Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

H. of R.]

Chickasaw Treaty.

[JAN. 31, 1832.

thought made it the imperative duty of the House to call It will be remembered by many of the members of the for the information which he now asks. The gentleman last Congress, that when the general question of our Inprofesses to be governed wholly by public considerations, dian policy and relations was discussed two years ago, this and that he is actuated by no personal hostility towards very proposition of settling the Chickasaws in the neighborthe persons concerned in the transaction to which he al- hood of the Choctaws was stated in argument; and that ludes. I will not deny that his motives are such as he it was also then intimated that the country held by the affirms them to be, but I think he would have given Choctaws was large enough for both tribes. The proa better proof of the absence of all personal feeling, priety of locating the Choctaws and Chickasaws in the same or at least of his impartiality, if he had merely called for section of the country west of the Mississippi, was enforced the information, and left the members of the House to by the supposed or actual affinity which was alleged to judge for themselves as to its nature, instead of present-exist between the languages and customs of these tribes, ing a studied ex parte view of the subject, directly im- and it was thought that, as they had been neighbors on peaching, according to his view of the subject, the charac- the east side of the Mississippi, they would be likely to ter of the individuals concerned. In the course he has have no objection to the same relative position west of thought proper to take, I must say he has perpetrated a that river. The proposition to procure a cession of a gross act of injustice towards those individuals. But part of the Choctaw country for the benefit of the Chickabefore I make any further remarks upon this part of the saws, is, then, not new to the country, nor does it imply subject, I beg leave to go back and answer some excep- any violation of the pledge of the Government that the tion taken to the manner in which some of the Executive Indians who should emigrate west of the Mississippi officers of the Government have spoken of this treaty, in should never be importuned for cessions of their lands. their communications to this House. The gentleman I come now to notice what has been said of the private complains that two years ago the Secretary of War stated transaction alluded to by the gentleman from Massachuin his report that a treaty with the Chickasaws had been setts, and, in speaking of it, I profess, like himself, to act concluded. It is well known by those who have taken upon public considerations, but I feel it to be my duty any great interest in our Indian affairs, that the Chicka-also to defend the character of any, even the humblest saws were expected to make a selection of a part of the of those whom I represent on this floor, when unfairly country west of the Mississippi, suitable to their wishes, assailed. I consider that the parties to this transaction soon after the treaty was negotiated in Franklin; and the have been treated with unmerited harshness, by the conSecretary of War, no doubt, supposed there would be no struction given to their conduct by the gentleman from impediment to the laying of the treaty before Congress Massachusetts. It is true that of my own knowledge I at the ensuing session. It is also noticed that the Presi- know but little more of the matter than the gentleman dent, in his message to the present Congress, speaks of himself; nor until after he moved the original resolution this treaty as being in a course of execution. This is did I know as much as he now appears to have known; certainly finding fault upon very slight grounds, if, indeed, but I have made it my business to possess myself of the any ground at all for objection exists. Whether the facts connected with the subject of this discussion, in the treaty was to be binding or not, depended upon the de- fullest manner I could. The allusion made by the gencision of the Chickasaws in relation to the country point- tleman to what occurred at the treaty of 1818, revives an ed out for their residence west of the Mississippi. old charge which I remember was made long ago against It was necessary to authorize a deputation of the In-one of the commissioners who negotiated that treaty, dians to examine the country, prior to any selection on but which I did not then think of sufficient interest or their part; and when it was ascertained that the Indians plausibility to excite a minute inquiry into the foundation declined accepting the tract of country to which their at- of it; nor do I now suppose that the facts connected with tention was first invited, it became necessary to provide that treaty will be found worth the pursuit of gentlemen, a country more acceptable to them. A negotiation with any further than as they may have a bearing upon the the Choctaws for a part of the country assigned to them, present call for information, which I understand is confinwas the next alternative, and it was doubtless in refer-ed to the facts and circumstances growing out of the Salt ence to this negotiation that the President stated in his Lick reservation, under the fourth article of the treaty of message that the treaty with the Chickasaws was in a 1818 with the Chickasaws. The true state of the matcourse of execution. But the gentleman from Massachu- ter, I understand to be this. Before the treaty of 1818 setts has availed himself of the reference made by the was perhaps thought of, one or more of the citizens of President to this negotiation with the Choctaws, to in- Tennessee, having heard from hunters, or others, that troduce the question of the policy of the removal of the there was a salt mine in some part of the Chickasaw Indians in this debate, and to charge the Government country, now known as the western district of that State, with an intention not to respect the guaranty, how-actually attempted to negotiate with the chiefs of the ever solemnly given, that the lands assigned to the In- Chickasaws for the privilege of working it. It seems to dians west of the Mississippi should never be required have been in this way that the Indians got it into their to be ceded to the United States. He draws the atten- heads that a salt mine existed in the country which they tion of the House to this attempt to procure a cession of were asked to cede by the treaty of 1818; and they de part of the lands of the Choctaws, as an evidence that the sired to stipulate a reservation, in the usual form, to themIndians ought to have no confidence in the good faith of selves, of a small tract of country, including the supposed the Government, and that the promises held out to them salt mine. The gentleman from Massachusetts has well of an undisturbed and quiet residence upon our Western described the situation of the proposed reservation, when borders, are delusive. This may be taken as a fair speci- he said it laid in the heart of the large tract of country men of the candor with which the motives of those who ceded by the Chickasaws in 1818; and it was for this very support the policy of removal are represented by their reason that the commissioners declined allowing a reseropponents. Can the gentleman from Massachusetts have vation of property of such a peculiar species to be occuforgotten, or overlooked the fact, that the cession asked from the Choctaws was not, and is not, with a view to extend the white settlements westward, or to enlarge the jurisdiction of any State or Territory of the United States? Does he not know that it is designed, as it is expressly stated by the President to be, for the benefit, and for a residence for the Indians themselves, or a part of them?

pied by the Indians, or by their lessees, upon any terms they should agree upon. The reservation, in the form and upon the conditions set out in the fourth article of the treaty of 1818, was finally agreed to by the commissioners; and Major William B. Lewis, being then upon the ground, forthwith concluded an agreement with the trus tees appointed on the part of the Indians, for a lease of

JAN. 31, 1832.]

Apportionment Bill.

[H. OF R.

the reservation according to the terms of the treaty, for precedent. It had been the habit of the Government to the joint benefit of himself and R. P. Currin, of Franklin, regard negotiations with the Indian tribes as possessing in the State of Tennessee. The consideration of the lease the same sanctity and secrecy, while in progress, as treawas correctly stated by the gentleman from Massachusetts ties with foreign Powers. Would not the House have to be seven hundred and fifty bushels of salt per annum, the same right to call for the whole treaty, though not if any should ever be made. These gentlemen, as I have yet ratified, as for one section of it? In the case of Jay's been informed, and I do not doubt the fact, actually ex-treaty, a call had been made upon the Executive for Mr. pended upwards of three thousand dollars in a vain and Jay's instructions, and the reply of the then President fruitless attempt to procure salt water upon the reserva- had been that he would not furnish the instructions, untion in question. No one now dreams that salt water will less the House should indicate a purpose of impeaching ever be found upon this reservation. The lessees of the the minister. Would not the same difficulty now present Indians, I believe, have given over all expectation of any itself, unless the House should determine to proceed profit from that source. At the late treaty negotiated against the person who should turn out to be guilty? Mr. with the Chickasaws at Franklin, as will appear from the W. said he merely threw out these suggestions for concommissioners' journal, Mr. Currin, acting in the name of sideration, and with no desire to throw an obstacle in the Major Lewis, as well as in his own name, as Lewis had way of full and free inquiry. been the person who took the lease originally, proposed Mr. MITCHELL, of South Carolina, said he knew to pay the Indians two thousand dollars for a permanent nothing of this matter, but from the statement of the geninterest in the lands included in the reservation of the tleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT.] He appeared treaty of 1818; no doubt seeking, in this way, to indem- to complain of two things: first, that the President had imnify himself for his expenditures in this attempt to carry properly withheld from the Senate a treaty which he had into execution the stipulations of the original lease. The negotiated with the Chickasaws; secondly, that a fraud Indians refused to agree to Mr. Currin's proposition, un-had been practised by the Second Auditor on those Indians less he would add another five hundred dollars to the sum under the treaty of 1818; that he had obtained from them first proposed to be given by him. Mr. Currin agreed to an unconscionable lease of lands at variance with the terms pay the five hundred dollars demanded, and the arrange of that treaty. ment was completed, so far as it depended upon the im- [Here Mr. EVERETT interrupted Mr. M., and said mediate parties to it. These lands, in quantity ten thousand that he had been misunderstood; he had not complained acres, I know nothing of the value of. They lie in a sec-of the President's conduct, but had mentioned the Presition of country not highly prized on account of its fine dent's communication as an additional reason why he wishlands, and I think it quite probable that, should these ed to see the treaty.] lands be held under the treaty, they will turn out to be Mr. MITCHELL said that, if the gentleman did not comworth but little more than the amount expended upon plain of the President, he did not really understand what them by Currin and Lewis in the search for salt water. As he did mean. If the President had not submitted this nefor Major Lewis, who seems to be the principal object of gotiation to the Senate when he ought to have done so, attack, I am authorized to say that he has long since ceas- it was matter of complaint with them; we surely have no ed to regard his interest in the reservation in question as right to interpose between the President and the Senate of any value; that the contract with the Indians in 1830 in an inchoate negotiation. The treaty-making power, was effected by Mr. Currin for his own benefit, and in from first to last, is lodged in the Executive Department, which no other person is concerned. This, I believe, is and that in this instance consists of the President and the the true nature and complexion of the transaction so much Senate. Besides, sir, until the ratification of the treaty reprobated by the gentleman from Massachusetts. For by the Senate, it is no more than blank paper; it did not my own part, since I have become acquainted with the alter the rights of parties; the Indians remained in statu history of Indian treaties generally, I feel opposed to all quo with regard to them. With regard to the frauds prac reservations to white men, whether residing in or out of tised on the Indians by the Second Auditor, they have rethe Indian country. They can seldom be made without medies in the courts of the United States. If the lease the suspicion of improper influence, whether such influ-varied from the terms of the treaty of 1818, or if it had ence exist or not; and I am informed by those who are been obtained by fraud or imposition; if it was a hard and best acquainted with the subject, that the practice of unconscionable bargain, a court of equity will afford making those reservations has become so inveterate, that relief. Sir, said Mr. M., we have no jurisdiction over no treaty can be made without their allowance. I do not this matter. He had always believed that the gentleman feel responsible for this practice of the Government or from Massachusetts was an advocate for keeping each deits agents. It has obtained, and has been sanctioned by partment of Government within its orbit-harmony and the Senate and by this House, for the last ten or fifteen efficiency can only be preserved by it.

years.

The debate was arrested by a successful motion made by Mr. POLK for the orders of the day.

[ocr errors]

forty-eight."

APPORTIONMENT BILL.

It is the gentleman from Massachusetts and his associates, who have been so long honored with a seat here, who must be held accountable for this practice. If it is really so detrimental to the public interests, as it is now The apportionment bill next came up for consideration; alleged to be, a stop should have long since been put to the question being on the motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE it by Congress. In the present transaction I see nothing to amend the bill by simply striking therefrom the words new or extraordinary in the principle of it. As the gentleman, however, insists that it is important to have all Mr. SLADE, of Vermont, said he had watched the prothe information in the control of the Executive in relation gress of this debate with great solicitude. The question to it, I hope his wishes will not be opposed. I will only before the House was one of grave importance, demandask that a complete copy of the journal of the commis- ing a full discussion, and most mature deliberation. Yet, sioners be called for. at this stage of the debate, he should hardly feel himself Mr. WICKLIFFE said he felt some difficulty in voting justified in asking the indulgence of the House, but for for this call, although he felt no unwillingness whatever the deep interest which the State of Vermont had in the to get at the facts of the case. If there had been any decision of the question. That State would suffer more thing wrong in the transaction alluded to, he, for one, was from a ratio of 48,000 than any other State in the Union. anxious to lay his hand upon it, and willing to follow Indeed, sir, said Mr. S., she will have an accumulation out the subject. But his difficulty was, in the dangerous of suffering. In the apportionment of the census of 1820

H. OF R.]

Apportionment Bill.

[JAN. 31, 1832.

she lost one member, and was left with a fraction of The subject of fractions has been so much dwelt on in 35,764. Now, unless the motion to strike out 48,000 this discussion, that the name has almost become odious. from this bill prevail, she will be left with an unrepresented fraction of 40,657. Duty to that State demands that I should express my views on this subject, and I beg the indulgence of the House, while, as briefly as possible, I perform that duty.

But of what are those fractions composed? Why, sir, of large bodies of freemen! And can I be indifferent, when a proposition is made, by which near 41,000 of these freemen in my native State, as intelligent as any other freemen on earth, are to remain unrepresented in this body for a period of ten years?

The question before the House, said Mr. S., is one of deep interest to the whole country. It vitally affects the To show the importance which belongs to this part of great depository of the people's power, the House of Re- the subject, permit me to advert to the consideration to presentatives of the United States. The act you propose which it was thought entitled by the first Congress. A to pass is anomalous in its character; operating, not, as do bill was passed on the 23d day of March, 1792, fixing the most of your laws, upon individuals, in their relations to number of representatives for the succeeding ten years at each other, and to the Government, but upon large and 120. That number included eight representatives from distinct masses of this great community, and regulating various States, on account of fractional numbers. It was the balance of power between the different portions of a sent to President Washington for his approval, who rewidely extended confederacy. It is, indeed, of the nature turned it with the objection that the constitution authoof a fundamental law-the formation, in fact, of a consti- rized no representation of fractions below 30,000. And tution for the next ten years; and demands the exercise of yet so strong was the disposition to give to the people the same profound wisdom, and the same spirit of com- the most full and perfect representation possible--so promise and conciliation and mutual good will, which mark-averse was that body to leave large portions of them uned the deliberations of the framers of the federal consti- represented, that 28 out of 61 of its members voted, in the tution. face of the President's veto, to repass the bill.

Sir, I am in favor of striking out 48,000 from the bill The decision of that Congress settled the principle that on your table, in the first place, because that number, by fractions should not be represented. It is admitted that being placed there, possesses an undue advantage over all the application of this principle will sometimes operate the other numbers which may be proposed. The results severely upon individual States. All must take their turn of the various propositions which have been made in Com- in bearing the burden. If, therefore, the large fraction mittee of the Whole to strike out 48,000, and insert other to which Vermont and some other States are subjected, numbers, have plainly proved this. Each proposition has, by the ratio now in the bill, stood alone, unconnected with of course, been opposed by all in favor of any other num- the unequal results of a former apportionment, they might ber than the one contained in such proposition. Thus, be endured without complaining. But what is the fact? by a succession of victories over other numbers se- In the apportionment of 1820, Vermont was left with an parately proposed, 48,000 has acquired an importance unrepresented fraction of 35,764. At the ratio proposed which does not intrinsically belong to it. Its strength is a in the bill on your table, she will again have a fraction of factitious strength. 40,657; total 76,421. New Jersey, in 1820, had a fraction of 34,555. Upon a ratio of 48,000, she will now have a fraction of 31,922; total, 66,477. Kentucky, in 1820, had a fraction of 33,625; a ratio of 48,000 would now give her 45,832; total, 79,456. Total of Vermont, New Jersey, and Kentucky, under the apportionments of the censuses of 1820 and 1830, 222,355.

But it may be said that a motion has been made and lost, to strike out 48,000, without inserting any other number; and that this is conclusive evidence that 48,000 is the favorite number. Sir, this does not follow. Upon the simple motion to strike out, all in favor of any other number than 48,000 may well be supposed to have voted to retain it in the bili, for the purpose of using it to defeat, in detail, every proposition to insert numbers other than their favorite ones. And, besides, individuals opposed to reducing the representation of Rhode Island one-half, as would be done by raising the ratio to 49,000, may have opposed the striking out of 48, through an apprehension that the bill, unencumbered with that number, might finally pass with a ratio exceeding 49,000.

If single large unrepresented fractions are justly regarded burdensome, and in contravention of the great fundamental principle of equal representation, how much more so is such a succession of them as is presented in the cases of the States just mentioned? The inequality in these cases is rendered more striking by a comparison of them with that of Pennsylvania. In 1820, that State bad a fraction of 9,478; upon the ratio in the bill before us, she will now have a fraction of 4,072. Total in 1820 and '30, 13,550.

Now, sir, is it not obvious that an undue importance has been thus given to the decision of the committee who reported this bill? Why should that decision have such an Thus the successive fractions in 1820 and '30, of the effect, when, notwithstanding the intelligence and upright- State of Pennsylvania, with 28 members under a ratio of ness of the committee, it is perfectly apparent that their 48,000, amount to but 13,550, while those of Vermont, opinion has not resulted, and could not have resulted, from New Jersey, and Kentucky, with a representation amountany peculiar investigation they were able to give the sub-ing to five less than that of Pennsylvania, are 222,355! ject, but has been drawn from facts equally within the Let us now see how some of the other ratios will opereach of every member of this House? rate upon the same States. We will take, for example, With regard to the number to which this body should 44,000. At that ratio, the amount of fractions to Vermont, ultimately be increased, I am not prepared to decide. I in 1820 and '30, will be 52,421; to New Jersey, 46,477; do not conceive I am now called on to do so. Some gen- and to Kentucky, 39,457; total, 138,355-84,000 less than tlemen have suggested seven or eight hundred as the maxi- upon a ratio of 48,000. At the same ratio of 44,000, the I would avoid extremes. No proposition, how- amount in 1820 and 30 to Pennsylvania will swell to ever, yet made, would, in my opinion, give a number 37,550--24,000 more than upon the ratio of 48,000. So approaching an extreme; and I therefore feel at full liber- much for the equalizing operation of a ratio of 44,000, in ty to advocate a ratio which will do the least injustice to comparison with that proposed in the bill. the several States, both in regard to unrepresented fractions, and the loss of members. Whenever the time shall come when it shall be proposed to increase this House to a number which shall render the transaction of business impracticable, then, and not till then, can questions of fractions and the loss of members be regarded with indifference.

mum.

Let us now look at this equalizing operation upon a larger scale. We will institute a comparison between Pennsylvania and the eight States which, under the ap portionment of the census of 1820, were, each, left with fractions of over 30,000, viz. Vermont, 35,764; Connecticut, 35,260; New Jersey, 34,555; Delaware, 30,942; North

JAN. 31, 1832.]

Apportionment Bill.

[H. OF R.

Carolina, 36,823; South Carolina, 59,351; Kentucky, I do not, of course, insist on an equalization which would 33,625; and Tennessee, 30,771; amounting to 277,091. produce such disastrous results to Pennsylvania; my only Now, it must be obvious to all, that, in fixing the pre-object being to show to what the rule of equal and exact sent ratio, justice requires that the fractions to the States justice would lead, in regard to Pennsylvania, if it were, thus burdened during the last ten years should be dimi- in the nature of things, practicable for any apportionnished as much as possible. By retaining the ratio of ment to carry it into full effect. But I may be permitted 48,000, they will indeed be diminished to 195,543. But a to put it to Pennsylvanians, whether they can rest quietly ratio of 44,000 will still further reduce them to 147,543. for ten years to come upon a fraction of 4,072, while the Thus it will be seen that a ratio of 44,000 reduces the States of Vermont, New Jersey, and Kentucky, with five enormous amount of the fractions of these eight States less representatives on this floor than Pennsylvania, will, 48,000 below the reduction which would be effected by at a ratio of 48,000, have unrepresented fractions to the a ratio of 48,000. Is not this worthy of consideration? amount of 118,411; and that, too, succeeding an amount Now let us see the effect of these two ratios upon Penn- of fractions endured by them for the previous ten years, sylvania. In 1820, with a population of 1,049,313, she of 103,944! had a fraction of only 9,478. "Equal and exact justice" Permit me now, Mr. Speaker, to take another view of obviously requires that the fraction of Pennsylvania should this subject. The ratio proposed in the bill will have the now be increased. But, sir, what will be the effect of a effect of depriving four of the States of this Union of one 48,000 ratic upon that State? Why, instead of increasing of each of the representation they now have in this body. her fraction, it actually diminishes it more than half--re- I refer to the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, ducing it to 4,072! Yes, sir, while eight States of this Maryland, and Virginia. Union, with a population, under the late census, of 3,315,543, will have fractions to the amount of 195,543, Pennsylvania, with a population of 1,348,072, will have a fraction of but 4,072!

The time may come, indeed, it must come, in the progressive increase of our population, when that representation will be diminished in order to preserve this House within the maximum which necessarily limits the number Does not every man involuntarily exclaim, is there not of all deliberative assemblies. But until that time arrives, some way by which we may approximate nearer to jus- we may properly yield--nay, we are bound to yield, to the tice than this? I answer, there is. Strike out 48,000 appeals which these old and paternal States make, when from the bill, and insert 44,000. This will do justice. It they earnestly ask that their representation may remain will increase the fraction of Pennsylvania 24,000, making undiminished. More especially should these appeals be it amount to 28,072, while it will diminish the amount of regarded, when a proposed ratio will have the effect not fractions in the eight States, 48,000, reducing them, as only of producing a succession of losses of representation we have seen, to 147,543. Now, sir, is not this right? Can in particular sections of the country, but will, moreover, Pennsylvania, honest Pennsylvania, object to it? Never, be accompanied with a large accumulation of fractions in sir; never, until, from the name of her noble common- the same sections. wealth, she is prepared to expunge the name of its immortal founder.

Now, sir, what will be the effect, in these respects, of the ratio proposed in.the bill? By the apportionment unI said, sir, that a ratio of 44,000 will do justice to Penn-der the census of 1820, Vermont and Connecticut in the sylvania. I was mistaken; for, with the fraction of 28,000 East, and Delaware and Virginia in the centre, lost, each, which that ratio will give her, she will still have less, by one representative. By adopting a ratio of 48,000, New about 50,000, than her just proportion. How is this? The Hampshire and Massachusetts, Maryland and Virginia, will eight States I have mentioned, have a population of lose four more representatives. Nor is this all. In the for 3,315,543. The amount of their fractions at a ratio of mer apportionment, Vermont and Connecticut, Delaware 48,000 is 195,543. To make the unrepresented popula- and Virginia, were left with fractions amounting to 116,000. tion of Pennsylvania bear the same proportion to 195,543, By a ratio of 48,000, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, that her entire population does to that of the eight States, Maryland and Virginia, each of which loses a member upon it should be increased to 77,000 instead of 28,000—that is, that ratio, will now be left also with fractions to the amount 49,000 more than it can be, at a ratio even of "44." of 99,000. And if to this amount be added the fractions But were Pennsylvania to remain for the next ten years which will be left to Vermont and Delaware, each of unrepresented, even as to 77,000 of her population, which lost a member under the last apportionment, we equality would still not be produced. For it must be re-shall have, in the present apportionment, losses by frac membered that for ten entire years she has had the enor- tions to the amount of 160,000 in the six Eastern and cenmous advantage over the eight States, of having a fraction tre States, losing members under either the last or present of only 9,478, when, to make it bear a just proportion to apportionment. the fractions of those States, it should have been 87,658. Thus, for ten years, the unrepresented population of Pennsylvania has been 78,180 less than, upon the principle of equality, it should have been.

ment.

Thus, under the apportionments of both 1820 and 1830, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, will have lost eight representatives, and been burdened with an accumulation of fractions to Now, sir, as some degree of inequality must, in the na- the amount of 283,000. Two of these losses of representure of things, be produced at any single apportionment tation will have fallen to the lot of Virginia, and one to by every possible ratio, that inequality should, as far as that of Vermont; while the latter State will have borne a practicable, be corrected at the succeeding apportion- disproportionate burden of fractions to the amount of To make the correction perfect, the positions of 76,421. Ought not such a result, if practicable, to be the parties in relation to each other should be reversed avoided? And shall New Hampshire and Vermont, Masfor the succeeding ten years. And what would be the sachusetts, Maryland, and Virginia, appeal in vain, when effect of the application of such a rule to the case I am they ask the adoption of a ratio which, while it will keep considering? It would be to add to 77,000, the amount of this body clearly within reasonable limits as to numbers, unrepresented population that Pennsylvania should have, will materially mitigate the burden which they will be, to place her on an equality with the eight States, 78,180, otherwise, compelled to sustain? which she has had less than she should have had during the last ten years--the result of which would be the disfranchisement, in effect, of 155,180 of her population for the next ten years. Instead of which, she will, if 48,000 is retained in the bill, have a fraction of only 4,072.

And why, let me ask, on general principles, diminish the representation of any of the old States, until it shall become necessary to do so, to keep the number of this body from exceeding the necessary maximum of representation Is there nothing due from our younger bre

H. OF R.]

Apportionment Bill.

[JAN. 31, 1832.

thren--may I not say, our children-in the West, to those to the amount of 100,000 beyond what they would be at States whose sacrifices and sufferings purchased the rich a ratio of 44! inheritance they now enjoy? And will they not delight to pour out their noble, generous feelings in the manifestation of a kind regard to the desire of their Eastern brethren to retain an undiminished strength in the councils of the nation? I trust, sir, they will.

I will say nothing, I am sure I need say nothing, to awaken the liberal feelings of the West towards the pa rent States, who now ask that they may be left with an undiminished representation in this body. I could not, if I would, add any thing to the eloquent appeals which have been made to gentlemen from the West, by those who have preceded me. It has been my purpose to present facts, which form, in my view, an appeal to their justice, and to communicate to their minds the convictions which guide and control the decisions of my own.

Permit me now to dwell a few moments on another feature in the unequal operation of the proposed ratio. The States of Kentucky and Tennessee have a nearly equal population-the latter exceeding the former but 3,431. Their representation obviously ought to be equal. A ratio of 44,000 would make them so. But what will be And why, sir, permit me to add, should the Western the effect of the ratio proposed in the bill? Why, sir, it States feel a lingering reluctance to yield the point of gives to Tennessee thirteen members, while Kentucky will adopting a ratio which shall produce upon the Atlantic have but twelve. There is no inequality connected with States the effects I have attempted to describe? Is there this ratio that even approaches to this, save in two cases. any thing in the relative condition and prospects of the Connecticut, with a population exceeding that of Vermont East and the West which can produce the slightest jeaonly about 17,000, will have one more member than Ver- lousy of an undue preponderance in the power of the formont; and North Carolina, with a population exceeding mer? Is not the current of events, on the contrary, that of Kentucky but about 18,000, will have one more rapidly bearing the standard of empire beyond the Allegha member than the latter State. ny mountains? The States which are spread out in the I cannot, sir, look at this case of Kentucky and Tennes- vast valley of the Mississippi now number a population of see without strong emotion. A difference in population three and one-third millions. At a ratio of 44,000, they of only 3,431 is destined, by the operation of this bill, to will have a representation in this body of 71; and their rate deprive Kentucky, for the succeeding ten years, of about of increase since the census of 1820 has been 67 per cent., one-twelfth of her just representation in this body. Sir, while that of the Atlantic States has been but 23. And a parallel to this injustice cannot be found in the whole how long will it be before those States will control the history of legislation on this subject, from 1792 to the pre- destinies of this great empire? How long before the elder sent time. I have carefully examined the four successive States, like Joseph's father and brethren, will come to bow apportionments, and I challenge the production of a sin- down before the all-controlling power of the "far West?" gle case, whose injustice will bear any comparison with Well, be it so. I have no heart-burnings at their advanthis. Sir, your constituents will say, give to these States ces in prosperity and power. I would not, if I could, an equal representation in this body. My constituents, I arrest their mighty march. I rejoice at the rapidity of its am sure, will say so; and I verily believe the constituents onward course. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask them-and it is of the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. POLK,] all I ask--to remember and do justice to the venerated who reported this bill, and so ably advocates it, will say stocks from whence they sprung. so. The whole country will exclaim against the injustice of refusing to do it.

But I am asked, why manifest so much solicitude for Kentucky? Sir, it is because the citizens of that State are my brethren--bound to me and to my constituents by the strong ties of a common interest in a common country; and because my whole soul revolts at the signal injustice which the bill upon your table does to her.

It may be proper here to say that the 22 members which a ratio of "44" will add to the House, beyond that of "48," will be distributed among the several sections of the United States, as follows, viz. To the six Eastern States, with a population of 1,954,000, four--to the five middle States, with a population of 4,062,000, eight-to the four Southern States, with a population of 2,548,000, five-and to the nine Western and Southwestern States, with a population of 3,358,000, five--a distribution, it will be perceived, which bears a tolerably just proportion to the population of the several sections in which it falls,

But it is objected that, by a substitution of "44" for "48," six of the Western States, viz. Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, will be left with large fractions. I admit this. Their aggregate frac- Mr. Speaker, allow me to ask the indulgence of the tions, at 44, will be 207,366, greater by 88,000 than they House, while I advert, for a few moments, to another will be at a ratio of 48. But it should be remembered branch of this inquiry. To what extent may the number that the representation of those States will remain the of this body be increased, consistently with the public insame, whether the ratio be "48" or "44." With them, terest? Great apprehensions have been expressed at the then, it is a question of fractions alone, and they may be prospect of such an excess of numbers, as ultimately to supposed to give importance to this consideration, from a render the business of legislation impracticable; and six, regard which the West may justly have to the relative seven, and eight hundred have been presented to us as examount of its unrepresented population. But how does amples of such excess. But what is the real question now the entire West stand in relation to this matter? The frac- before us? It is, whether two hundred and fifty-nine is tions of the six States I have mentioned will, indeed, by an excessive number, either for the convenient and expefalling from a ratio of 48 to 44,000, be increased 88,000. ditious transaction of business, or as an adequate repreBut, by the same operation, the fractions of the three re- sentation of the interests and wishes of thirteen millions of maining Western States, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, people. This is the question. Whenever a proposition will be diminished 44,000. So that the nett loss of frac-shall be made to enlarge this assembly to a number far in tions to the whole of the nine Western and Southwestern advance of that now proposed, it will then be time to urge States, by the substitution of 44 for 48, will be but 44,000; the objections applicable to an excess of numbers. averaging about 5,000 only to each of those States. Now, sir, what real evils may be expected to result from

I now ask gentlemen to look at the effect which this an augmentation of this body to two hundred and fifty. paltry saving of 5,000 in the average fractions of the West-nine? I pass over, because it has been sufficiently anern States, by retaining the ratio of 48,000, will have upon swered, the objection founded upon the supposed impracthe Atlantic States. It will force upon New Hampshire, ticability of properly conducting the business of legislation Massachusetts, Maryland, and Virginia, a loss of four of in so large an assembly; and will advert, for a few mo their present representation, while it will increase the ments, to another objection.

fractions of those States, and of Vermont and Kentucky, It is said that delays will result from any considerable

[ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »