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