Mr. Ames made a number of remarks to elucidate the state ments and to fiiew the unequal operation of the bill, and the fairnefs of the other plan, After which he proceeded to shew that the States of Kentucky, Georgia, and Rhode-Iflaud would have the mod cause to com plain of tra&ionsor unprefented numbers* But he laid the frac tions of those three States amounted to the fra£tional number of one only of the seven States to which a member would be added. If no nearer approach could be made towards an exa&ly equal proportion, no just objection could be urged against the plan on the part of Rhode-Island, Georgia, or Kentucky ; tor thev would fee the cafe could not be remedied. He then urged the equal operation of the plan bet ween States having equal numbers, and contrasted the bill and the amendment which had been proposed in the House. From aggregate loss and gain on the two modes of apportion ment in the foregoing flatements, fee the comparison more parti cularly between particular States, viz. Virginia has 21 members. The loss, that is, the excess of her numbers over 30,000, is 54" Massachusetts has 15 ) New-Hampftiire The loss to those two slates ? One to be added C on 19 members is 1 to each. 2 ) or nearly as 90 to 1. Members 21 On the other hand, the gain on 21 members, or numbers short of 30,000 for a member, is, for New-Hampshire and Mairachu fetts only, 12848 New-York has n members—loss, or excess of ) i « numbers over 30,000 for one member, is > North-Carolina, 11 members—loss 2 355 2 Whereas the gain to North-Carolina by adding ) a member, will be only > The difference between the loss and gain, or the ? 17072 balance against tbe bill, is ) ; ' Maryland has nine members—her loft numbers f Q by the oill, ? 85 '* Connecticut has seven members—loft numbers } by the bill are, 26841 ( . 2 „.. Vermont has two—loft numbers by the bill are,T 2 5533 ) Difference against the bill is 43860 By adding a member to Conne&icut and Ver- £ fooi mont, the numbers gained will be $ Balance against the bill is The question is—will the amendment* adding one member to Massachusetts, and one to New-Hampshire, cure the error ?— The answer appears by tbe statement, that Virginia will be as fully represented, according to numbers, as those two states, saving a difference of 13389, or within two-fifths of a member. In 42 members, that fra&ional inequality is scarcely an error. In like manner, by adding a member to North-Carolina, the error or inequality compared with New-York, is equal to a fourth part the number for one member—whereas, by the bill, Malla chufetts and New-Hampshire will lose almost two members, and Virginia will gain two ; a difference little short of four members. Mr. Dayton said that if the vote which was a bout to be taken, were merely to determine what should be the ratio of representation, he should have been contented, he said, to have remained in his feat, and to have given a ftlent vote upon the occasion ; but to him it appeared to involve in it a question and a principle of infinitely high er moment. « Two of the members from Virginia, Mr. Day ton observed, had candidly admitted the inequa lities complained of in the apportionment pre lcribed by the bill sent up to the Senate, and had acknowledged the advantages to be given to their llate over every other : they did not, he faid,con tradict the calculations, nor combat the argu ments which had been offered again ft it, but they boldly claimed and exatfed those advantages as a right. This being the cafe, the question was in reality no longer, whether 30 or 33000 ihould be the rule of apportionment, but whether the Jegiflature of the Union were in future to frame their a