PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS BY JOHN FENNO, No. 69, HIGH-STREET, BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD STREETS, PHILADELPHIA [No. 72, of Vol. lII.] CONGRESS. PHILADELPHIA HOUSE OF REPR ES E NTATIV ES, MONDAY, December T9. DEBATS ON THE REPRESENTATION BILL. { The Senate had amended the bill by encreafing the ratio jrom 30,000, to 33,000 ; the House had djagreed to this amendment ; the Senate vo ted to adhere. It was moved in the House this day y that they Jhould re cede Jrom their disagreement.] MR. AMES laid, the amendment proposed by the Senate, though a iingle propofnion,, involves two qucitions, which it wnl be proper, on this occalion, to discuss dillinctly. Is ihe bill wrong, as the House pal Ted it ? and is the proposed amendment of the Senate fit and proper ? The original bill gives the latio of one member to 30,000 per sons, and proceeds to stare the number of Representatives which the refpe6tive Slates fhail have in the next Congiefs. If in this dillribution of members, it shall appear that we have not pur sued tnconfliiution, the bill is a bad one, and it is our duly to concur with the Senate, at leafl in finking out the exceptionable part. Tne conflitution dircfts that Representatives shall he appor tioned among the fcvcral States according to their refpctfive num bers. The tt n >fe number of Reprefeniativcs being firlt fixed, they fh ' apportioned to any Siate accoiding to its census. Then; I tinee will shew what part of the reprelentation any State I.: The wisdom and caution of the conftuutioo have - - tie to Congress in this affair. Though Congress is to 1 the members, ihe rule of apportionment is fixed ; thenumb.ro: Rc puft ntatives will be 112. Tnele are to be ap portioned to < . cii > ate according to its numbers. What part of she 112 membeis will Virginia have according to its people? The answer is e<ifily lound. Virginia, having 630,000 persons, (which is her federal number, after deducting two filths for the fbves according to the constitution) is entitled to 19 members? The bill gives her 21. Isthat nglK ? Who will (ay tnat the words, or meaning of the conflitution are puriued ? Are the Re prefenta tives,then, apportioned or dilpioporttoned ? We may believe the 1 1 lull ol figures. The sum is short and easy I to reckon. Let us not then p<rlill in a measure which palpably violates the constitution. Tne aiguinent might flop heie—but, to shew how other States will be wrong d by the bill, it may be well topioceed. If the conllitution had been silent, as we are men, common lenfe would have told us, and as we aie freemen, we Ihould nave Icai ned from our habits of acting—that an une qual reprefentaiion is wrong. But the conflitution is not filcut, ansi yet the bill gives Virginia 21 members. The States of Vermont, Hew-Hamplhir , Rhode-Island, Con necticut, New-Jcrlev and Delawate. have 766,428 persons, and they will have by the bill only 21 membeis. With upwards of one hundred and thirty thouland per'ous more than Virginia, they will have no more members ihan that fingie State. "1 hus Virginia has by ihe bill iwo members more than her due number compared with the who e union, and not less than four as u relpp&s the lix States before mentioned. From this view of the operation of ihe bill, I draw this con clufion,which I presume is anticipated,that the proposed diihibu tion ol representatives is neither just and iqual 111 ufelf, nor war ranted by the conllitution. If lurther evidence of this injustice should be demanded, it can be turnifhed. Rcpreltntaiives and dire£t taxes are to be appor tioned by the fame rule—and there is a manifeit propriety 111 the rule—in the dillribution of benefits and burden?-, the conflitution has wilely excluded this means and temptation to partially. It is an additional fecunty to our property that those who hold the power are made to feel it when they exercile it ; and that ex actly in the d egree that ihey hold it ; taxes are to be apportioned according to the numbers in the refpe£tivc States. It would not be alio wed by the conflitution to use one rule lor apportioning taxes and anothei for tne members. If two things are to be com pared with a third and made equal to it, it follows that they mult be equal 10 each other. Let us suppose ihis bill to have become a law; and for the more piainly fhewmg its tendency, let us sup pose Virginia to have 630,000 persons, her true number, and 21 members, and the 13 States to have, as Delaware actually has, 59.000 persons each, and one member to each State—in the whole 1 <397> 000 P €| fens. Let us suppose a tax to be laid equal to a dol lar tor each perlon in the 14 States, that is, a tax ol 1,397.000 dol lars. V irgmia, in point ol justice, and by ihe couftilutton, should pay only according to her numbers, or 630,000 dollars ; yet Ihe would pay 21 parts in 34, or 1,007,000 collars, being 377 000 more than her proportion. Whether with 21 members in 34 this wrong would be imposed or submitted to } is not my qucltion. 1 his maybe called an exti erne cafe ; yet in fact Delaware, New- Jerley, Connecticut,New-Hampfhire and Vermont, on a tax equal 10 a dollar a head, would avoid more than 150,000 dollars of their just proportion ; the justice and the conflitutionality of luch an apportionment of taxes aie upon an qual looting. Lztraoidinary as this flattment may teem, it is not easy to shew an authoiity in Congreis to apportion a tax 011 any other princi ple. It would not do to deprive a State of its pioporlion of mein ers, and yet to laddie it with taxes, according to numbers : I he departure from the rule ol the conflitution in the cafe of re prefeniativcs would be rendered both more flagrant and more ga by an adheiente to it in the imposition of texes. Such a comment upon thi* law would filcnce its advocates, such an ex ecution of it would disfranehife the fufferers. But this is not the country, and I trust this is not the govern ment to do a violence ol this fori— therefore no tax would be Lid and yet, unless a new census should be taken, or a new law, at lea It, tor apportioning icpreieniai ives should be pa (Ted, Congress might be found d. flitute o! one of its conttilutional faculties. 1 he gentlemen who vote for this law have been importuned to defend 11; anxious as wc are undw the fear of feeing the coitfti Wednesday, January 4, 1792. tution and our primal y civil rights violated, we have liitened to hear regions which would shew fomc refpeft tor the one and the other. It is needless to decide v hether men's pafTions will be soothed or their under Handings convinced by an argument of this kind—that as the small States are equally with the large ones re presented in the Senate, the advantage which the bill will secure to Virginia in the iepiefentative branch is fit and proper, and that ii was To intended by the Conftilution. Is one inequality if it reallf exilted to hp balanced by another ? Because the confu tation has secured to cach S:ate an equal vote in the Senate, are we at liberty to make a new confutation as often as w£ make a re presentation law, to counterpoise it ; and under a form of govern ment contrived to feeure equal liberty, and to fix right above opinion are the measure and the nature of this retribution to the great vStates to depend on our arbitrary difcietion ? This an fwei is perhaps moie feiious than the argument. Let it be re futed by itfelt. Because the great States fuffcr wrong in the constitutional com patl, w ill this bill do them right? Is Maflachuletts or North- Carolina benefited by giving Virginia two extra members? B/ this bill the great States are injured as well as the small ones. The lmall ones are injured as it refpe£U each other. Delaware will have one member, Rhode-Island two—yet the latter has only nine thousand more people than the former. But the doflrine tears up the foundation otcompa&on which we Hand, and under the appearance of vindicating the bill from a charge oi violating the conftituiion, establishes a claim to violate it at pleasure. It has been (aid that th<r representatives are to be apportioned among the several States—that Congress is not to regard the num ber of the whole nation ; It is not easy to fee how the hill can be defended on any principle of diflribution among the States. The representatives are to be apportioned according to numbers. The number of members allotted to a State mult correspond either with the number of persons in any other Stale, or the number 111 all the States ; compare Virginia with either of the fix States be forementioned, or with the whole fix ; it appears that 130,000 persons in the latter will go unrepresented ; compare Viiginia with the nation, she has two members more than her proportion. Why then is it so zealously contended, that the apportionment is not to be made upon the entire number of the union, but upon the census of each State ? The bill is as naked of defence on the one companfon as the other. Jt departs as widely from the principles of its advocates as from those of its adversaries. It is indeed intimated that you are to take the ratio of 30,000, and to apply it to each State, without regarding its operation. To juftify this interpretation, the text of the confiitution ought to read, each State shall have as many members as the ratio of 30.000 ap- number of per Jons wit! give it ; But that lnltrument is ve ry differently cxpiefled,and much better ; repref ntatives and diretl taxes are to be apportioned among the several States according to their refpetlive numbers—will any gentleman who votes for the bill lay that it is luch an apportionment P Will it accoid with theConfti tuiion to take, inlicad of such an apportionment, an arbitrary ra tio, which, instead of apportioning, disproportions riprefenta* tives to numbers ? The ratio mentioned in the Conftitiiiion, and in the proposed amendment to it, evidently relates to the whole number of representatives which according to it may be had from the whole nation, and not from the number of people in a State ; any other fenle besides being unnatural, would difagrce with the clause which diretfs how representatives shall be apportioned. By the 1 alio of one to 30,000 may be known the greatest num ber of reprelentatives which shall form this branch ot the govern ment. Having deteimined the number it remains to apportion the members according to the census in the refpe&ive States. No thing is more natural cr torrefponds more pei tecliy with the con llitution than to find firft the whole number of representatives, and then to apportion them as ttie constitution diredts. But this method would not suit the present emergency ; for that would give Virginia 19 members and no more. Instead of beginning with ihe whole number, the bill lays, let us begin at the other end ; give Virginia her 21 firft, and, if the number should hold out, give to all the States at that rate. It ieems on trial the num ber will not hold out to apportion in that manner, fttl!, however, fays the bill, give Virginia her 21. Let theconftitution become what the bill makes it, a dead let ter. Still however, men, and freemen, will remain, who wil prcferve the departed 4pirit ; for before the constitution was form ed our rights were equal; and can it be believed that compafcl has made them less ; Men equal in rights allented to a government which prclervcs them equal in power : 30,000 citizens reliding where they may, must pollefs civil rights and powers equal to 30,000 in any other part ol the union; yet though a compatfc which ought to be inviolable, has ordained that rcprefentation, >hat is to lay, power, shall be apportioned according to numbers, this bill coniraditbng the language of naiurt and compact, dtre&s, that 30,000 in Virginia shall have as much power as near 60,000 in Dciawaieand levcial other States. It would ill suit the seriousness ot my present emotions to fay how little the luppolcd expediency ot a numerous alfembly and many other favorue topics have to do with the debate ; Contti- JUtional questions are so frequent they have almofl loft then pow er to impress us. But this touches the firft organization of the -ody politic ; it goes to ftifle liberty 111 her cradle —it establishes the power of a part over the whole—it is a distranchifement of some of the States. 11 the rights of Virginia were invaded, I riift I should be equally zealous to maintain them. For the com mon right is the common fecunty; but this bill tears the title deed in pieces. Having compaied the bill with the conftitution,and seen the re fu!t of the comparison, it remains to enquire what amendment w:ll be proper and constitutional. In this part of the enquiry, I will not pretend to fay that I have ariivtd at equal certainty. I h.uc no doubt that the bill is bad, but I am not equally fatisfied of the best mode of amending it, To determine what is right, some principle must be ascertained, That firft pi inciple is equality ; it is another name for justice :— Thai which is the right of the people:, therefore, is the duiy of thv government. But as it is noi pradlicable to apportion representa tives exa6flv among the several Hates accord ng to their numbers, it is our duty 10 approach as nearly to that equality as may be. If an apportionment is proposed, and it can be shewn that a more equal one can be made, it becomes our duty so to make it. For if we have an arbu ai y discretion to reject the mod equal apportion ment , and to adopt a less equal, what is to rcftrain us from chufing (he lead equal of all, that is to fay, having no apportionment at all. If this principle is not to govern us, then we are to a& without ony rule at all, and the constitution was made in vain. We cannot have more representatives than one to 30,000 —but in apportioning them, let us follow the constitution, and do it according to num bers—and when we Hop, as we mull, (h&rt of a perfect equality, 285 fslop o [Whole No. 280.] it will be the conflitution that restrains us. In doing this, we ihall aflunie no arbitrary controul over the equal and sacred rights ot the people. We {hall have done all that we can to give them energy. 11 has appeared on difcuflion that the rule of 30,000, pro posed by the bill, is so iar from being the most equal,that no more capricious and unjust difpropoitionrnent of representatives has yet been suggested. The ratio of 33,000, tho' not free from ex ception is less unequal, and leaves less unrepresented tractions. The amendment (Mr. Benson's) which was proposed to the amendment of the Senate, would increase the representatives to 119. Two objections have been made to this increase—it has been called a representation ot fra6tions—and a number of changes were rung upon the idea. It has also been said to be as dispropor tionate a representation as that given by the bill. As to the- fir ft objection, it is a mere play upon the word frac- tions—for if the effett be as it will appear to be, to pioduce a more equal representation, it may be retorted that the bill gives a rcprefentation by fractions—whereas the other mode makes 119 whole paits, nearly equal to each other, and gives a member 10 each. This brings me to the next obje&ion, and which has been stre nuously urged against having the amendment of 119 members f that it will be as unequal as the bill.—Then I shall think as un favorably of it—we should not hesitate to renounce them both. But figures will shew with certainty whether it is true that the amend ment which proposes to add one member to (even of the States will operate as uncquallv as the bill. To refute this I have made a table in which are leen the effe£ls of the two plans which are to be compared. Mr. Ames then read the following ftitement : RATIO OF REPRESENTATION. The amendment proposed in the Houle to the amendment of the Senate, will make an addition of one meinbei to each of the following seven States. In the third column of figures is the ratio according to which each State will be represented in cafe the bill should pals as it flood when it. was sent to the Senate. I? J 1 o t . 5 < ft: n 5 5455 N.Hampshire 3,5455 218--O 28365 16.35") ° 16 *9 1 9 Maffachiifctts 31919 25327 29924 291 Ig vT 8 4223 Connecticut 34223 29805 195 | 3 12766 Vermont 42766 25533 28511 g 6 5911 New-Jerf y 359*» 2 9559 29826 12 2138 N. Carolina 32138 23522 29460 540 | 3 2 25539 Delaware 5553J 2 77 6 9 22 3 l J 52 according to the amendment. The following States to which the reje&ed amendment makes no addition, (land thus: i t 14 Pennfyivaiiia 30919 New-York 9 Maryland 30946 21 55 2 2 2 Virginia 30026 Kentucky 3435 2 Georgia 35421 Rhode-Ifl.md 34223 He then remarked, that if the ratio of 30,000 deserved so much refpett as gentlemen had declared was due to it, because the amendment of the conflituuon has adopted it, they cannot for bear to fay that the bill in every inftancc, except four Stales, de parts from that ratio ; whereas the plan he was comparing with the bill has made it the common measure and applied it with less variation than perhaps any other scheme will permit. It appears from the foregoing ftatemeut, that the latio of thirty thousand is applied with more equality, in put fu a nee ot the amen J meut, than by the bill—For 50 members will be chosen by fix of the seven States to which one member is propoled to be added, and the ratio of 30,000 will be nearly observed. The short numbers, in the cafe of 5 members, will be 1635 — of three members, 1489 —of twelve, 540. The deficiency oi numbers tor chuhtig 16, will be less than 300, and for 14, less than 200. The deficiency for the choice of the* two Delaware members, will be greater —but that will be only 2231. Add to this, 55 membets will be cholen by New-York, Penn fyWania, Maryland and Virginia, at the rate of one to 30,000. So that 107 members will in effect be chosen by ihe ratio of one to 30,000. By the bill, fomc States, efprcially the seven to which additions are proposed, will lose numbers. In ihe plan of the amendment, they will gain —by comparing their loss, in one cafe, with the gain in the other, the degree of equality can be exa&ly comput- Ed, viz. K. V> -«» $ -s; ,5 New-Hampftiire 16 MafTachufetts 8 Connecticut 3 Vermont 6 New-Jersey 12 North-Carolina 2 Delaware Difference of numbers in favor of the amendment', He said that if by this plan the seven States to which a member was added gainers, that is to fay, would be allowed mem bers for a less number than 30,000, the gain was very little. In sac the Slates would be reprefemed very nearly according to the f > scale ; the bili on the contrary makes the feale, or ratio, vary from 55,000 to 30,000. But if tfie advantage to the seven States, or the number lef« than 30,000 for one member is compared with the or ine quality, luftained by the bill, it is found to be as 30,861 gain, by adding seven members, to 178,171 loss, by th-e unreprefeiued trac tions'—as the bill ftartds. Tefal loft by the Ratio. »5 8 4 12866 85<4 546 3<"44 8704 *0842 8447 £ 41820 253 2 7 26841 *5533 «355 2 25539 e S -5 B w k o <J 2-a h '63.5 8175 4673 1,560 4-167 i°44 6480 4462 30851 B § K s: 5455 1919 4^3 12766 59' < 138 2 5539 291 148-, - .54° 2231 >78171. >473'° 30851
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers