OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS. 834 APRIL 24, 25,1832.] Appropriation Bill.--Washington's Statue.--Vaccination.-Apportionment Bill. [SENATE. The question was then taken, and decided in the nega- solution of the House, authorizing the President to emtive, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Chambers, Clayton, Dallas, Holmes, Mangum, Poindexter, Seymour, Silsbee, Waggaman.-10. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Clay, Dickerson, Dudley, Ellis, Foot, Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hayne, Hendricks, Hill, Johnston, Kane, King, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Smith, Sprague, Tazewell, Tipton, Tomlinson, Tyler, Webster, White, Wilkins.-31. Mr. POINDEXTER then renewed the motion he made in committee to strike out "Colombia," and to reduce the appropriation for that mission, and asked for the yeas and nays on the question, which were ordered. of Representatives, he would not have objected to the South Carolina fully in his conclusions, though he arrived to the appropriation, because it, in effect, asserted that the The question was then put, and decided in the nega-decorations of the capitol. Senate had no right to interfere in the management and tive, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Foot, Mr. Greenough. The President had merely written to Mr. SMITH said that no contract had been made with Frelinghuysen, Hayne, Holmes, Johnston, Miller, Poin- him, advising him of the resolution, and asking whether dexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Sprague, he would undertake the task. No appropriation would Tomlinson, Waggaman, Webster.--19. nience could arise from its being struck out. probably be wanted before next year, and no inconve NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Dallas, Dickerson, TUESDAY, APRIL 24. Mr. WHITE, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, reported the bill to provide for extending the benefits of vaccination among the Indians, with an amendment. The amendment restores the appropriation from 6,000 to 12,000 dollars, the last being the sum originally reported in the bill. APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. FORSYTH then moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate had refused to raise the appropriation for the contingencies of the judicial department from 190,000 to 250,000 dollars. The motion being agreed to--yeas 24, Mr. FORSYTH then moved to amend the bill by striking out 190,000, and inserting 250,000, and sustained his motion on the ground that the money would be required to pay actual arrearages, and was not asked for any prospective objects. Some discussion ensued on this motion, in which Messrs. TYLER, FOOT, SMITH, MARCY, FORSYTH, JOHNSTON, and CLAYTON, took part. Mr. CLAYTON called for the yeas and nays on the question, and, being taken, the question was decided as follows: ber of the Committee on Public Buildings of the House Mr. POINDEXTER said there would be no difficulty passing a joint resolution to effect the object in view, in striking out the appropriation, and introducing and which all approved. After a few words from Messrs. FORSYTH, CHAMBERS, JOHNSTON, and MILLER, the motion to strike out was agreed to. The bill was then ordered to a third reading. VACCINATION BILL. On motion of Mr. WHITE, the previous orders were postponed, and the Senate took up the bill for the vaccination of the Indians. ing 12,000 dollars, was agreed to. objections before urged were repeated, and in which ley, Ellis, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Holmes, Johnston, Kane, King, Knight, PoindexYEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Benton, Chambers, Dallas, DudYEAS.-Messrs. Benton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, Tomlinson, Webster, White, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Kane, King, Knight, Mangum, Wilkins.-31. ter, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, Marcy, Robinson, Smith, Tipton, White.--16. man.--10. NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, Clay-gum, Miller, Moore, Tazewell, Tipton, Tyler, Wagga- So the amendment was rejected. WASHINGTON'S STATUE. Mr. MILLER moved to amend the bill by striking out the clause, "To enable the President to contract for a statue of George Washington, to be placed in the rotundo in the capitol, 5,000 dollars." APPORTIONMENT BILL. On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, the previous orders Mr. WEBSTER having obtained the floor, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25. Mr. M. said he did not object to the object of the ap- priation to carry it into effect. If the subject of the re- to enter into any lengthened discussion of this important VOL. VIII.-53 SENATE.] Apportionment Bill. [APRIL 25, 1832 subject. Two gentlemen were absent, who were decid- sively the elections of the democratic branch, they may, edly in favor of the plan proposed by the committee, and by such interference, first weaken, and at last destroy, he believed a majority of the Senate was also in favor of that check; they may at first diminish, and finally annihi the principle of the amendment. He, therefore, relied late, that control of the General Government which the on the candor of gentlemen of opposite sentiments not to people ought always to have through their immediate reprevent, by indirect motion, the entire expression of the presentatives." If, sir, the Senate resist the matured Senate on the subject. Mr. W. briefly explained the project of the House of Representatives; if this body will principles which had guided the committee, and the gene- not abide by the selected number, nor by the process of ral scope and policy of the bill, and laid down a course their selection, nor their distribution among the respective to be pursued, by which no advantage would be gained by members of the confederacy, is there not at once a dan one party, or lost by the other. With respect to the num-gerous interference by the federative, against the popular ber of representatives for the House, he was instructed principle? Do we not "at first weaken," and may we not by the committee to move to fill the blank with 241. The "at last destroy," the control which the people ought to tables, printed by the order of the Senate, would show the exert over the Government through their direct agents manner in which it was proposed to distribute the repre- If we assume to regulate this business arbitrarily now, sentatives among the States. Mr. W., after a full expla- although our work may not be unjust in principle or pronation, expressed the hope that some time to-day the vote duct, the time may come when the precedent will be would be taken, when the Senate was fuller than at pre-invoked to justify a fatal retrenchment of the popular sent; and suggested that it would be better to take it first representation; when the doctrine of mere federation may on striking out and inserting the amendment, without fill-struggle successfully against its antagonist, and deem it ing the blanks. This would settle the principle; and, if patriotic to reduce the power or the influence of the peo a majority proved to be in favor of it, the blanks could ple, in legislation, to its minimum. I cannot, sir, be even then be filled according to the sense of the Senate, after remotely accessory to such a result. that vote had been decided. The bill sent to us from the House comes recommended Mr. DALLAS said, after much reflection upon this to our partiality by very strong considerations. The subject, Mr. President, aided by the very able report rule of apportionment it prescribes was, in the first place, made to the Senate by the select committee, I have come coeval with the formation of our Government. It was to the conclusion that the question of preference between enunciated by the earliest Congress after the adoption of the bill, as sent to us by the House of Representatives, and the constitution-by men who had participated actively in the projet of the Senator from Massachusetts, cannot be all parts of the country, in discussing, approving, amend satisfactorily determined by a comparison of minute cal- ing, and perfecting that invaluable instrument, and in culations, but must be governed by broad and general adapting it carefully to the wishes and views of the Ame principles. The unequal results of the two plans may rican people. This rule has been repeated and enforced be strongly and variously illustrated by an endless series at every returning census, has been carried into practi of estimates. No mode of proceeding will produce such cal operation for forty years, and has been universally an apportionment of representatives, as will be at all acquiesced in as abundantly impartial and equal. Sir, times perfectly equal; but it is impossible, as I apprehend, do sincerely and solemnly desire to find something perto attain any firm conviction by balancing one set of arith-manent in our Government; and especially desire to find metical details against another. this quality of permanency and fixedness in a rule on which depend the quantum and equality of popular representation. Nor can forbear to express my regret and surprise that an attempt to unsettle and overthrow what has been so long established and so universally conformed to, should emanate from the precise quarter whence it does come. At the basis of my reasoning, in relation to the matter, I have felt powerfully influenced by the suggestion that the structure of the other House of Congress should be confided almost exclusively to the wisdom, virtue, and magnanimity of those who now compose it. If the mode which they recommend and adopt, conform to the constitution, the Senate should not interfere to alter or em- Sir, the rule of the bill was not only settled long ago, barrass it. The subject peculiarly belongs to them. but it was reflectingly settled by our best and wisest Gentlemen will recollect that over the organization of statesmen. General Washington deliberated much: he this body the representative chamber can exercise no deliberated in association with Jefferson and Hamilton; possible control, and it would seem both fair and gracious and their joint, and laborious, and enlightened, and pure that we should abstain, as far as possible, from meddling deliberations terminated in the formal adoption of a prowith the sources whence they deduce their numbers, and cess, as the only constitutional one which has ever since the process by which they regulate them. That is the been applied to apportionment. Metaphysical refinepopular branch of the National Legislature--this is the ments cannot give us a safer or sounder rule than the one federative one. Each should move in unison with the furnished by such men, under such circumstances, for principle upon which it is founded, and guardedly refrain the practical conduct of our institutions. I am unwilling as well from counteracting the just and appropriate ac- to abandon their rule, unless conclusively satisfied, not tions of the other, as from sanctioning the least encroach- merely that it is not in itself perfect--for perfection I allment upon itself. An opinion expressed by a distinguished ticipate from no human effort--but unless conclusively member of the convention of Massachusetts, when de- satisfied that it is positively unconstitutional, liberating as to the adoption of the constitution, although tendency. it applied in strictness to a clause not now in question, Another recommendation in the bill, Mr. President, is bears out the idea which I am desirous to enforce, and I powerful with me. Its rule has become familiar to, and therefore quote it: is clearly understood by, the great mass of the people. Mr. Cabot said, "I consider the democratic branch of Its application, its results, its imperfections, the National Government, the branch chosen immediately and appreciated. Now, sir, I am not averse to wise and by the people, as intended to be a check on the federal salutary innovations, suggested merely by learned and branch, which latter is not an immediate representation ingenious men: no doubt our system may be gradually of the people of America, and is not chosen by them; improved by them; but there are some subjects on which but is a representative of the sovereignty of the individual I can sanction no change which is not preceded by the States and its members, delegated by the several State expression of popular sentiment. If the American peo Legislatures; and if the State Legislatures (or, Mr. Presi- ple have for forty years witnessed the operation of the dent, their delegates here) are suffered to regulate conclu- rule of apportionment once more adopted by their direct or vicious in are all known PRIL 25, 1832.] Apportionment Bill. [SENATE. representatives; if, as I believe, they fully comprehend Does the rule itself work inequality? Applying it to its character and effect; and if, as we all know, they have unequal and unequally varying numbers, the results are cheerfully and every where acquiesced in it--I cannot, I almost necessarily unequal. These results, however, are will not, agree to take from the people a rule with which not consequences of the rule, but of the circumstances they are thus content, merely to introduce another more which accompany the objects to which it is applied, and scientific and plausible, devised by a strong and ingeni- by which the fairness and equality of the rule are conOus understanding. The subject is too deeply interesting trolled and affected. It neither increases nor diminishes to them, to the exercise of their legitimate control over those supposititious creatures denominated fractions. All the Government, to their rights, their convenience, and the constituencies of the rule itself are perfectly equal; their power. When they ask a rule different from the one and in this respect it is preferable far to the substitute upon which they have acted, then, and not till then, shall proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, by which I feel disposed to prescribe it. unequal constituencies are to be equally represented. What, sir, is the rule of apportionment incorporated in It is not pretended that the rule is perfect in its effects the bill? To my mind, it is a practical construction of the all agree that such a rule is undiscoverable; but it is constitutional phrase "apportion." Fix the number of pretended, nay, it is confidently believed, that its results people which shall constitute a constituency, and then al- are, and will be, in no degree, more unequal, more unfair, lot to each State one representative as often as its popula- as regards the distribution of political power among the tion contains that number or constituency. In other, and several States, than the one proffered in its place, or any more common language, determine your ratio, and apply other that can be devised. It was urged vehemently and it to the respective States. The word “ratio" is assailed, persuasively that the old rule had worked injuriously to but it was used, and used with this meaning, on this very the smaller States; and much ingenuity was expended to subject, in almost every State convention to which the make this manifest by combining and shifting and interconstitution was submitted for approval. It is the one locking what are termed fractions. I put against this common divisor" deemed essential by Washington, in his theoretic notion the positive and incontrovertible lanmessage to Congress of 1792. The fixing upon this con- guage of experience; and I ascertain it thus: Take five of stituency, this ratio, this common divisor, is the first de- the large States, and five of the small States, and let us finitive legislative act in providing for the apportionment see what has been the aggregate of the fractions of each of representatives. The structure of every law upon the subject attests this. The number of the representative body is a result, rather than a basis, of the process; and hence, heretofore, that number has never been expressly mentioned in the acts of Congress. 1790, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, North Caro class of States, at the period of each apportionment; by adding up these aggregates, we shall have the amounts of fractions which fell, throughout the forty years past, upon the five large and five small States respectively, and the difference will enable us to determine whether, by fracBut, sir, we are told that this rule eventuates in frac- tions, the larger or smaller States have suffered most. tions, or remainders, or residuums! I deny their exist- The following is the result: ence. The constitution recognises nothing less than a constituency for a distinct representation. Any number of people less than the agreed constituency is, quoad hoc, nothing. Fractions cannot be legally known to exist. They are nonentities-analogous, perhaps, in some degree, to an association of individuals, not yet entitled to recognition or lawful powers by an incorporating charter. Not, sir, that these ideal fractions are unrepresented in your Government--every individual citizen in the whole country is now, and always has been, fairly represented in 1790 the popular branch of Congress. Any one State may have more or less representatives--may have seven, or six, or five; but have what number she may, that number will fully represent all her population. 1800 1830 Rhode Island, Vermont, New do do do 101,660 do do do 50,442 do do do 73,635 do do 59,178 do do do 79,909 1800 1830 Difference against the large States, I am attached, then, Mr. President, to the rule of the bill. on account of its venerable age, on account of its paternity, and on account of its simplicity. And in relation to the last characteristic by which my preference is excited, I beg leave to adopt the principle of Mr. Jefferson, when he says thus: "Laws ought to be made for men Whatever, then, sir, may be the apparent injury inof ordinary understanding, and should therefore be con- flicted at any one period upon the smaller States, the opestrued by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their ration of the existing rule of apportionment has, upon the meaning ought not to be sought for in metaphysical sub- whole, throughout the entire term of its trial, been adtleties, which may make any thing mean every thing or vantageous to them, and comparatively injurious to the nothing, at pleasure." The old rule invokes for its com-large States. prehension nothing more than sound common sense; that Let us, however, see whether the project of the amendof the Senator from Massachusetts, however plausible, ment be exempt from the imputation of a tendency to inprofound, or scientific, has exacted from his industry and equality or disproportion. The question is easily solved skill very many calculations and many more explanations, by the favorite rule of three. The amendment, as carried before it could be understood by those whom I address, out in the calculations of the select committee, awards to and will certainly never be embraced by the ordinary the State of Delaware two representatives, and to the understanding of the great mass of our fellow-citizens. State of Missouri three. If Delaware, in the first place, The objection to any longer adherence to the esta- be allowed two members for a population of seventy-five blished rule of apportionment is, simply, as I understand thousand four hundred and thirty-two, what number of the argument, sir, that it is unconstitutional, because, members should be allowed to other States for their first, it works inequality, and, secondly, it does not "ap- population respectively? An answer to this inquiry will portion representatives among the several States accord- at once ascertain the equality or fairness of the amending to their respective numbers." ment. I give it thus: SENATE.] 7. Tennessee 8. Massachusetts 10. Georgia 11. Maryland Apportionment Bill. 9 429,811 11 405,843 10 [APRIL 25, 1832. mind, it does apportion with peculiar directness and simplicity. It "assigns," or "allots" to each State one representative for every constituency, ratio, or common divisor, its population may include. So many constituencies, so many representatives. This, however, is thought too regardless of fractions; the spirit of the constitution, as distinguished from its mere words, is invoked, and the new process is represented as more compatible with that spirit than is the old one. The constitution, then, means what it does not express; or, at all events, an explanatory phrase is ingeniously superadded to its provisions to jeke out a meaning not otherwise perceptible. This liberal mode of treating that sacred charter will hardly be agreeable to all whom I address; it cannot suit those who object to free and broad constructions; it certainly purports to be as latitudinarian as any treatment ever heretofore bestowed upon any of its clauses. First, we are told, that "to apportion the representatives," &c. means to apportion them "as near as may be"-a qualifying phrase, totally destructive of the absolute and imperative charac ter of the constitutional rule, leaving much, if not every thing, to discretion and varying opinion, and wholly incon sistent with the entirety of a constituency. I can find no such words, Mr. President, in the constitution itself, and I do not think them necessary to a full and perfect comprehension, or rather expression, of a distinct meaning. I cannot, therefore, consent to engraft them. Thus it is conclusively shown, that if Delaware be enAgain: the amendment exacts, as the primary term of its titled to two representatives of her population, the other process of calculation, the aggregate population of all the enumerated States are entitled to two hundred and ninety- States. Does this form any part, inferentially or otherwise, six, in the proportions I have mentioned. But the amend- by implication or otherwise, of the constitutional direction' ment, in fact, allows to these twenty States only two hun- It is a palpable feature of that consolidation which the instru dred and thirty-four members; and the rule thus obviously ment repudiates in every article. This solid popular mass is works to their injury, leading to a loss by them, when com- unknown, unrecognised, by the true principles of the confepared with Delaware, of no less than sixty-two members! deracy. It could never have been within the contemplation Take again, sir, for further illustration, the case of of those by whom the Union was formed: and that it is recur Missouri. If the amendment allows her three members red to, in furtherance of the amendment, is a fresh proof to for a population of one hundred and thirty thousand four my mind that the amendment itself cannot be reconciled hundred and nineteen, what number of members should with the constitution. And, again, sir: why is the second be allowed to the other States, according to their respect-term of the calculation, by which alone the results of the ive population? amendment can be produced, stated to be the agreed Would be entitled to She is allowed only number of the representative body? I have already ad 1. New York 10 9 8. Massachusetts 9. South Carolina 10. Maryland 11. Maine 12. New Jersey 13. Alabama verted to the fact that the number of the House is a re sult merely of prior data; that it is the consequence of your own calculation; that it is not a basis for any process, and is never expressed in any act as a legislative choice. All these devices, and interpolations, and fictions, are unnecessary to the bill, and inconsistent with the constitution: they are essential, however, to the being and movement of the amendment: hence I infer that this novel project ought to be discountenanced. In conclusion, Mr. President, I must confess myself not satisfied with the effort which has been made to reconcile the amendment (by which a representative is accorded to every fraction which exceeds a moiety of the ratio, 47,700) to that clause of the constitution wherein it is declared that "the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand." I believe that "thirty thousand" was designed to indicate the minimum constituency-and yet the amendment will make constituencies And thus it appears that the rule of the amendment by the wholesale, each of which will be less than 25,000. which gives to Missouri three members, instead of allow- Nor, sir, is it a reply at all satisfactory to this suggestion, ing to the thirteen other States enumerated their pro- that, notwithstanding these inadequate or inferior constitu portionate numbers, in fact, relatively injures them to the encies, the number of representatives in each State will extent of twenty-two representatives! not exceed one for every thirty thousand. The unconThese illustrations, sir, might be carried much further. stitutional result is merely concealed, not avoided or even They are enough, however, to prove that the amendment evaded. After applying the ratio of 47,700 to the popu is no better than the original bill, on the score of equality lation of each State, so much of that population as is made and proportion. I do not wish to establish more. to yield representatives is definitively disposed of: it is, as as it were, out of But it is urged that the bill is unconstitutional, because, respects the process of apportionment, in the next place, it does not, as the instrument expressly the State: and the residue, or fraction, now the only po directs, "apportion representatives among the several pulation, if less than 30,000, cannot be allowed any co States according to their respective numbers." To my stituent power whatever. A double ratio, at war with APRIL 25, 1832.] Apportionment Bill. [SENATE. Washington's "one common divisor," may be called for to apportion according to numbers precisely. The only by the system of fractional representation, but does not questions ought to be, which of the two approaches nearconform to the simplicity, directness, and true import of the constitution. est to exact right? or what plan can be devised that will form the best possible approximation to an apportionment among the several States, according to the respective federative population of each? These questions affect deeply the rights of the citizen-they involve considerations going to the very dearest interests and privileges of every freeman in the whole country; and, so far from agreeing with the honorable gentleman to overlook minute details in the decision of such a question, I hold this to be a subject in regard to which it is the duty of every member to cavil with him on the "ninth part of a hair.” These remarks, it will be perceived, Mr. President, have been dictated by no anxiety as to the quantum of representation which might fall to the share of Pennsylvania. She cannot be presumed much alive to the question whether she shall have one more, or one less, in her delegation to the other branch of the Legislature. But Senators will recollect that her people are steadily struggling, in their own peculiar way-mark, sir, in their own peculiar way—to preserve the established institutions, principles, and systems of the country. I regard the mode of I except, no less decidedly, to another position taken apportionment introduced under the auspices of Wash- by the honorable member, in the course of his interesting ington and Jefferson, forty years ago, and uniformly ac- argument to-day. He would always permit the House quiesced in by the whole American people, as a matter of Representatives to organize themselves, so long as he fairly embraced within the great policy of stability, order, might think their organization not absolutely unconstituand permanent government, for which my native State has tional. He likes the bill on account of its paternity, and contended, is contending, and always will contend. seeks for no reason to account for the mode of forming, Mr. CLAYTON, of Delaware, next rose. Although, for ten years to come, one of the most sacred institutions said he, I came here this day without any expectation of of our country, but the will of those who proposed this being involved in a debate on this bill, yet I make no apolo-measure. Stat pro ratione voluntas. In his view, their gy to the Senate for insufficient preparation to discuss it. pleasure should be our law, so long as they do not violate At every stage through which it has yet advanced, I have the very charter under which they hold their seats. He jealously watched its progress. Under a deep and abid- will agree to go with us into the argument no further than ing sense of the wrongs which it proposes to inflict upon the question of unconstitutionality is involved in it; and, the people of the State which I have the honor, in part, to represent, I have steadily resisted it, as it has advanced from day to day; and, having succeeded, by a motion to recommit it, in arresting its progress, until a report against it has been made, I now believe the vote upon its passage in this body will exhibit to our country one of the most signal triumphs of reason over that blind devotion to precedent, which has marked most of the acts distributing political power among the States, since the origin of this Government. having determined that (with great deference, let me tell him) by the aid of some most lame and impotent conclusions in favor of the bill, the number of the House, its basis, and its whole structure, are matters, he thinks, with which we have nothing to do. Why not? Because, says he, if we should refuse to adopt the plans proposed by the popular branch, it would ultimately give the Senate an unconstitutional restraint over the House. To sustain himself in this strange opinion, the honorable member read to us an extract from the speech of George Cabot, delivered in The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. DAL- 1788, in the convention of Massachusetts, on the fourth LAS,] who has just taken his seat, informed us that this was section of the first article of the constitution, that "if the not a question which could be satisfactorily adjusted by a State Legislatures are suffered to regulate conclusively the recurrence to minute details. He seemed to consider elections of the democratic branch of Congress, they may, that injustice was not to be regarded, provided it arose by such an interference, first weaken, and at last destroy, from inattention to minor interests in this country; and, the check of the democratic on the federative branch--they although he afterwards found it necessary to repudiate the may at first diminish, and finally annihilate, that control doctrine of the report of the committee, which, while it of the General Government which the people ought aladmits that some inequality, under any rule of apportion- ways to have, through their immediate representatives. ment, must always exist, still claims it as a necessary impli- As one of the people, therefore, I repeat, that, in my mind, cation from the language of the constitution, that repre- the fourth section is to be as highly prized as any in the sentatives shall be apportioned among the several States constitution." Now, be it observed that the fourth sec"as near as may be" according to their representative tion. which Mr. Cabot was here considering, is this: "The population; yet in the outset he told us that exact mathe- times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senamatical justice could never be attained, and that it was in tors and Representatives, shall be prescribed, in each State, vain to search after it, by recurring to minute calculations. by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any On the other hand, while I agree with that part of his ar- time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to gument which is suicidal to another branch of it, because the places of choosing Senators." This section, giving it really interpolates in the constitution the words "as near Congress the power to alter the State laws prescribing the as may be," to which he afterwards objected--while, I say, time, places, and manner of holding elections for repreI agree with so much of his remarks as informed us, in sentatives, Mr. Cabot said he prized as highly as any part substance, that the only way to apportion representatives of the constitution, because the House was to form a check among the States was that which approximated most near-upon, and a control over, the Senate, which represented ly to perfect justice, I by no means concur with him, that, the sovereignty of the individual States, and the members to attain this most desirable result, we must either over- of which were delegated by the State Legislatures. Withlook minor interests, or refuse to recur to the most minute out this clause, he apprehended that the State Legislatures details. There can be no accurate reasoning on this or (not the Senators here) might pass laws "regulating conany other mathematical proposition, without recurring to clusively the elections of representatives," first to weaken, minute details. There can be no satisfactory adjustment and at last to destroy, that check--at first to diminish, and of the questions before us, without it. The bill and the at last to annihilate, that control. Mr. Cabot did not apamendment to it are conflicting propositions, differently prehend danger from the Senate, but the State Legisladistributing political power among the States, founded on tures. He saw that the power of making laws to regulate different bases, proceeding on different modes of mathe- the elections was transferred to the State Legislatures, submatical calculation, each claiming to divide the represen- ject to the control of Congress, and not to the Senate. He tation of the people as near as may be according to exact therefore said not a word about the right of the Senate to justice, but neither pretending to avoid all inequality, or check any legislation of the House. Nothing was further |