H. OF R.]

Report on the Tariff.

Mr. JOHNSTON,,of Virginia, suggested to gentlemen between the extremes of forty-eight and forty-four, to meet on the middle ground, and vote for a ratio of forty-six thousand, as a compromise.

Mr. MERCER moved to amend Mr. CLAY'S amendment, by striking out seven and inserting six.

Mr. KERR suggested to Mr. MERCER to withdraw his motion, with a view of enabling him to propose forty-four thousand five hundred, which would include the States of New Hampshire and Maryland as well as Virginia, in the advantage of the ratio.

Mr. MERCER agreed to it.

Mr. KERR then moved to amend the amendment by striking out seven, and inserting in lieu thereof four thousand five hundred, so as to make the ratio forty-four thousand five hundred.

Mr. IRVIN made an ineffectual motion for the previous question.

After some remarks from Mr. WILDE and Mr. EVANS, of Maine,

Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, modified his motion so as to strike out eight and insert seven, so as to make the ratio forty-seven thousand, and the question being taken, the amendment was rejected by a vote of yeas 65, nays

127.

Mr. KERR then moved to strike out eight and insert five, so as to make the ratio thirty-five thousand, and asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered; but, before the question was taken,

The House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8.

REPORT ON THE TARIFF.

[FEB. 8, 1832.

subversion of the manufacturing interests, the great mechanical interests, and, he might add, the navigating interests too, at least so far as the fisheries are concerned, for the levelling doctrines put forth make no distinction on the rate of duties on any kind of imports, however they might bear on either of those great interests referred to: all were brought down to twelve and a half per cent., thus uprooting the earliest and wisest policy of the republic. He felt, therefore, bound, in common with his friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. GILMORE,] to meet the report with a protest at its first introduction here, as they had done in the committee room, and should reserve to himself, and his associate who went with him, the right of presenting their objections more in detail hereafter, and in a more formal manner.

Mr. VERPLANCK remarked that he, too, as a member of the Committee of Ways and Means, must ask to be indulged in the same privilege which he had just claimed for one of his colleagues on the committee, and to express his own dissent from the report just made by their chairman. It, however, was his misfortune on this occasion to occupy a singular and solitary position on the committee, differing very widely from the views of those with whom he had often before acted on similar occasions, without agreeing with the principles and objects of that minority who ably represented the manufacturing interests. The report made by the chairman, and in which the three Southern members of the committee had concurred with him, contained many principles and arguments in which, said Mr. V., I fully agree; but I must wholly protest against much of it, which represents the great burden of the existing tariff laws as falling almost exclusively in heavy taxation upon the planting or cotton exporting States, whilst the Northern and Middle States I cannot assent to

Mr. McDUFFIE, from the Committee of Ways and received from it nothing but benefits. Means, reported the following bill:

A bill to reduce and equalize the duties on imports. Be it enacted, &c. That, from and after the 30th day of June next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, on all iron and steel, salt, sugar, cotton bagging, hemp, fax, and manufactures of iron, cotton, and wool, imported into the United States, duties of twenty-five per centum ad valorem, and no more, until the 30th of June, 1833; after which, the said duties shall be eighteen and three-fourths per centum ad valorem, and no more, until the 30th of June, 1834; after which, the said duties shall be twelve and a half per centum ad valorem, and no more.

And be it enacted, That, from and after the 30th day of June next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all other merchandise imported into the United States, twelve and a half per centum ad valorem, and no more; except such articles as are now imported free of duty, or at a lower rate of ad valorem duty than twelve and a half

per centum.

The above bill (which was twice read and committed) was accompanied by a report of considerable length. When it was announced,

any report on this subject, which denies or omits to notice the heavy weight laid by an extravagant and ill-judged tariff upon the free laborer of the North; the effect produced in diminishing the real reward and wages of free labor; to say nothing of its operation upon commercial enterprise. If I could think that my opinions on these and other points on which I differed from my colleagues on both sides of the committee, were in any sense original or peculiar, I could not have thought of indulging any pride of opinion, by thus obtruding them upon the House. But I am confident, that if alone in these views in the committee room, I am not so in this House. At any rate, I am sure that I express the conviction of a numerous and intelligent body of my own immediate constituents, and of no inconsiderable number of other valuable citizens of the State I, in part, represent.

Still this report contains much higher matter-many weighty opinions and arguments lucidly and powerfully urged-arguments that, if erroneous, (as I think they partly are,) are yet entitled to the most serious consideration of the people of this Union, as expressing the deliberate and deep felt convictions of a great body of their brethren. It is for these reasons that I shall, as soon as it is in order, move for the printing of five thousand additional copies for distribution. In the mean time, I must make this personal protest as to much of its doctrines, reserving to myself the right of doing it hereafter in a more formal manner, by a counter report, or upon the floor of this House.

Mr. INGERSOLL said he would avail himself of the present moment to state to the House that he differed toto calo from the majority of the committee by whom the report had been made. It was true he stood in a small minority in the Committee of Ways and Means on this question, only one gentleman, the honorable member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. GILMORE,] agreeing with him in com- In regard to the bill accompanying this report, I feel it mittee in regard to the protective policy of the country. my duty to add that I did not agree to the expediency of He had heard the report read but once, and had no oppor- introducing it in this form, whatever I might have thought tunity to examine it before its introduction; it was a long of it theoretically, and under other circumstances. From manuscript of some thirty pages, and further time would be necessary before the minority would be able to prepare a counter report, expressing their views, which they intended to do hereafter. He considered the principles of the report and the accompanying bill as aiming at the

the low point of final reduction proposed, the rapidity of reduction, and the sweeping extent of its operation, it does not seem to me to offer any satisfactory basis for the adjustment of that disturbing question which threatens to rend this nation. For such an adjustment I had hoped at

FEB. 8, 1832.]

Report on Steam Carriages.--Apportionment Bill.

the beginning of this session. I still hope for it, though often fearing that I am hoping against hope. Yet I do still look around me, and especially to some parts of this House-[here Mr. V. appeared to address the chairman of the Committee on Manufactures]--with the strong hope of yet participating in a course of legislation conceived in the spirit of peace, and resulting in peace. Until then I must protest against being considered a party to any measure or any expression of opinion calculated to prevent or delay such measures.

The report was then ordered to be printed.

REPORT ON STEAM CARRIAGES.

Mr. MERCER, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, reported the following resolution:

[H. of R.

APPORTIONMENT BILL. The question depending at the time of adjournment yesterday was on striking out the ratio of 48, and inserting 45,000.

The question upon this amendment was forthwith taken without debate, and decided in the negative--yeas 68, nays 118.

Mr. DODDRIDGE then moved to strike out 48,000, and insert 46,000.

This motion was also negatived--yeas 71, nays 116. Mr. VANCE then moved that 44,500 be inserted in lieu of 48.

Mr. WICKLIFFE, although he admitted the House was as full as usual, yet, as a last effort on behalf of those States that would be injured by the adoption of the ratio of forty-eight, he would move a call of the House; and he would appeal to the magnanimity of those members from the States who clung so pertinaciously to that

Resolved, That the report of a select committee of the House of Commons of Great Britain, bearing date October 12th, 1831, on the use of steam carriages on common roads, with the minutes of evidence, and appendix attach-number. ed thereto, be printed.

Mr. SPEIGHT was not disposed to cavil at any means by which information might be afforded to the House; but when called upon to vote away a portion of the public money for the purpose of printing a work, he thought it due to himself, and to those whom he represented, to ascertain what was the value of the work to the public, for which a disbursement of the public money was sought. He should like the work in question to be laid on the table, that members might have an opportunity of examining and judging for themselves as to the propriety of making an appropriation of the public money for the purpose of printing it.

Mr. MERCER said that the information contained in the report could not be otherwise obtained, at an expense short of three thousand dollars. It was a proposition of the Committee on Internal Improvements, not one of his.

Mr. HOWARD suggested to the gentleman from Virginia the propriety of amending his motion, so as to have an extra number of copies printed.

Mr. MERCER said that, acting under the orders of the committee, he could not at that time offer such an amendment; when the copies ordered, however, should be supplied, a motion might be made for printing an extra number, if gentlemen thought proper.

The call was sustained, and the roll being called over, one hundred and ninety-five members answered to their names; and, after some time spent in receiving excuses, &c., further proceedings on the call were suspended.

Mr. VANCE now, after some suggestions from other gentlemen, varied his motion by proposing 44,400 as a substitute for the ratio of 48,000.

Mr. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, then rose, and addressed the House as follows:

Mr. Speaker: As this is probably the last opportunity which will be afforded for presenting to the House considerations in behalf of those States which are aggrieved by the ratio of representation fixed in the bill reported by the committee, I feel myself impelled, by an irresistible sense of duty, to offer some remarks; in doing which, however, I promise not to trespass long upon the indulg ence of the House.

In the first place, I would draw the attention of the House to the hardship of the case of the States aggrieved. Some days since, after a long and full discussion of the question between the number of 48,000 reported by the committee, and of 44,000, which will leave every State without curtailment of her representation upon this floor, the House did decide, by a vote of ninety-eight to ninetysix, in favor of the latter number; a vote by which, I did flatter myself, that those who had the power of life Mr. MITCHELL was quite as anxious that the House and death in their hands would permit us all to live--for should be well informed on every subject as any gentleman | to take away from any State of the Union a part of her on that floor; but he thought they might as well publish a representation in this House, is to take from her a part of book on mathematics at the public expense, as the subject her life. before them. He thought they could only authorize the printing of such works as sprung immediately out of subjects before the House; and such was not the case with the report in question. Mr. M. concluded by asking for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EVERETT said, as the yeas and nays had been asked, he would offer one or two observations. It was but a week since that the Committee on Foreign Affairs had moved for the printing of a report of a committee of the British House of Parliament on the subject of the cholera morbus; and a gentleman from New York had subsequently moved the printing of a number of extra copies. No gentleman had, on those occasions, objected to the constitutionality of appropriating public money for the printing of works on medicine or nosology. He would not be understood to place those matters which affected the health or life of the community, on a parity with those relating to internal improvements; but it must be admitted that every thing which could facilitate the latter, was of great interest and importance to the whole commonwealth.

On motion of Mr. POLK, the House then proceeded to the orders of the day; and, after passing a number of engrossed bills, took up the

The next day, however, a respected member from Pennsylvania, for whose vote I had felt grateful the day before, moved a reconsideration of that vote; I took the liberty to inquire what were his reasons for moving that reconsideration; he answered that it was because there were members present who had been absent the day before, and who wished for an opportunity to vote upon the question. They did vote, and the decision of the preceding day was reversed by a vote of one hundred to ninety-four. But observe, sir, that the number of voters was precisely the same. If these new members had come in to vote the second day, there was an equal number who had voted the day before, and who were then absent; so that we had not only to contend with the new comers, but lost, by absence, votes which had been given for us the day before. We also lost two votes from Pennsylvania, which had been with us the preceding day, but were, on the reconsideration, against us. The decision of the question, then, is in the will of Pennsylvania. To her were the aggrieved States indebted for the decision in their favor; to her must they attribute the reversal of that decision.

In the debate of the day upon which we were so for tunate as to carry the ratio of 44,000, I had taken the

H. OF R.]

Apportionment Bill.

[FEB. 8, 1832.

occasion to remark the singular coincidence between the one, or certainly by a combination of two of the largest composition of the committee which reported the bill, States! What, for instance, could resist the combination and the number of 48,000 fixed as the ratio of the repre- of the two States of Pennsylvania and New York, even sentation in it. The chairman of the committee is a citizen now returning sixty votes in this House, to establish any of the State of Tennessee. There were on the commit-ratio of representation which should precisely suit themtee one member from the State of Pennsylvania, two from selves, and at the same time favor one portion of the smallNew York, one from Ohio, one from Maine, and one from er States, to the grievous oppression of another? If this Louisiana. These six States have now ninety-three mem-example should now be set, how much more at the mercy bers on this floor, while the six States specially injured by of those States will the rest be, with their increased prethe ratio reported in the bill, New Hampshire, Massachu- ponderance at the next apportionment ten years hence; setts, Vermont Maryland, Georgia, and Kentucky, have and how can the smaller States expect ever to obtain relief? only fifty-four members. The two States of New York Let it not be forgotten, in connexion with this view of and Pennsylvania alone have sixty members-six more the subject, that the large ratio now proposed goes upon than the aggregate number of the six injured States. Re-a principle reversing that which prevailed at the adoption curring again to the ratio reported by the committee, it of the constitution of the United States, and which has will be seen that, to the State of Louisiana, there is scarce- uniformly prevailed at every former apportionment to this ly any difference between the ratio reported, and that time. Hitherto the predominating principle has been to now proposed in its stead; nor is there any material dif- make the representative body numerous, and the constiference to the States of New York, Ohio, and Maine. But tuent numbers small. The principle now proposed and with the State of Tennessee, to which the chairman of the urged is directly the reverse--to make the representative committee belongs, and with the State of Pennsylvania, small, and the constituent body numerous. At a former of which one member of the committee is a citizen, the stage of this debate, I observed that one prominent reason case is not the same. So peculiarly adapted is the report- with me, for preferring the ratio of 44,000 at this time, ed number of 48,000 to the returns of the census from was, that it was precisely the ratio fixed by the constitution those two States, that it gives to Tennessee thirteen mem- of the United States itself; that is, that it would give a bers, with a population of 625,263; and to Massachusetts House of Representatives in numbers increased in exact only twelve members, with a population of 610,407. It proportion to the increase of the population of the whole gives to Pennsylvania twenty-eight members, one for Union since that time. For a population of about three every 48,145 souls in the State, and to Vermont only five million two hundred thousand souls, the constitution members, or one for every 56,131 souls. Is this what the gave a House of Representatives of sixty-five members; constitution prescribes--a representation according to and now the ratio of forty-four thousand would give a numbers? The State of New York did not carve for herself. House of Representatives of two hundred and fiftyThere is little difference between the two numbers to her, nine members--the representation and the population and we find her members on this floor voting diversely being augmented in the same proportion of four to upon the questions which have arisen. But how is it with one. To this observation two answers were given in dePennsylvania, now the dictatress of this apportionment? bate: 1st. That this same principle of making the increase She has twenty-six members on this floor. With one or of representation to correspond with the increase of potwo exceptions, she has voted in solid phalanx against us. pulation, would not be suitable in a century, or perhaps One of her members, indeed, has uniformly voted in even half a century hence; because it would then unquesfavor of the injured States. He gave us yesterday his tionably make the representation too numerous: and, 2dly. opinions, in a manner to which the House, and I trust the That the ratio of representation established in the constination, will do justice. Whatever the effect of the vote tution was arbitrary, and that any proportion correspondnow to be given may be, his opinions were delivered in a ing with it now must be accidental and fanciful. To the manner honorable to himself, and which will reflect honor first of these objections, I reply that all wise legislation upon his constituents. There was no selfish or contracted must be adapted to the circumstances of the times for principle of exclusiveness in his system; it was founded which it is to provide; that we are not called to make an on the purest basis of republicanism--on those principles apportionment of the representation of the people of the of conciliation and of mutual concession which ought to United States fifty or a hundred years hence. The congovern all the councils of this Union, and of which we stitution of the United States has prescribed a much have more than ever need at this time. With that ex-more limited term to our labors. Our apportionment can ception, and one more, yielded for one day, and then de- last only ten years. Our successors will then be called to cisive in our favor--but, I lament to say, the next day with- go over the same work again. The ratio which we now drawn, with like but opposite effect--with one or two of adopt must be then laid aside, and another must supply its these exceptions, Pennsylvania has moved in solid column place; “sufficient unto the day is the good, and the evil to sustain the ratio which suits herself, and which is so un-thereof." But it cannot be an objection to any ratio of equally oppressive on six of the smaller States of the proportion now established, that in half a century, or a Union. I do not mean to complain of the honorable mem- whole one, the same rule of proportion will become imbers from Pennsylvania. I merely state and lament the practicable. Upon other subjects, our laws may be sta fact. They have doubtless done what they consider to tutes for our posterity as well as for ourselves; in this the be their duty. As the representative of a portion of constitution itself confines us within the limit of ten years. the people of a State which at the first organization of To the second objection, I say that the ratio of representathis Government had a representation in this House of tion established by the constitution was not arbitrary-far numbers equal to hers, now reduced and divided into the otherwise. It formed one of the most important and trycondition of a small State, I observe with no invidious ing subjects of debate agitated in the convention. It was feeling that swelling tide of prosperity which has yielded debated long-seriously--at different stages of the proso large an increase to her representation here; but if thegress of that body in their work; and with as much effect of that increase is to be what we are now witness-earnestness and animation as has been exhibited in the dising, I ask gentlemen to consider what the condition of the cussion of the bill now before us in this House. This smaller States of the Union will be. Once in every ten I shall show by reference to the journals of the convenyears to have the apportionment of their representative tion, and by circumstances which, although not appearing numbers fixed with extreme partiality and inequality by there, and perhaps unknown to most of the members of this House, were well and generally known at the time when the constitution was sent forth to the people.

*Colonel Watmough.

FEB. 8, 1832.]

Apportionment Bill.

[H. OF R.

"II. That in the second branch of the Legislature, each State shall have an equal vote."

The convention had been appointed to revise the arti- the States now in the Union be allowed one member for cles of confederation, the first compact of union formed every forty thousand inhabitants of the description reportbetween the States of the confederacy; under that com-ed in the seventh resolution of the Committee of the Whole pact, the Congress consisted of a single assembly, of de- House. That each State not containing that number shall legations from the thirteen States, each State having one be allowed one member," &c. vote, and being represented by not less than two nor by more than seven members. The maximum of delegation for any State was seven, which, multiplied by thirteen, the The question upon the second of these propositions was number of the States, made ninety-one, the highest num-taken before that upon the first. It was determined that ber of which the Congress of the confederation could each State should have an equal vote in the Senate. There consist, with full delegations from every State. But whether it was that the confederate character of the Union was to a State was represented by two members or by seven, her delegation possessed but one vote, which was expressed by the majority of her delegation, and when that was of equal numbers and equally divided, as very often happened, she could give no vote at all.

The convention assembled for business on the 25th of May, 1787; on the 29th of that month, Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia, offered fifteen resolutions, which formed the basis of all the subsequent deliberations of the convention. Among these resolutions were the following: 3d. Resolved. That the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches.

4th. Resolved. That the members of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States, &c.

These resolutions of Mr. Randolph were, together with other projects presented by different members of the convention, successively debated in Committee of the Whole, till the 19th of June, when they were reported with amendments and additions in nineteen resolutions, by the Committee of the Whole, to the convention. Of these, the two resolutions which I have just read, as originally offered by Mr. Randolph, formed, in the report of the Committee of the Whole, the second and third.

The second resolution reported by the committee was, "That the right of suffrage in the first branch of the National Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation, but according to some equitable ratio of representation, namely, in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens, and inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes in each State."

The eighth resolution was,

"That the rights of suffrage in the second branch of the National Legislature ought to be according to the rule established by the first."

Here the ratio of representation in both Houses was proposed to be the same.

be retained, and the representation in that body was fixed at two members for each State, the smallest number by which a State could be represented under the articles of confederation.

The Senate was therefore to consist of twenty-six members; and then, to complete the largest number by which the States could have been represented under the articles of confederation, there remained for the composition of the House of Representatives sixty-five members to be apportioned among the several States according to the number of their federal population respectively. Of that number, the House of Representatives established by the constitution was accordingly composed; and the sixty-five members of the House of Representatives, and the twenty-six members of the Senate, formed the precise number of ninety-one--the largest number by which the whole thirteen States could have been represented in the Congress of the confederation.

In this composition of the two Houses of Congress with regard to their numbers, there was then surely nothing arbitrary. It was a revision of the articles of confederation. Under them the Congress consisted of a single assembly; the minimum of representation in which was twenty-six, the maximum ninety-one. The constitution formed a Congress of two Houses, retaining the minimum of the old representation in one, and distributing the complement of the maximum according to the principle of popular representation in the other. Nor was the distribution of the numbers among the States more arbitrary than the aggregate number of the whole. It was made after much deliberation and much debate. There had been no exact and formal enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States before taken, but quotas of taxation had been assessed upon the several States by the old Congress two years before, and estimates of their respective population had been given in by the delegations from the several States. In the printed journals of the convention, at page 159, two of these statements will be found, which present a population of about three millions. When the census came to be taken, from three to five years afterwards, the result presented a population of less than four millions, including about seven hundred thousand slaves. The estimates used by the convention therefore rather underrated, though very little, the actual population at the time, which must have been very near three million two hundred thousand souls.

On the 29th of June, after ten days of debate, so much of the seventh resolution as went to substitute for the rule of the confederation some equitable ratio of representation in the first branch of the Legislature, was adopted. The remainder of that resolution was postponed, and a motion was made to amend the eighth resolution reported from But from the first conception of organizing in Congress the Committee of the Whole, so as to read: a representation of the people, observe the principle as"Resolved, That, in the second branch of the Legisla-sumed of a large representation for a small constituency-ture of the United States, each State shall have an equal

vote."

On the 2d of July, after much debate, the question was taken upon this amendment, and it failed by a tiefive States voting for it--five against it, and one being divided.

The eighth resolution, together with so much of the seventh as had been left undecided, was then referred to a committee of one member from each State, which, after an adjournment over of two days, reported a recommendation of two propositions, on condition that both should be generally adopted.

a principle truly republican, and vital to that of democracy--a principle which has been preferred through every stage of our history, from that day to the present, when, for the first time, we are called upon to reverse it, and adopt its direct opposite of a large constituent for a small. representative body.

The propositions for organizing the new Congress in two Houses were presented by the committee as conjoint, and mutually conditional of each other. That in the Senate each State should have an equal vote--and that in the House each State should have one representative for every forty thousand inhabitants of federal num"I. That, in the first branch of the Legislature, each of bers. Both these propositions were adopted; and as the

H. of R.]

Apportionment Bill.

[FEB. 8, 1832.

number of sixty-five, of which the House of Representa- people, hitherto, excepting that by virtue of which we tives was to be composed, was the largest number which are here assembled. The apportionment under which we could be assumed without transcending the maximum of sit is of one member for every forty thousand, precisely representation allowed by the articles of confederation, the smallest number which could have been assumed, so a ratio of forty thousand federal numbers for each even after the first enumeration, if the alteration thus representative was the nearest approach they could effected by President Washington had not taken place. make to a House of sixty-five members, for the popula- The apportionment adopted after the first enumeration tion summed up according to the estimates which they of 1790 was of one member for every thirty-three thouhad before them. sand, and it gave a House of one hundred and five memIn the first draught of the constitution reported to the bers. The same ratio was adopted ten years later, after convention on the 6th of August, the number of sixty-five the second census, and gave a House of one hundred and was accordingly fixed for the House of Representatives; forty one members. After the third enumeration in 1810, until a census of the people should be taken, the number the ratio was still increased only to thirty-five thousand, of forty thousand was settled as the ratio of representa- and returned a House of one hundred and eighty-one tion, and the number of representatives allotted to each members. It was only in 1820 that the ratio of forty State was proportioned to the relative numbers of its then estimated population to that of the whole Union.

thousand was assumed--the smallest that could have been assumed thirty years before, but for the amendment carried by the prevailing influence of Washington.

All this was assuredly any thing but arbitrary. The draught of the constitution, in twenty-three articles, In the low ratio adopted after the first enumeration, of was debated, article by article, and amended, till the 12th of thirty-three thousand, approaching so near to the smallest September, when a new and revised draught was reported number for the constituent body admissible by the amendby a committee of five members which had been appointed ed constitution; in the adherence to the same ratio ten on the 8th of that month for that purpose. In this second years after; in the very small increase of only two thoudraught, after the provision made for taking of the census sand to the ratio of 1810; and even in the apportionment within three years after the first meeting of the new Con- now existing, being that which had been deliberately gress, it was prescribed that the number of represen- adopted by the final draught of the constitution as the minitatives should not exceed one for every forty thousand, mum of the constituent body for a population of only three but that each State should have at least one representative. millions of souls, we discern a constant and unvarying This was a new limitation, to restrain the numbers of the preference for the principle of a large representative for House of Representatives, so that the whole number of a small constituent body. members of Congress should not exceed that which they And such is the vital principle of popular representahad adopted, and which equalled the largest represen- tion, I shall not enter into the general question, so well tation allowed by the articles of confederation--and thus and so ably pressed upon the attention of the House by the constitution, and the letter of President Washington, the members from Georgia [Mr. WAYNE] and from Virtransmitting it to the President of Congress, were agreed ginia, [Mr. MERCER,] of the expediency of a numerous to. The constitution was engrossed. And now let us body of representatives, to maintain the relative weight recur again to the journal of the convention of 17th Sep- and influence of this House in the Government, with refertember. ence to the other branch of the Legislature, and to the "The engrossed constitution being read, it was moved co-ordinate department of the Executive. That topic has that the constitution be signed by the members in the fol- been exhausted by them. But what is popular represenlowing form: Done in convention, by the unanimous con-tation in its essence and in its origin? It is a substituted sent of the States present, the 17th September, &c. invention of modern times, for the meeting of the whole In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our body of the people-a substitute suggested by necessity, because the whole body of the people, from their great Well, sir, after this, and at the very moment when the numbers, find it impracticable to meet and transact the members were all ready to sign the engrossed constitu- affairs of the community in person. Were they not too tion, what says the journal? numerous, they would certainly prefer to act for them

names.'

"It was moved to reconsider the clause declaring that selves. Popular representation, therefore, is in its nature the number of representatives shall not exceed one for a representation in numbers; and, as such, it is expressly every forty thousand, in order to strike out forty thou-prescribed for the formation of the House of Representasand, and insert thirty thousand. Which passed in the tives by the constitution of the United States. To be conaffirmative."

And the very next entry upon the journal is,

sistent with its own character, it should be numerous; increasing at least in some proportion with the increase "On the question to agree to the constitution enrolled of the numbers represented, not indeed always in the in order to be signed, all the States answered, ay." same proportion, but always having reference thereto, as The constitution was signed by the members, and the con- well as to the magnitude and multiplicity of the business vention dissolved itself by an adjournment without day. to be transacted, and to the practicability and convenience Now, sir, this diminution from forty thousand to thirty of transacting it. It has been said that the Congress thousand as the lowest admissible ratio of representation which declared our independence consisted of less than to be assumed after the enumeration of the people of the sixty members; that the convention which formed the United States should be taken, was thus effected at the constitution of the United States was not more numerous; very last moment of the existence of the convention, by and it is asked whether those assemblies were not amply the personal interposition, and at the solicitation of Presi- competent to represent the people of this Union. They dent Washington himself. It became universally known, were so, but the Congress of the confederation, as we and was one of the most popular acts of his life. I hesi- have seen, were as numerous, in proportion to the people tate not to express my belief that it contributed to ac- of the Union then, as would be an assembly of near three complish the adoption of the constitution by the people; hundred persons now. They were, besides, under the and I consider it now, as it was generally considered then, articles of confederation, representatives of States, and as an emphatic manifestation of his opinion in favor of a not of numbers-a federative and not a popular represennumerous representation of the people in the popular tation. branch of the Legislature.

So also was the convention which formed the constituNow, sir, consider how much the numbers of this House tion of the United States. Besides which, the task they would have been reduced under every enumeration of the had to perform, great and momentous as it was, had a