed the usage of the House was against such a call. Mr. EVERETT stated that the treaty had been referred to in the report of the Secretary of War, made to Congress at the beginning of the last session. Mr. EVERETT, in support of the resolution, referred to the documents accompanying the President's last message, in which the Secretary of War states that he had which she possessed in common with other States; in resisting a species of legislation which would put these our children into possession of the rights of their ancestors, which they would receive by inheritance in the ordinary course of things, but which they ought not to claim whilst that ancestor is alive and vigorous, he trusted that no one would accuse him of a desire to retard the advancement of those interesting and growing communities. He disclaimed every feeling of the kind. Mr. H. said he disavowed, also, any wish to mix up with 832 JAN. 26, 1832.] e of 04 this abstract. What, then, is the question that presents itself? The second section of the second article of the constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Con the examination of this constitutional point any reference settled down upon Mr. Madison as the President for his ub to the party politics of the day. He had never suffered second term, and it was, therefore, of little importance that himself to inquire into the chances of benefiting this or how many votes each State was to give. But to whatever enthat individual by the adoption of the proposed course. It cause it was owing, the propriety of the course was not ela was a matter that went back to the construction of this called into question, and the mere silence of Congress in confederacy, and was to be decided by principles purely could never be considered as a sufficient precedent in itself to settle a constitutional point. for There was still another point to be disposed of. The st it bill, as reported by the committee, was framed, he was aware, in conformity with all preceding bills upon the nds) same subject, and if the practice of the Government had Obeen settled, he would have been unwilling to disturb it. the But it was not. Owing to the circumstance of the recurrence of the census every ten years, and the Presidential gress." election every four years, it was manifest that they could What kind of title is here meant? The bill proposed is coincide only once in twenty years. According to the to go into effect on the 3d of March, 1833, and the apbill as reported, taken in conjunction with the act of Con-pointment of electors is to be made in the fall of 1832. gress of 1792, the effect of the ratio that may now be The act of 1792 declares that the number to be appointed adopted would be felt in the representatives of the States shall be that to which the State shall be entitled on the in the executive branch of the Government, for months day when the President, so to be elected, shall go into before it would begin to operate upon the legislative office, viz. 4th March. This bill, then becoming operabranch; and this particular conjuncture had only happen- tive on the 3d March, will have been the law for one day, ed twice since the establishment of the Government, once and thus the act of 1792 requires the adoption of the in 1792, again in 1812, and would not occur again until numbers to which the States shall have been entitled for another revolution of the political cycle in 1852. The that one day. It is somewhat singular, that although this precedent set in 1792, and the law of Congress then en- bill is not to commence its binding force until the 3d acted, he thought not similar to the present case, because March, 1833, yet, unless the amendment be adopted, it is the apportionment of representation made in the constitu- called into a premature existence by virtue of an old act, tion itself was intended and expressed to be only a tempo- and compelled to antedate itself nearly six months, and The rary arrangement. After directing an enumeration of the to become effective long before the period assigned by inhabitants of the country, the constitution goes on to say, the House for its commencement. The States will have, "until such enumeration be made, the State of New during next fall, two titles to representation, one in posHampshire shall have," &c. &c. This, then, being only session, and the other in reversion. Which one of these a provisional and temporary arrangement, it was the duty does the constitution contemplate? That of which she is of Congress to discard it at the earliest possible opportu- in the full, peaceable, and indisputable enjoyment, or that nity, and substitute therefor the acknowledged rights of which is contingent and liable to be changed at the second the States, as manifested by that census. Mr. Martin, session of this very Congress? It seems to me that the one of the delegates from Maryland to the convention that only intelligible guide is, for the State to look to the reframed the constitution, had said, in his report to the Le- presentation that she has at the time when she makes the gislature of that State, that the large States had inten- appointment. Maryland, for example, has now nine memtionally concealed the extent of representation to which bers of this House, and will continue to have for fourteen they would be entitled, in order to persuade the small months to come; but if the ratio of forty-eight thousand States more readily to accede to the new Government. be adopted, of which the vote of yesterday seems decisive, But this was a groundless suspicion, and arose from the she will, at a future day, be entitled only to eight. Is it a great jealousy entertained by Mr. Martin of the influence sufficient answer to her claim to nine votes in the electoral which the large States would acquire. But, from the college for her representation here, to say, that because great increase of members in the House under the first at some remote period she shall be curtailed to eight, census, running up from sixty-five to one hundred and five, therefore she shall not enjoy the influence which nine it was sufficiently apparent that the temporary basis as would give her up to the arrival of that distant day? sumed in the constitution was properly disregarded as Should a voter present himself at the polls to vote for a soon as correct data were obtained. In 1792, then the member of this House, who was ill of a mortal disease, States were indulged in the enjoyment of their political would it be sufficient to tell him that he would be dead weight in the election of the Executive, before they be- before the member elected could enter upon the duties came entitled to it in the legislative branch, from the pe- of his office, and therefore he could not vote? or, taking culiar state of things which renders such a measure not the case of those States who are to gain in the representaonly proper, but unavoidable. In 1812 the same occur- tion, would it be sufficient to say to an inhabitant of Virrence happened; and had the question then been raised ginia, (where, I believe, they still require a freehold qualiand determined in the negative, Mr. H. said he would fication,) who presented himself at the polls with a deed have been willing to acquiesce in the decision. But upon in his hand, which a friend had promised to execute at a reference to the journals, it would be found that when the future day, that his right of suffrage was perfect? No, House were occupied with the discussion of this question, sir, you can only look to the situation of the voter at the they were also engaged in the report of the Committee on time when he gives his vote; and in the election of a PreForeign Affairs, a matter of absorbing interest. There sident of this nation, the States, acting for their people, was another reason, perhaps, why the point was not sug- and through their colleges, are so many voters. What a gested, which was, that every State gained, or, at all singular spectacle will be presented when the represenevents, did not lose, representatives upon this floor, and, tatives from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, therefore, was less disposed to stir the inquiry; but now, and Virginia, shall be called upon to witness the counting when four States are to lose a member each, and other of the electoral votes! They will see an operation in States to increase their positive numbers, it becomes a political surgery performed by the severance of a limb matter of interest to adjust their relative weight in the from each of those States, and by means of some powerful concerns of the confederacy, according to their constitu- cerate the limb will be restored to its place on the next tional rights. There was still another cause, perhaps, day, and those very States walk into this Hall in full prowhy the question was not agitated; public opinion had portions, to exercise their legislative functions, By what H. OF R.] Apportionment Bill. [JAN. 26, 1832. authority do we legislate a difference between the weight what a strange spectacle it will present—a ratio acted upon of a State in the executive and legislative branches of before the day upon which it was limited to take effect, the Government of the Union? Is not the former as dear and changed before it became a law. What would be to her as the latter? Either the number of members upon come of the election? Would it be set aside? Such a this floor must be instantly curtailed, or the number of measure would be impossible; and yet, if forty-four thou electoral votes correspond with those members, or there sand should then be adopted, how would the curtailed influmust be a difference between the influence of a State in ence of these four States ever be made up? It may be said the executive and legislative branches. I deny that any that any ratio would preserve the same relative weight. such difference exists—I deny that any State in this Union If this were true, it would be a sufficient answer; but it is is more willing to part with her constitutional control not true. A change in the ratio would leave large or over the one than over the other. What is the reason small unrepresented fragments in the various States, and given for the proposed legislation? It is, that the Presi- thus augment or diminish their relative influence. dent will come into power with a Congress elected upon such a change is not probable, is no solution of the diffithe new apportionment, and, therefore, he ought to be culty. In the investigation of powers, extreme cases may so elected also. This might have been a good reason sometimes be put for illustration; but though this case for making the constitution different from what it is, but will not probably occur, it is, nevertheless, not an exit is not sufficient to divest a State of the right which she treme case. has acquired by compromise in the confederacy. I con That gated the subject more thoroughly, he would have admitted that the question to which this resolution referred must be admitted to have been fully settled; and the gentleman himself had said that, if he could have viewed it as a question settled, he should not have moved his amendment. I have not attempted to follow out these principles in tend that her representation, in all its branches, must all their ramifications; but rather glanced at the leading exist until changed by a new apportionment. It is a suc- considerations, and will occupy the time of the committee cession of (to use a word coined either for or by this no longer. House) political minimums; the duty remains up to a cer- Mr. POLK, of Tennessee, rose in reply, and expressed tain point, and then changes at once. As long as her his regret that the gentleman from Maryland had felt it power remains, she has a right to exercise it; and if the his duty (and he was sure that nothing but a sense of duty selection of the individual who is to occupy the Presiden- had actuated him) to present at this time a question intial chair may possibly be determined by the admission or volving such important principles, and proposing what rejection of the right now in question, how can it more he considered as a departure from the whole usage of the deeply affect the interests of the nation than laws which Government, ever since the period when it first went into may be enacted to last for half a century? Maryland has operation. He was satisfied, if the gentleman had investinow eleven votes out of two hundred and sixty-one; you propose to allow herten out of two hundred and eighty-five, because the effect of her vote is to be felt for four years, and yet you continue, after such curtailment, to allow her nine votes in this House upon the passage of laws. Suppose, for example, (and I am almost afraid to use an illustration which may possibly, but which I hope will not be Mr. P. said he would undertake to show that, by the misunderstood,) that after you had witnessed her ten usage and sanction of this Government, the question was votes counted before you, reduced to ten, because the settled. The bill now reported was a literal transcript of influence of the vote was to commence in two months four successive bills, which had been reported under prethereafter, and be continued for four years, it should so vious enumerations. What was the proposition of the happen that the charter of the Bank of the United States gentleman from Maryland? It was, by changing the period should be renewed for fifteen years, and be carried by at which the bill was to take effect, from the 3d to the that very one vote that you had previously rejected: 6th day of March, 1833, to produce this result: that the would not this demonstrate the utter inconsistency of number of electoral votes given in the several States, at your legislation, in denying her fair proportion in one the approaching Presidential election, should be equal to branch of the Government, while you suffer it to remain the present number of Representatives and Senators reentire in the other? I use the case for illustration merely. presenting those States respectively; instead of making Suppose that a direct tax were now to be assessed upon the number of those votes correspond with the number of the States, according to my interpretation of the consti- Representatives and Senators to which the same States tution, it would be apportioned according to the present would be entitled according to the last census. On this number of representatives in this Hall, adding thereto subject, Mr. P. said that the House was in possession of the fragments in the several States, shown by the cen- two precedents-the very case occurred twice before. sus of 1820. I cannot believe that, however willing some The last period at which President Washington had gone of the States may be to discount their future influence, into office, was on the 4th of March, 1793. In the spring and enter upon the immediate enjoyment of the proceeds, of 1792, there had been a new apportionment, and the they would be desirous of paying in anticipation. Taught, Presidential election occurred in the fall of that year. By as I have been, that taxation and representation should go the census of '92, the number of representatives had hand in hand, and finding them, as I do, closely inter- been increased from sixty-five to one hundred and five. woven in the constitution, I do not believe that the people The number of Senators was at that time thirty, and the of these States would consent to pay taxes beyond the proportional influence with which they had participated in laying them. If this be so, and if the four States that I have mentioned should be taxed according to their existing strength here, with what justice can they be debarred from the share of influence which they would then be paying for the use of it? total number of electoral votes was one hundred and thirty-five; yet that number of electoral votes was given when the actual number of representatives in the House was only sixty-five. At the time of Mr. Madison's second election, in 1812, the number of representatives, under the census taken in 1800, had been one hundred and forty-one. By the census of 1810, that number had been In making this apportionment, Congress are discharging increased to one hundred and eighty-one. Had the genn ministerial duty. Whether they would have a right to tleman's rule prevailed, there ought to have been but change the ratio, after it had once gone into operation, I one hundred and seventy-seven electoral votes; but, instead will not now stop to inquire; but it must be admitted that of that there were two hundred and seventeen; because such a change could be effected at any time prior to the those votes were counted, not according to the number of 3d of March, 1833, because the bill does not propose to members actually in the House, but according to the numgo into operation until that day. Should this be done,ber which would come in under the new census. JAN. 26, 1832.] Apportionment Bill. [H. of R. And even These were the only two precedents which had taken were to be in proportion to the number of representatives, place; and so far as usage or authority could go, they then it would follow that States having the same number put the question at rest. But the practice was settled by of members must always pay the same amount of taxes. still better authority, if better could be. The gentleman But, in 1813, when it had been necessary to raise a tax of from Maryland seemed only to have referred to the ap-six millions, there were six States which happened to posportionment bill of 1792; but there was another act pass- sess precisely equal strength on that floor, each having ed on the 5th of March, in the same year, which related six representatives. According, then, to the gentleman's expressly to the election of President, the first section of theory, each of those States ought to have paid an equal which provided that the electoral votes in each State quota of taxation. But such had not been the fact. They should be equal to the number of Senators and Represen- were taxed according to their population, as given by the tatives which that State might have in Congress at the preceding census. New Hampshire had paid 96,000, Ohio time the President should come into office;" and the pro- 104,000, Tennessee 110,000, Georgia 94,000, and New viso of that act, which Mr. P. quoted, rendered the thing Jersey 108,000. still clearer. Granting, then, that the language of the Maryland, therefore, would be taxed neither in proporconstitution, in the clause alluded to by the gentleman, tion to nine representatives nor eight representatives, but would admit of some doubt, yet there they had a law, in proportion to the number of her inhabitants. The enacted by a Congress containing many of those who had gentleman had urged, as a hardship, that, during the inbeen members of that convention who had framed the terval between the election of President and the 3d day of constitution, (of which number were Mr. Madison and March, Maryland would have nine representatives on this others,) and many, also, of those who had been members floor, while at the same time her electoral vote would be of the State conventions, where that instrument, after full calculated on her having but eight; and thus she would be discussion, had been finally adopted; (of whom he might stripped, according to the gentleman's idea, of one-ninth mention Fisher Ames;) and this law was directly opposed part of her due weight in the choice of President. And, to the doctrine of the gentleman from Maryland. If such after all, the bill might be changed by the next Congress. an act as that, passed by men so well qualified to declare To this, Mr. P. had two replies: 1st. It was a remote posthe true intent and meaning of the constitution, did not sibility, and very unlikely, that the bill, after being passed, settle the present question, he was at a loss to conceive should be altered the next year: and, 2dly, In more than what could settle it. The Congress of 1792 had enacted half the States the elections for representatives would be the law for the purpose of carrying the constitution into over before the Presidential election came on. effect, and that law made the 4th of March, the commence- if the House did change the ratio by another bill, all the ment of the political year, at which time the term of office other States would be affected in the same degree as of the President, of the Senators, and of the Representatives, Maryland; and her relative representation would, thereshould commence together; but the gentleman's amend- fore, remain unaltered. But the gentleman had insisted ment, instead of permitting the term of office of the that Maryland would be deprived of a right; and, to illusmembers of that House to expire on the 3d of March, pro- trate this, he had gone into the difference between rights posed to extend it for three days longer. The House, in possession and rights in reversion; but the gentleman then, might sit till the 6th day of March, while the Pre-proceeded altogether on mistaken grounds, Maryland sident and Senators would go out of office on the 3d; or, would be shorn of none of the strength to which she was if they went out of office on the 3d, and public business entitled. Under the operation of the bill, all the States required to be done on the 4th or the 5th, there would would weigh in proportion to their population, as debe a complete interregnum, and no House of Represen-clared in the late census. He put it to the gentleman, tatives during those two days. The question, Mr. P. in- whether it would be right that the President should be sisted, had been completely settled by usage, and that, chosen by electors reckoned according to one census, and too, in high party times, under an astute and vigilant op- the representatives, in the company with whom he was to position; and yet so plain had the case been considered, act, should be chosen according to another. The gentlethat the question had never been raised. The constitu- man said that he did not desire to see the new States seize tion provided that there should be an enumeration of the on the inheritance of their parents, while those parents people of the United States once in every ten years; and continued yet living, and in health; neither did Mr. P., an apportionment had accordingly been made, in 1793, but he desired that those States should exercise all the in 1803, in 1813, and in 1823, and now again in 1833. strength in the election of President, or on any other ocBut, should the representatives be allowed to continue in casion to which, by the constitution, they were entitled. office three days beyond the time when the preceding The gentleman had called the House to contemplate period of six years expired, might they not, by the same the spectacle that would be presented when Maryland power, be continued two years longer? And would not should see herself deprived of one-ninth part of her the spirit of the constitution be thus contravened, and its weight and power on that floor. But he would, in turn, authority destroyed? The gentleman's amendment went call upon the gentleman to contemplate another spectacle directly to extend the period of apportionment beyond the which would be exhibited by the operation of his amendten years allowed by the constitution. And why was this ment on Ohio, and the other Western States, when they to be done? He would proceed to examine the reasons saw themselves stripped, not of one, but of four, five, and which had been given. The first was, that in case war six representatives in the electoral college. should arise, and it might be deemed necessary to lay a Mr. P. concluded by observing that, according to direct tax on the States, Maryland would now be taxed his view, the Congress of 1792 had done right; they had as though entitled to nine representatives, although, ac-fixed a precedent which ought to settle the question, and cording to the bill, she would, after the 4th of March, from which he could see no one good reason to depart. 1833, be entitled to but eight. The gentleman took this Mr. DRAYTON, of South Carolina, next addressed the for granted. But his assumption was altogether unfound- committee, and said that he would urge but a single argued. The constitution did not declare that taxation and ment in addition to those which had been so convincingly representation must be in proportion to each other; but put by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. POLK.] The that they must be in proportion to the numbers in the gentleman had given a legislative exposition, but he several States. Mr. P. therefore considered it as a mat- thought that the clause admitted of what might be termed ter of course, that if Maryland was to be taxed, it would a constitutional construction of the constitution itself. be according to her population, and not according to the This was to be found in the amendment proposed and number of her representatives in that House. If taxes adopted in 1801, the only provision of which was, that in VOL. VIII.-104 H. OF R.] reason. One the election the electors should designate one candidate | poning the operation of the new apportionment to the as for the Presidency, and the other as for the Vice Pre- 6th day of March, 1833; what must you sacrifice? sidency; and that, if the election came into the House, a vote in Maine, five in New York, two in Pennsylvania, President should be selected from the three highest can- one in Georgia, four in Tennessee, five in Ohio, four in didates. This amendment had been made by Congress, Indiana, one in Mississippi, two in Illinois, one in Missouri, with a perfect knowledge of all that had been done in and two in Alabama--twenty-eight in all! Sir, with all 1792: and as there was nothing said on that subject, it my gratitude for New England daring and firmness, at the amounted to a confirmation of the doctrine then held, as birth of this nation; with all my esteem for her public and if it had been expressed totidem verbis. He further in-private morality; and with all my respect and admiration sisted that such a measure as had been proposed would for her institutions, political, social, and literary; with all give the most unpopular construction which could pos- my kind feeling for Maryland, the adjoining neighbor of sibly have been devised. So much so, that, should it be my native State, her interests almost identical with ours, sanctioned, he should not be surprised at its producing and the intelligence and enterprise of whose citizens are even an insurrection. It would produce a positive priva- deserving of the highest commendation; with all my tion of popular right, without even the semblance of veneration for Virginia, which, differing from her distinguished sons, as we do, on many important questions, Mr. CRAWFORD, of Pennsylvania, said: It was not my we still remember as the place of Washington's, and of intention, Mr. Chairman, to have protracted, by any Jefferson's, and of Madison's, and of Monroe's nativity, agency of mine, the debate upon the question now under and that of their successors who now worthily fill their discussion, which, however interesting in some of its as- places here, and as the soil out of which spring some of pects, did not seem to me to present considerations that the most valued principles of free Government, I cannot could be pressed with a probability of changing the views consent to the sacrifice. The entire population of these of those to whom they would be addressed. While, United States are the electors of our Chief Magistrate; therefore, I listened with pleasure and with advantage to it is impossible you can preserve the spirit of our instituthe arguments of the gentlemen who hold different opi- tions without legislating so as to enable them to proceed nions, I had not the most remote idea of participating in to the choice. What, sir, to retain to four States not a this discussion, nor should I, but for the proposition made twelfth part of their representation in the electoral colyesterday by the honorable gentleman from Maryland, leges, you would take from eleven others more than a [Mr. HOWARD.] That proposition is, in my judgment, fifth of what properly, and, I think I shall show you preso exceptionable as to justify, if not to call for, some ex-sently, constitutionally belongs to them--never! pression of my dissent from it. I am sure nothing is fur- What other evil consequence is likely to follow the ther from his sentiments-nothing was more distant from adoption of the proposed amendment? A very serious one, his thoughts or intentions; for there is no man in this it appears to me. The representation of tife people of House or out of it, in whose patriotism or purity I have the United States on this floor in the next Congress must more entire confidence; and if proof of either were want-be on some uniform scale-must, as I contend, be according, the fact that, if it should be adopted, his amendment ing to the census of 1830. But the larger number, at would operate against his political friends, furnishes it. least very many of those who will be members of that But my honorable friend will, I trust, pardon me when body, will be chosen next autumn--they must be elected I say that his proposition strikes me as being at war with on the gentleman's plan, according to the census of 1820. the very foundation principles of our institutions, and is The new arrangement will be put into action, by the proone that I am persuaded this House cannot affirm with- posed amendment, on the 6th of March, 1833. The out doing violence to the constitution of the United States. representatives from Maryland, from Kentucky, from VirThe first stone laid in your political edifice is popular ginia, and elsewhere, will be elected after that day, and Sovereignty-that each citizen liable to be operated upon their number fixed by the bill we are now considerin his interests or person by your legislative or executive ing and the enumeration of 1830. Will this be in acofficers, shall, subject to such State regulation as may cordance with any just view of the political rights of the exist, have a voice, mediately or directly, in their selec- members of this confederacy which gentleman can take? tion. Who chooses the President of the United States? If other reasons were wanting for rejecting the propoThe people of the United States. I would ask then if the sition of the honorable gentleman from Maryland, they choice of a Chief Magistrate shall be effected according would be found in the constitution of the United States, to the apportionment under the census of 1820, if his which in the first section of the second article provides election will not have been virtually the act of some- that "the Executive power shall be vested in a Presithing less than nine millions of federal population, instead of dent of the United States of America. He shall hold his that of the twelve millions or thereabouts who have been office during the term of four years; and, together with lately ascertained to be in the United States, and who the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected have now a right to participate in the exercise of this the as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such manner as highest of all civil rights. Nor is this, perhaps, although the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors bad, the worst feature in this amendment; for, while its equal to the whole number of Senators and Representaoperation will be restrictive, it will be most unequal; tives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." while it retains to one--to several States, four I believe, a The question, and the important question, then arises, to vote more respectively than they can soon claim, it will how many representatives is each State entitled? The deprive others, no fewer than eleven, of not less than solution is furnished by the same great charter to which twenty-eight votes. Suppose we take 48,000 as the I have just referred. In the first article of the constitustandard number--I take it because it is most likely to be tion, (section second,) it is said: "Representatives and fixed on here; but whether or not, it will answer my pre-direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States sent purpose: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, which may be included within this Union according to and Virginia will each lose a vote. Now, sir, I admit this their respective numbers, which shall be determined, addis to be regretted. I am as unwilling as any gentleman ing to the whole number of free persons, including those to do them an unkind act, still more a seeming wrong; but bound to service for a term of years, and excluding InI never can consent to preserve the political weight they dians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The have hitherto enjoyed at the expense of other States. actual enumeration shall be made within three years after Look at it, sir: to retain these four votes which the the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, honorable gentleman from Maryland proposes, by post- and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such |