H. OF R.] Chickasaw Treaty. [FEB. 1, 1832. rights and interests of the United States. Whatever pow-a call for such information, would be attended with little ers, in reference to treaties, were vested in the President danger. He [Mr. H.] did not believe such a transaction and Senate, the course which had been adopted with this as the present had ever before existed; and he did not be. treaty made it proper that the article asked for should be lieve it ever would be witnessed again. submitted to the House. Was it not proper that the peo- But, said Mr. H., if the resolution, asking for the inforple of this country, or its agents in this House, should mation which it seeks to elicit, is not taken out of the opeknow what were the terms of an instrument which, when ration of the general constitutional principle applicable to executed, would affect their interests? Must it be kept treaties, by the considerations which he had suggested, out of view, though "in a course of execution," because would not the call be justified by the extraordinary cirit had not been sent to the Senate? He would put an analo- cumstances which had been stated to the House, and in a gous case. We had been informed that the treaty lately manner which had commanded our undivided attention? concluded with France had been ratified. Suppose that Mr. H. said he had called them extraordinary circumstanthat treaty, before it had been submitted to the Senate, ces, and, when they were carefully examined and duly conhad been put in execution, and that it operated in a man-sidered, he felt confident that none would doubt the justice ner affecting the previous existing rights of the United of the epithet which he had applied to them. He asked States. Would it be a satisfactory answer to a request the House to attend to them, as stated by his friend from for an inspection of one of its articles, that the treaty was Massachusetts. inchoate?-that it was yet in fieri? Would not the repre- In the year 1818, the first treaty to which allusion has sentatives of the people use language similar to the follow-been made, was concluded. One of the articles of that ing? It is true, a treaty, before it becomes the supreme treaty reserved, for the benefit of the poor and warriors law, must be ratified by the Senate; but if it is not sub- of the Chickasaw tribe of Indians, a tract of land, containmitted to that branch of the Government, and yet "is in ing four miles square, to include a salt lick, or springs, a course of execution," we have a right to know, and we and within the land ceded; to be laid off in a square, or ought to know, what are the provisions of that instrument oblong, so as to include the best timber, at the option of which is thus in execution? Is it not very evident that the two of the chiefs, to be leased on certain conditions, to opposite principle would permit the President to conclude which he [Mr. H.] would hereafter refer; on failure of and carry into effect any treaty, however injurious to which, the lease was to be forfeited, and the reservation the interests of the United States, and justify him, when revert to the United States. The name of the present asked for a copy of it, in answering-it has not been Second Auditor of the Treasury is affixed to it as a subratified? scribing witness. A lease was immediately made to him There was, said Mr. H, a very obvious answer to the for a term of one hundred and ninety-nine years-and on suggestion which had been made, that the sanctity of se- what conditions? On those prescribed in the treaty? Cercrecy attached to Indian treaties, as well as to those con- tainly not, if the gentleman from Massachusetts has been cluded with foreign Governments. Whatever of secrecy correctly informed. One of the conditions in that treaty might be supposed to be proper or necessary, in ordinary was, that a reasonable quantity of salt should be paid annucases, where treaties had not been ratified, there was no ally to the tribe; another condition was, that, from and room for its application to this treaty. The article which after two years after the ratification of the treaty, no salt this resolution calls for was no longer a secret article. The made at the works to be erected on the reservation should gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. EVERETT] had, in his be sold within the limits of the same for a higher price place, stated to the House that one of the articles of the than one dollar per bushel of fifty pounds weight. But treaty of 1818 (which was subsequently ratified, and which the House is informed that in the lease executed to the was afterwards referred to in the treaty of 1830) was present Second Auditor of the Treasury, on the day the known on the very day the treaty was concluded; for, on treaty of 1818 was concluded, the condition is inserted, that day, it was made the basis of a lease to the present that the lessee is to pay seven hundred and fifty bushels of Second Auditor of the Treasury, of the tract of land re-salt annually, provided salt water should be found on the served in that article, who was now, or had been, claiming reservation. Such a condition, varying from those specia beneficial interest in that reservation, under certain fied in the treaty, rendered the lease void, by the express modifications of the conditions of the treaty of 1818, au- provisions of the treaty. It was void ab initio. Doubtthorized by the treaty of 1830; to which he [Mr. H.] less the lease was supposed by the lessee to be valid, or it would hereafter advert. The article in the treaty of 1830, would not have been made and accepted. And what was which the resolution asks should be communicated, was, the effect produced by its execution? Did it not operate as we are informed, the cause of the execution of a new as a fraud upon the Chickasaw tribe, if the insertion of the lease or contract, after the conclusion of the treaty of condition not warranted by the treaty caused the reserva1830, to the same individual, and another who was asso- tion to revert to the United States? ciated with him, which has been recorded in the public It was proper, however, to look to the treaty of 1830, records of the State of Tennessee, under which title is now to ascertain whether the transactions which had been claimed, and, as we have been told, by virtue of which no- mentioned, required, or would justify, the interference tice has been served on the tenants in possession to sur- of the House. In that year another treaty was concluded render the possession of the lands, or pay rent to the lessee. with the same tribe, in a supplemental article to which If such be the fact, all scruples connected with the matter reference is had to the provisions of the treaty of 1818, of secrecy were at an end; for could it, with propriety, be in respect to the reservations before mentioned. That said that a portion of a treaty may be spread upon the article had been seen by the gentleman from Massachu records of a State of this Union, and yet that this House setts, by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL.] It ought not to ask for authentic evidence from the proper had also been submitted to his [Mr. H.'s] inspection. And source, of that part of the treaty, because, until it is rati- he requested the House to bear in mind who had nego fied, it should remain secret? Was an article to be inserted tiated that treaty, and who it was that was benefited by in a treaty, vesting an interest in a tract of 10,000 acres of the article which the resolution calls for. By this article, land in private individuals, citizens of the United States, the conditions of the lease made in consequence of the and those citizens avail themselves of the provisions of the treaty of 1818, were varied with the mutual assent of the article, and the House of Representatives not be permit- Chickasaws, and the commissioners of the United States ted to know, officially, the terms of that article, because who negotiated the treaty; and the change consisted in republicity had not yet been given to it in the forms pre- quiring of the lessees the payment of $2,000, and a rent scribed by the constitution? The precedent furnished by of four bushels of salt annually: thus transferring the FEB. 1, 1832.] Chickasaw Treaty. [H. OF R. of the land in 1818 could not have been less than $750, for the lessee was to pay seven hundred and fifty bushels of salt, which it may be supposed was then worth a dollar a bushel. Mr. H. inquired whether this was not a subject which called for the consideration and the action of that House. If the statements made to the House were to be relied on, of all subjects requiring investigation by that House, this was one which most obviously called for it. The case had been presented to the House, and the question was, whether, in the exercise of its power as the guardian of the rights and property of the Indians on the one hand, and of the United States on the other, it would ascertain whether a treaty which was in a train of execution, had or had not been negotiated under circumstances which required its interference. In either case, the inquiry ought to be made; and as it did not, for the reason which he had stated, interfere with the treaty-making power, he hoped that neither the gentleman from Kentucky, nor any other member, would find any insuperable difficulties in calling for the information, and that the resolution would be adopted. interest, substantially the whole interest, in this reserva- nothing himself of its value, there were gentlemen in this tion of four miles square, to the present Second Auditor House, who, he presumed, did know; and the annual value of the Treasury, and a person associated with him, for the sum of $2,000, and the payment of four bushels of salt annually. Mr. H. said that, so far as related to the present call for information, it was immaterial whether, in 1830, the reservation had reverted to the United States, or still belonged to the Chickasaws. He would not, on that point, speak with entire confidence, though he was strongly inclined to the opinion that the property had become vested in the United States, and as absolutely vested as any part of the public domain. He would, however, examine the transaction in both aspects, and its character would not thereby be changed. What, he asked, had been done? A high public officer had been employed to conclude a treaty with these Indians on terms mutually advantageous to both the contracting parties. If the land belonged to the United States, if it was the property of this nation, ought not the House to know whether In dians had been permitted, with the consent of the commissioners of the United States, to convey it to the Second Auditor of the Treasury and his associate? What authority was given to the commissioners to allow a part of the public domain to be transferred to individual citizens? And if it belonged to the Chickasaws, the characteristic of what the real object of the gentleman from Massachufeatures of the transaction were not varied. A large tract setts [Mr. EVERETT] was, when he introduced his original of land had been transferred by them, and vested in two resolution, he thought, after the labored speech of the genindividuals, for a mere nominal sum, when compared with tleman on yesterday, and the course of this day's debate, what has been stated to be its real value. If this Govern- that doubt must have vanished. The House would rement had not been defrauded, was not the effect of the member that, as soon as the gentleman modified his arrangement a fraud on the tribe? If the Indians were original resolution on yesterday, and presented it in its desirous of disposing of this reservation, or were willing proper form, pointing out the object of his inquiry, his to make a gift of it, who ought to have been the pur- colleague [Mr. BELL] promptly withdrew his opposition chasers or the donees of it? The United States, or the to it, and gave his assent that the call should be made. Second Auditor of the Treasury and his associate? Who Notwithstanding this assent, the debate has been resumed were the parties to the treaty? The United States and to-day, and pursued in the same strain and spirit by the the Chickasaw tribe of Indians. Whose agents were the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. HUNTINGTON] who has commissioners who negotiated it--the agents of the just taken his seat. He was willing to allow to the gentleUnited States, or of the lessees of the property? At whose expense was the treaty concluded? Can it be doubted that if a cession of this reservation (on the supposition that it remained in the tribe of Indians) was to be made, it should have been made for the benefit of the United States, and not for two of its citizens? It was, moreover, to be remembered that the circumstances under which the treaty had been concluded were somewhat peculiar. It had been represented to the Indians, that they could not, with their habits and customs, live with comfort under the laws of the State; and that nothing but a removal west of the Mississippi would relieve them from the evils with which they, at least, supposed they were threatened. Mr. POLK said, if the House had entertained any doubt man from Massachusetts, and to the gentleman from Connecticut, all the candor which they claimed, but he could not help supposing, from the character of the debate, that the object was not so much to obtain a copy of the article of the treaty called for by the resolution, as it was to display this matter before the public in advance of the information which the gentlemen profess to seek, upon an assumed state of facts, and the inferences which they choose to draw from them, with all the colorings which a fertile imagination could give to them. The gentleman from Massachusetts has denounced the circumstances connected with this transaction as corrupt, and the gentleman from Connecticut thinks it degrading and disgraceful. Sir, whatever the professed purpose of these gentlemen may be, the effect intended to be produced upon the public mind, by the character they have given to this debate, cannot be mistaken; it is to revive before the public, for political effect, he presumed, an old calumny in relation to the negotiation of the treaty with the Chickasaws in 1818, made years ago in the newspapers, met at the time, explained, refuted, and put down. It was while thus urged by the power of circumstances which they could not resist, that the Chickasaws had affixed their signature to a treaty, by which, among other provisions, they conveyed substantially to the Second Auditor and another citizen a tract of ten thousand acres of land for $2,000 and four bushels of salt annually. Was he to be told that this was their own voluntary act? that they were free to grant or not to grant? All knew the Now, sir, in regard to this salt spring reservation, now influence of such representations as had been made to magnified into a matter of such grave injury--what are them. It was impossible they could resist them. The the facts? He would state them briefly as he understood only choice left them was to take the price offered, or them to be. Prior to the treaty of 1818 with this tribe, nothing. Mr. H. said he would not comment on such a land as early as the year 1815 or 1816, the idea had been transaction. What was the amount which these unpro- taken up, that there existed in the Chickasaw country tected Indians had thus given up, (if they were the own- a valuable salt spring. Attempts were made by indivi. ers of the reservation?) A member from Tennessee, [Mr. duals, citizens of the United States, to make an agree C. JOHNSON,] who resided in the district including a part ment with the Indians to open and work them. of the reservation, could tell the House its value; he attempts failed, but the efforts used for this purpose had trusted he would do so; and, also, whether the occupants given to the Indians an exalted idea of the value and imof the land had not received notice to quit, or to pay rent portance of those salt mines. And when the commisto the lessees. The House possessed one criterion of the sioners, General Shelby, of Kentucky, and the present value of this reservation. Though he [Mr. H.] knew Chief Magistrate, came to negotiate the treaty of 1818, These [Mr. EVERETT said he wished not to be understood as having made any imputation whatever upon the President.] [FEB. 1, 1832. they found the Indians unwilling to cede. the spot supposed Mr. P. proceeded to remark that after the treaty had to contain these valuable salt waters. The Indians in- been fairly and openly negotiated and concluded, the Insisted to have a reservation of the land containing these dian reservees possessed the right, and indeed were revaluable salt waters for themselves; saying that if it had quired by the very terms of the article which the gentlepleased the Great Spirit to place under the earth in their man from Massachusetts had read to the House on yestercountry mines so valuable as they supposed these were, day, to lease the reservation to some citizen or citizens they ought to be kept for Indians, and should not go of the United States. They did lease it to the present to white men. The commissioners replied that a small Second Auditor of the Treasury, (then a private citizen of reservation of four miles square, in the middle of the Tennessee,) and to Mr. Robert P. Currin, of that State, country, which they were about to cede to the United for a term of years, for an annual rent, to be paid to the States, and which would soon be surrounded by a white tribe in salt, provided salt could be made upon it. These population, would be inconvenient both to the Indians lessees he understood had expended a large amount, he and the white people. The Indians, however, insisted, did not know the precise sum, but he had been informed and finally the commissioners informed them, that they from three to four thousand dollars, in fruitless experihad no objection to granting the reservation, and that ments to find salt water. All their efforts had failed, and the Indians should have and enjoy all the benefits of the they had years ago ceased to prosecute their labors, utsalt mines, if in fact there were any upon their lands, pro-terly despairing of success. It thus turned out that this vided they would agree to lease the reservation to citizens reservation, esteemed to be so valuable by the Indians, of the United States, who would occupy them, and be upon the supposition that it contained salt water, ceased under our laws and jurisdiction, and would not occu- to be so as soon as it was found that no salt could be propy them themselves. To this the Indians assented, and cured upon it. Upon the failure of the experiment, it the article which was read by the gentleman from Mas- ceased to have any other value than as so much land for sachusetts was accordingly inserted in the treaty. The the ordinary purposes of cultivation. treaty was concluded, and the commissioners returned In this situation was this reserve, when the Chickasaws home. And he said he undertook to state that the com- met the commissioners at Franklin, to negotiate the missioners who negotiated that treaty had no knowledge treaty of 1830; and when they had agreed upon the preor privity of the subsequent lease or bargain made be- liminaries, and were about to cede to the United States tween the Indians and the individuals alluded to by the all the remainder of the country which they possessed gentleman until long after the treaty had been concluded, east of the Mississippi, supposing very probably, as it and they had returned to their homes. And yet the strong was natural for them to do, that they had still an inte and unmeasured terms, corruption and disgrace, and de- rest in this reservation, at their instance, as I understood grading, are applied to this transaction. my colleague [Mr. BELL] to state, they proposed to change the terms of the lease, and to commute the salt rent which they were to have received, if salt had been made, for a gross amount in money. They made this agreement with Mr. Currin, one of the lessees, who hap pened to reside at the place where the treaty was held, and with the assent of the commissioners, and at the instance of the Indians themselves this new contract was made. This modification of the original lease was made between the Indians and Mr. Currin alone, the other lessee, the present Second Auditor of the Treasury, not being present; and he was informed that the Second AuMr. POLK said he had been strangely unfortunate, it ditor had now no interest whatever in the reservation, seemed, in apprehending both the gentlemen, and also and set up no claim to it. The interest, whatever it was, in the inferences which he had drawn from what they he was informed, was now owned by Mr. Currin solely; did say. Though not stated in terms, he supposed every and from what he had been informed in regard to the gentleman in the House must have understood the drift of value of the land, he had little doubt but that Mr. Currin their arguments as he had done. But as both the gentle- would be very willing to relinquish his claim, for the men have disavowed any intention to be so understood, money which has been expended in fruitless attempts to he stood corrected, and was happy that the House was obtain salt water, and the amount which he agreed by the now set right, by the gentlemen themselves, as to what last arrangement to pay the Indians as a commutation for they did mean, or rather what they did not mean. The the annual salt rent. Mr. Currin was an honorable man; gentleman from Massachusetts did certainly, however, in he was not, as had been said in conversation about the speaking of this reservation, draw a parallel, and suppose House, (for what purpose he knew not,) related in the a case. The case supposed was, whether, if Mr. Monroe remotest degree, either by consanguinity or affinity, with and Chancellor Livingston, in negotiating the Louisiana the Second Auditor of the Treasury, or either of the treaty, or whether his honorable friend near him, [Mr. commissioners who negotiated the treaties either of 1818 ADAMS,] in negotiating the Florida treaty, had caused a or 1830. This was the whole of this affair which had reservation of four miles square of fine land, in the middle been paraded before the House, and made to be a matter of the fine countries acquired by those treaties, to be laid of such grave importance. The gentleman from Mas off for relations or near friends, would the Senate, the sachusetts has drawn upon his imagination for facts, and gentleman asked, or would any member of the Senate, suffered himself to be deceived as to the value of this have advised the ratification of those treaties? The other reservation. He has represented it as fine land, in the gentleman [Mr. HUNTINGTON] had stated as a fact, deem- midst of a fine country, upon one of the finest rivers in the ed by him to be of some importance, that one of the West. He has compared it to the salt springs in Western lessees was a subscribing witness to the treaty of 1818. Virginia, which, after yielding a rent of thirty or sixty For what purpose these remarks had been made, but to thousand dollars, have also yielded an immense profit to leave the inference to be drawn that there had been con- the manufacturer of salt; and hence he concluded that nivance at least on the part of the commissioners, he had not, until the gentleman had explained, been able to understand. It was to repel any such imputation, if any such was intended, that he had chiefly risen. Mr. POLK said he was glad to hear the gentleman disclaim any such intention. He had understood a great part of the speeches of both the gentlemen as arguments attempting to prove that the President was privy to the lease made under the treaty. [Mr. HUNTINGTON here disclaimed having made any imputations against the commissioners who negotiated the treaty of 1818.] this reservation is a splendid fortune. This highly wrought picture of the value of those lands has been wholly drawn from the fertile imagination of the gentleman, and was intended, doubtless, to produce an imposing effect FEB. 1, 1832.] upon the public mind. An ap Now, what is the fact? No salt power among the members of the confederacy. water has or can be found upon the land, and the fictitious portionment among the several States, for the coming ten value, which may at any time have been placed upon it, years, of the representation of the country. This is a has long since ceased to exist. As to the land itself, or subject of no ordinary character; it is a subject of the its value for the ordinary purposes of cultivation, he had highest importance to the American people; a subject no personal knowledge, never having seen it. He knew, involving the right of representation; a right near and however, that the lands on Sandy river, a very small dear to every member of the republic. If this bill, as stream putting into the Tennessee from the South, were reported by the committee, should now pass, the effect generally sterile, and not valuable. A gentleman from will be an unjust and an unequal distribution of the reKentucky, a member of the House, and then in his eye, presentative political power among the States. Should had just informed him that the reservation, take it all to- the bill pass, New Hampshire would be entitled to five gether, was not worth an average of thirty-seven and a representatives; the amount of her population falls a lithalf cents an acre, and that as good land was now selling tle short of two hundred and seventy thousand; and by the in the western part of Kentucky, lying in the district from establishment of forty-eight thousand as the ratio of rewhich that member comes, for that price, and less. He presentation, it leaves her a fraction-a portion of her stated this information as he had received it from the population unrepresented, of twenty-nine thousand three gentleman from Kentucky. He knew nothing of its value hundred and twenty-six. A division of this remainder personally. His colleague over the way, [Mr. FITZ- among the number of her representatives would produce GERALD,] in whose district the reservation, he believed, this result-that the ratio of her representation would be lay, had been called on to state its value. He hoped his little short of fifty-four thousand, while Tennessee, with a colleague would avail himself of some opportunity, be- federal population of 625,263, would be represented under fore the discussion closed, to do so. The estimate of this bill at a ratio of 48,097. In this instance, there is a value placed on this reservation had been based wholly most unjust effect produced upon New Hampshire by the on the expectation of making salt; that failing, the lands establishment of 48,000 as the ratio of representation. are comparatively of little value. He had risen chiefly to Vermont contained a population of 280,657. Under this make these statements of facts as he had understood them. bill as reported by the committees, she would be entitled Mr. EVERETT rose for the purpose of observing that to five representatives, and would have an unrepresented the gentleman from Tennessee was mistaken in attributing fraction of 40,657; and this number divided among the to him the revival of a long exploded matter. The sub-number of her representatives would produce the result, ject had never previously been brought before the public that the ratio of her representation would exceed 56,000, to his knowledge, in any form or shape. while that of Tennessee, as has already been shown, would but little exceed that named in the bill. Mr. POLK replied that the subject of this Indian reservation had been the subject of newspaper publications many years ago, and had been then satisfactorily met and explained, and had failed to produce the effect upon the public mind which was intended by them. At this point of the debate, Mr. HUBBARD moved that the House proceed to the orders of the day; and the House resumed the consideration of the APPORTIONMENT BILL. Compare Vermont and New Hampshire with Pennsyl vania, and what would be the result? It would be found that the latter State, by the establishment of 48,000, would have but a small unrepresented fraction. So that she would have one representative to every 48,145 persons, while New Hampshire, would only be entitled to one representative for every 54,000, and Vermont for every 56,000. And, pursuing the examination, it would be found that with the exception of Delaware, and one or two small Mr. HUBBARD said, that while the bill was under the States, it would be seen that the establishment of the ratio consideration of the Committee of the Whole House, he as reported by the committee would operate most unhad made a motion to amend, similar to the one which he equally and unjustly upon New Hampshire, upon Vermont, had now proposed. That motion was discussed; every and upon Massachusetts, three of the New England States. gentleman who had any thing to offer, was heard-fully There could be no mistake about this; it was the result heard; days were spent in the discussion of the subject. of calculation, which the tables placed before the memIt was even then his purpose to have submitted some an-bers would enable them to make for themselves. He swer to the objections, and some considerations which had had traced it through. He had examined it with care, and induced the motion, but circumstances had prevented--was prepared to say that the establishment of 48,000 as the question was taken, and the vote of the committee was the ratio, produced, in its effect upon his own State and the against the motion. He knew full well that the course contiguous State of Vermont, the most palpable injustice. pursued by the committee proceeded from no unkindness He had taken the pains to follow out this comparison, to himself: that it was a course suggested by some of as it relates both to New Hampshire and Vermont, with his best friends. Yet he was perfectly aware that he could New York, and with the other States of the Union, and not, consistent with the rules of order, answer here what it had occurred to him, as the result of his examination, had been objected to elsewhere; that he could not, in the that they had great cause of complaint. On what princple House, advert to the arguments which had been urged in should this bill rest? On population, and on population the Committee of the Whole. That consideration of itself alone. It will hardly be contended that the representacreated embarrassment. It was also a fact within his re- tion by this bill, as reported, is distributed among the collection, that the committee had, by a vote, gone against several States on the principle of equal population. And his motion. That circumstance would have restrained it was extremely difficult for him satisfactorily to account him from making any further effort, had he not been en-for the manner in which the committee came to the result couraged to hope, by the vote last evening on the motion they did. The ratio was most manifestly established withof the gentleman from Kentucky to strike out forty-eight. out any regard to the general increase of the population Under all the circumstances, he felt impelled by a duty of the country. It had no reference to that increase, and he owed to himself, by a duty he owed to his State, to submit some general considerations in support of his motion to amend, and also, as far it was proper for him so to do, to notice some of the objections which had been urged against it. What is the purport of the bill reported by the committee? What does it propose? A division of political there was not to be found any fixed rule in the history of our legislation, which could have had a controlling influence upon the committee in their decision. There was an entire absence, as far as he had been able to discover, of any fixed rule or principle in establishing the ratio reported by the committee. He would observe that the population of the country in 1790 was 3,929,827; to 7,239,814. The ratio of representation then fixed was New Jersey, 35,000, and the number of representatives produced by Pennsylvania, that ratio was one hundred and eighty-one. that the ratio of representation then fixed was 33,000; Mississippi has a fraction of Making, In 1810, the whole population of the country amounted New York has a fraction of In 1820, the whole number of the population was 9,638,131. The ratio then established was 40,000, and that ratio produced two hundred and thirteen representatives. Indiana has a fraction of In 1830, the population of the country consisted of Illinois, 12,716,608. Making, 77,095 7,030 13,147 34,419 The bill proposes to establish 48,000 as the ratio of representation, which would, in effect, produce two hundred and thirty-seven representatives. From 1790 to 1800, the increase of population was 1,376,098. The increase of representation was thirty-six. From 1800 to 1810, the increase of population was 1,923,889. The increase of representation was forty. From 1810 to 1820, the increase of population was 2,398,317. The increase of the representation was thirty two. From 1820 to 1830, the increase of the population has been 3,078,471, and the establishment of the ratio reported in the bill would give an increase in the general representation of only twenty-four. But if the represen tation should proportionably increase as the population had increased for the last ten years, instead of having an increase of twenty-four, it should have an increase of more than forty, which the amendment he had proposed would secure. Mississippi, From this exhibit, it fully appears that so far from the ratio fixed by the committee producing an equal unrepresented fraction in the different sections of the Union, the reverse is the case, if the sections shall be composed of contiguous States. And it must occur to every one who will undertake to make the calculations, that this unexpected fraction operates with great severity upon those States, in New England, before named, when compared with any other three contiguous States in this Union. Another reason has been stated, why the ratio of 48,000 was reported in the bill. It was this: That a higher number would deprive the State of Rhode Island of one-half of her representation in this House. He felt no disposition to urge a single objection to this reason assigned. Such a course he would himself have It will then be most manifest that, in reporting 48,000 pursued, had he been on the committee. And he peras the ratio of representation, the committee could not fectly commended them in taking this view of the subject. have been governed exclusively by population. That It was due to that State. But, at the same time, he felt the ratio itself does not give an increase of the representa- some little surprise that the same considerations, that the tion--keeping pace with the increase of the population same motives which had induced the committee to fix of the country. upon a ratio that would save Rhode Island, had not proThe particular effect produced by the ratio of 48,000-duced a similar effect in relation to his own State, and to an effect of which he must complain--was to deprive New the State of Massachusetts. It certainly would have been Hampshire and Massachusetts each of one in the number no greater act of injustice to have deprived Rhode Island of her present representation. And how is this proceed- of one-half of her representation, with her population, ing justified? It has been said, by establishing 48,000 as than to deprive New Hampshire of one-sixth part of the the ratio, that the amount of fractions unrepresented in representation, with her present population. the great sections of the Union would be very nearly equal. Without knowing what particular sections were intended to be described, it would be difficult to make a definite answer to the suggestion. He had, with great care, made a comparison between contiguous States in different sections of the Union, and the result of the examination had satisfied his mind that no other ratio within the range of calculations could have produced more inequality in the amount of unrepresented fractions, than the ratio fixed by the committee. Vermont has a fraction of New Hampshire, By the last apportionment, Connecticut and Vermont, two of the New England States, were each deprived of one representative. By the proposed apportionment, New Hampshire and Massachusetts will each be deprived of a representative. And yet, so far from the circumstance of the first act operating now as a reason why the contemplated act should be perfected, it has been urged as a reason for the proceeding. He was fully prepared to say that no reasons had been 40,457 offered, here or elsewhere, in the House or in the commit34,407 tee, which could induce him to lend his support in favor 29,326 of this bill. He would not impugn the motives of any man, or of any 104,190 set of men; but he might be permitted to say with perfect truth, that forty-eight thousand, the ratio of repre45,832 sentation as established by the committee, was the most 1,263 favored number to those States from which the committee 23,882 were selected, that could have been designated. He would venture to say that, as it affected those States, it 70,977 was the most fortunate number for them that could have accidentally happened. And as to the selection, as it bears 15,503 upon his own State, and the State contiguous to his own, 23,025 no accident could have been more unlucky or more un45,811 fortunate. The amendment which he had proposed would effect84,339 ually remedy the evils which are the subjects of complaint. |