CONGRESS.
PHILADELPHIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
THURSDAY,- February 16.
IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
On the Rsprefentation Bill.
MR. VINING's proposition under confedera
tion—the fir ft article of which is, that New-
Hampshire shall be entitled to J Representatives —
this being read by the Chairman.
Mr. Livermore rose in support of the general
of the proposition—which is to appor
tion the representatives agreeable to the aggre
gate number of the people of the United States—
he urged in brief, the arguments which had be
fore been adduced on the importance of making
the representation as equal as poflible, and con
eluded with faying, he hoped that the number
proposed for New-Hamplhire (five) would be a
greed to.
Mr. Baldwin said, that if New-Ham pfliire should
have five members, Georgia, according to its pre
sent number, which is about one half of that of
New-Hampfliire, would be entitled tothree—but
thi* is not proposed ; nor do the members from
that ftalfe expecft it (honld be.
Mr. Kittera observed, that apportioning repre
sentatives to the state of Virginia, 011 the princi
ple contended for by the gentleman from New-
Hampfbire, would give Virginia 24 members.
Mi". Niles supported the proposition.— He urg
ed that the fractions would be dimitiiibed on the
whole by it—and tho' perfe<ft equality is not at
tainable, he could not conceive on what gentle
men founded their opposition to that plan which
came the nearefttothis equality—and asthe con-
Hitution fully warrants oil a liberal, tho' ftritftly
just conftrurtion, the apportionment now contem
plated, he hoped it would be agreed to.
Mr. Madifen repeated the substance of what he
had before offered in objetftion to this proposition.
Fractions will exist, said he, on every poflible
plan—this is to be a permanent law—and in its
operation will probably increase those fractions.
The conftilution refers to the refpec r tSve numbers
of the states, and not to any aggregate number.
The proposition break* down the barriers between
the state and general governments, and involves
a consolidation.
Mr. Livermore replied to Mr. Kittera.—Heob
ferved that if Virginia was represented agreeable
to the proposition contemplated for New-Hamp
ihire, that is four members, Virginia would be
entitled to only feventeen —this would appear on
calculation.
Mr. Williamfon contended that, by the consti
tution, whaieveV ratio was adopted, it is to be ap
plied as a divisor to the number of persons in each
state refptßively. This idea of an aggregate num
ber, looks like a confolidatlon of the government;
not only so, but the supplementary member pro
posed for those dates who had not inhabitants to
vote for such supplementary member, would not
be elecfted agreeable to the conftitiitiou.
Mr. Seney opposed the proposition.—He ob
served that it was very extraordinary indeed that
those persons who, in the previous difcuflion,
■were opposed to the ratio of 30,000, on account
of giving so Urge a representation, should now
advocate this proposition, which, in fart.entreafes
the whole number. He hoped that it would be
rejected.
Mr. Vining said a few words to exculpate the
friends of the proposition from the charge of in
eonfiftency.
Mr. Venable stated various particulars tofhew
that the plan of transferring the fractions from
one (late to another, comparing them with the
general ratio, would produce greater inequality
than the plan contended for by thofc whooppofe
the present motion.
Mr. Livermore juftified himfelf from tliecharge
of inconfiflency—he was always in favor of an
equal representation—with this he began, and
■with this he (hould end — and he was: not folicit
otis which way the vote determined the matter,
provided the principle of 5 equality was adhered
to—and therefore he should not regret N. Ham p
fhire being reftridted to 4inembers, provided Vir
ginia had only 17 ; which is the highest number
{he will be entitled to, apportioning them agree
able to four for New-Hamp(hire. He observed
that the friends of the proposition might be out
voted by numbers—he wiflied, if i: could be done
that they might be outreafoned as well as out
numbered.
Mr. Lawrance said, having advocated in a for
jner discussion rhe iat id of 30,000, he hoped he
ihctild not be charged with inconsistency if lie
gave his a (lent to the present proposition—as he
had explicitly declared that he advocated that
number, as giving the largest representation—
and this propoficioH not only preserved that idea,
but enhanced the number, and on more equal
principles, he then entered into an examina
tion of the clause in the constitution respecting
taxes and representatives, which it is expi'Msly
declared shall be according to numbers. He re
probated the idea of members considering thetn
felvesas representatives merely of particular parts
ot the Union. The members of this house, Cud
he, are the representatives of America. The
dates, as states, are represented in the Senate.
A membe- of this house from Georgia, is a repre
sentative of the state of New-York, as much as
if he came from the latter rtate. Conceiving the
idea of the meaning of the constitution which he
had given to be just, he fliould vote for the pro
position.
Mr. Findley said he (hould vote against the pro
position— he did not like the principle of it, if it
had any—he rather thought it was destitute of
all principle, for it content plates no ratio at all—.
it is rather an arbitrary apportionment of the
representation.
Adverting to the article refpedling taxation,
he observed that the proposition does not accord
with the idea of the gentlemen who advocate it,
for flill there will be fractions left—and, said he,
are not these fratfions to be taxed ?
In reply to Mr. Lawrance's remarks refpeifting
local representation, he observed that the gentle
man's idea proved too much ; for if the idea of
representing local intereds is dedroyed, the es
sence of representation is done away altogether,
and all responsibility is loft.
Mr. Ames.—The Conditution fays, tliat " Re
" prefentatives and diredt taxes shall be appor
" tioned among the several dates, which may be
" included within this union, according to their
" refpeiftive numbers." &c. &c.
" The number of reprefeinatives (hall not ex
" ceed one for every thirty thonfand, but each
" (late shall have at lead one representative."
Dedu(slions from the above.
id. You may not exceed one to 30,00 c
2d. You may have as many as one to 30,000 of
the whole number of the Union.
3d. Supposing the amendment ratified, you must
haveiooineinbers,if oneto 30,000wi1l give them
These principles were not disputed [ill lately.
But it is now pretended that the ratio may be ap
plied to each ltate, and the number of represent
atives no more than the multiples of 30,000 in
each state- Some even go so far as to fay that it
muji be so applied, and that Congress may n*t
have as many members as one to 30,000 of the
whole Union.
This conftrudtion leeins to be violent
1 ft. The word reprefentaiives, firft used, can
only mean the whole number of representatives
—for they are to be apportioned amoug the se
veral stares. The word is used in the fame sense
afterwards, " The number of representatives
fhal 1 no exceed one to 30,000," again meaning
the whole nnmberofreprefentatives. ThewWf
number of representatives shall not exceed one
to. 30,000 of the whole people. To avoid thia ob
vious meaning, they fay it (hould read, " (hall
not exceed one to 30,000 in each /late." These
words are supplied wholly without authority.
2d. The clause merely restrains the number
of representatives, so as not to exceed one to
30,000. The members in Congress might have
been increased to any number, had not this re
ftritftion existed. It is a reftritfiive, and not an
explanatory clause. It curtails, but cannot be
supposed to change the natural import of the
preceding power. It is against the fair rules of
conftrutftion so to change it.
3d. The sense is perfect without the words one to
30,000 in each Jlate. ExprefTum facit ceflare tacitu.
4 r •>• The conftru(stion makes tautology. The
fir 11 clause having directed the manner of appor
tioning representatives among the several Hates
according to their refpetfive numbers, might
have been wholly omitted, one to 30,000 in each
jlate being a final apportionment.
ith. Words mult not be fupplicd by con/fruffion
repugnant to words expreded. The refultof an
apportionment according to numbers as firft di
rected by the constitution, differs in terms from
a ratio of one to 30,000 in. each slate. It differs
in its operation no less. The members in the
next house will be 113 —Apportion them accord
ing to numbers among the (everal states, Virgi
nia would have 19 —19 being to 113, as 630,000
the numbers of Virginia, to 3,619,000 the whole
people of the United States. But by the con-
Itruction which supplies the words'in each (late,
(he will have 21 members.
6ih. ] he words one to 30,000, are merely re
ft 1 ktive ot the number in Congrefi from the
whole people, and do not change the sense of
the fiiil clause, for taxes and representatives are
to be apportioned according ro numbers. The
conftroiSion cannot be extended to tjw;es with
any goou sense. Yet as taxes and representatives
are to be apportioned the conftruiftion
378
applying to the one, (hould apply to the otVr.
Yet the ad vocates of this conftrutfion fay, that
taxes shall be imposed according to numbers, and
not the multiples of 30,000 in eac(j Hate. Tak
ing it for proved that the sense of tire firft clause
is not changed, but its operation limitted by the
clause shall not exceed one to 30,000. It remains
to fee what is the sense of the firlt clause (land
ing alone. " Reprefentaiives (hall be apporti
oned among the several dates according to their
refpedtive numbers." The rule of three will
(hew the the number of members any state is en
titled to—Thus, as the whole number 3,619,000
is to the number of the next house 113 —so isthe.
number of persons in a state, f?y Virginia, which
are 630,000, to her quota of members. The re
fultis 19 members. The bill pursuing another
rule, obtafned as we have seen by a forced cou
ftrutlion, gives that state 21 members.
7th. The amendment to the constitution re
futes the sense of the conftrufHon. The words
arc " there (hall be one for every 30,000 till the
number (hall amount to 100." Plainly the whole
number of the nation is intended. The whole
number is to be formed by one for every 30,000.
The words contended for are therefore exclud
ed, and no conftrudiion will avail in this place
to add them.
Bth. The ratio of one to 30,000 in each state
is inconsistent with this amendment. For ac
cording to that, 3,000,000 of persons mull have
100 members in Congress. Had the numbers by
the census fallen (hor: of a surplus bey ond 3 mil
lions fuflficient to cover the fra<flions orloft num
bers, this amendment to the constitution could
not be carried into execution, according to the
principles of the bill. For the amendment re
quiring 100 members, the numbers being more
than 3,000,000, it would appear that roo mem
bers could not be obtained by applying the ratio
of 30,000 to the numbers in each state, instead of
taking the entire number of the Union. Heie
then would be a conftitntional obligation to have
100 members in Congress, and an abfoluteimpof
fibilitv of having them according to the princi.
pies of this bill.
loth. The number of representatives is limit
ed not to exceed one for 30,«00. Purfnethe let
ter of the constitution and avoid all conftru'ftiot),
t e number of representatives will be 120. A
dopt the conftrtiiflion that you are to have no
more than one to 30,000 will give you, and you
bring down (he number to 113.
But this process, erroneous as it is, only fixes
the number—it does not apportion them. 1 hat
should be done according to numbers, and Vir
ginia would not be found entitled to 21 of 113-
According to the principle of the bill ; if it may
be called a principle, it is defective. The let
ter and true intention of the constitution will be
violated by a forced conftru<ftion, which gives
forrve states more and others less than their due
(hire of the representatives.
(t« BE CONTINCtB.)
WEDNESDAY, March 21.
The petition of the merchants of Rhode-lflancl,
was referred to a committee of the whole oil the
(late of the Union.
The report of the Attorney-General, on the
petition of Andrew Jackson, was referred loafe
left committee.
A nieflage was received from the Senate, in
forming the House that they had pa fled a bill for
compensating the Doorkeepers of both Houses
for extra services, with amendments, to which
they requefl the concurrence of the House.
The nieffage received yesterday from the Pre
fidenr, refpediing a Brigadier-Genernl, was ie
ferred to a select committee to report by bill.
Order of the Day.
The House proceeded in the difcufllon or > ie
Georgia election— Mr. Giles' morion for declar
ing General Jackson duly elected, &c. was tur
ther debated, and finally decided—
Y E A S.
Mefirs. A (he, Baldwin, Bi own, Clark, Fmdley,
Gerry, Giles, Gregg, Griffin, Grove,
Jacobs, Lee, Macon, Madison, Moore, Ni f '>
Wage, Parker, Schoonmaker, Seney, I.
Smith, Sterret, Sturges, Sumpter, Treadweli,
Veuable, Willis— 29.
NAYS.
Me firs. Ames, Barnwell, Benfon, Bounino ,
Bourne, S. Bourne, Fitzfinions, Gilman, Goo u »
Gordon, Hartley, Hillhoufe. Huger, Key, '5/
Kitchell, Lawrance, Learned, Liverinore,
leuberg, Sedgwick, W. Smith, Steele, _>) ** '
Thatcher, Tucker, Wadfworth, Ward, _ _ '
29 —It was then determined in "the negative
the Speaker's carting vote.
The following resolution was then P a^' et * '
" Resolved, that the feat ot Anthony n
as a member of. this house, is, and t ie ar
hereby declared to be vacant.- -Or ei e '~Jjn2
the Speaker do transmit a copy o! the P y
resolution, and of this order, to tne execu .
the State of Georgia, 10 the end lhat 11 ie a
ecutive may issue writs of elwSion to 11
vacancy.,"