He would Hot encroach upon the timeof the House by protradling the debute,which had alrea dy swelled to an immoderate extent. Upon the whole, he said that this was a great queition, wherein attention ftiould be paid to the people, and a strict eye kept towards the public good, divetted of prejudice ; but he had heard with pain how much had been said to divert the Houle an attention to fractions, from the true ob ject of general welfare—yet-he hoped that the government would be equally administered—that none of those predictions or threats thrown out in the course of the debate, that 110 mutilation of the union, would take place ; but on the contra ry, that harmony would guide the decilion ol this ( queftion, free from every local considerati on. Mr. Hillhoufe.—lt lias often been said this go vernment is a government of confidence—an<l tak ing this for granted, can it ever be supposed that a plan of repiefentation, which is unequal and unjust, can excite this confidence. This ratio of 30,000 throws an additional weight of 7 repreien tatives into the fcalc of the large states. If this principle can be established on this occasion, it may be also extended to taxation. Notthern and southern interests have been mentioned—he was sorry the idea had ever been suggested—but as it had, there was 110 impropiiety in adverting to it let a line then be drawn at any given place, and a ratio established which will do equal jus tice to the members on both fides of that line—a repiefentation that will deviate from such a prin ciple, it cannot be expeifted, will give fatisfatlion or be chearfully fubuiiued to by the people.— The ratio of 35,000, figures will (hew it, will give a more equal repiefentation than that of 30,000, —and there has not, aijd, in his opinion, lie said, could not be any good reason alligued ■why it ftiould not be adopted. Mr. Boudinot said he was pleased when gen tlemen were desirous of appealing to candid and fair argument, in determining important quefti ons.—ln the present cafe, he thought there was propriety in examining the principles of the bill and amendment, by the terms of the constitution —It had been said by gentlemen, that the ratio, when adopted, must be applied to the number of citizens in the individual states, and that no re gard was to be paid to the fractions occasioned thereby, because not regarded by the conllituti on—This he thought, was no means conclu live.—The House of Representatives was to con sist of members'chofen every second year, by she people of the several states—these members not to exceed the proportion of one to 30,000. —It appeared to him that the whole number of repre sentatives, to be chosen by the whole people of the union, was the fubjeift contemplated by the constitution ; as eonftituting this branch of the legislature, while by another part of the confti tu;ion, it becomes the duty of Congress, t» appor tim them when so afcertained,among the several states in proportion to their refpediive numbers— As an instance, suppose for arguments fake, the aggregate number of the citizens of the United States, to be exactly three millions, by applping the ratio of 30,000, the constitutional number of this House would be found 100 —Congress fliould then proceed to apptrtio?i (for he could apply no other meaning to the word) the too members a mong the States, as their rcfpecftive numbers bore a proportion to the whole number of three milli ons—Thus the representatives from every state would bear an exatft proportion to each other, according to the number of inhabitants in the state ; and the whole repi efentation would stand" on principles of perfect equality. An equal re presentation appears to have been the desirable objetft of the framers of the constitution—it is the very spirit of our government. He infilled that this was the only mode of applying the ratio,and making the apportionment that would hold good at all times, and under all circumstances. hcan not be said with propriety, that the constitution does not proceed on principles of perfect equali ty in this House, yet if the ratio be applied to the numbers in the individual states, it will al ways produce (as has been fully ihewn by seve ral gentlemen) very great inequality, by large fractions being unavoidable—in one state we now find one upwards of 29,000. He acknowledged the amendment did not proceed 011 this prin ciple any more than the bill, for which rea foil he fully approved of neither, but as the ratio of 33,000 in the amendment produced a much greater equality, and came in efFecft nearer to his principle,.(by reducing the fractions made by the bill nearly two thirds) he should prefer it, as he must vote for the one or the other. It had been (aid that they were making distinc tions between the north and the fonth—between the large and finall states—He observed in an swer, that if gentlemen would introduce princi pies of inequality, that bore unconstitutionally hard on individual states, they ought not* to take it amiss, that the fuffering states would complain of the injustice—The injured must complain,and the fault, if any, lies with the firft trainers of the principle. If gentlemen wiflied for equality, let them ad- here to the principles of the constitution. Ap ply the ratio to the whjle number ot citizens, by which you find the number of representatives to constitute this House, and then apportion those representatives among the individual' Rates ac cording to their refpeiftive numbers. When gentlemen advert to the Senate, and fay that the equal representation ot the final! states there, (hould be taken into the account, they do not consider the relative situation of the states as reprefentcd in that House—there the lo vereignty of eacli state is represented, and not the individual citizen—sovereignty is perfectly equal in every state—As sovereigns there are no great or (inall, and if his information had been right, it was on that principle that the Senate was originally constituted, but that House was a representative of every individual citizen. On the whole, he was of opinion that by agreeingto the amendment of the Senate, they would secure the great principle of equality better than by the bill. Mr. Boudinot thought the construction he had given the constitution was a true one—lt support ed the spirit of (the confederation between the states, which was on the footing of perfedt equa lity in proportion to numbers—lt coincided with the Ipirit of our government, which was equality —And although by it, the number of members constituting the House was firft ascertained from the whole people aggregately considered, with out refpedt to the division of states, in their poli tical capacity, yet by the after apportionment a mong the refpeiftive states in that capacity, the wisdom of the constitution appealed in thus pro viding a general government for general purpos es, and at the fame time making each individual state (as a state) eflential to the exiltence of that government, thereby preventing in the nioft ef fectual manner an unneceflary entire consolida tion of the union. Mr. B. said he had originally objected to the bill on account of a toa numerous and expensive representation, as well as of an unequal one, but chiefly relied on the last as un constitutional, and therefore should (till prefer a 1 concurrence with the Senate. Mr. Gerry observed, that it had been fafhiona ble to speak of the ratio of 30,000 as a federal number ; he did not know what name to give to the amendment of the Senate, unless it were call ed the fractional number. He then took notice of an argument which had been used to create suspicion, that was danger to be apprehend ed from a combination of the larger Hates ; but this would appear a weak argument when it was confidere'd that the power and influence of the smaller dates are equal in the Senate to ihofe of the greater ltates—the thing is impossible, and if attempted it could not succeed. He wiflied to know whether it was the opinion of gentlemen, that there was less judgment and less firmnefs in the House of Representatives than in the Senate ? He hoped an equipoise would be preserved in the two branches, and that the ba lance would not be destroyed by conllantly giv ing up the judgment of the House to every whim of the Senate. If a latitnde be now admitted, that we lyay increase the ratio, before the expi ration of the firft ten years, the gentlemen in fa vor of the Senate's amendment may infill on a ratio of 50, or 60,000 ; but this is ground they know they cannot yet touch upon ; and the fame reason that (hould prevent us from adopting this extreme, operates against the amendment. The whole expence of Congress, from adopting the ratio in the bill, will not amount to two cents up on each citizen of the United States annually,and as population encreafes it will be lessened, Sure ly the gentlemen in favor of the amendment can not obje<S to this trifling expence. They speak of a liberal policy ; 1 wish they would (hew us an example by agreeing to the bill with a better grace than they seem to have exhibited hitherto. Mr. Murray. The fubjecfl has gone through a very ample difcufiion. When the question of re presentation firft came on, the theory of the go vernment was ably resorted toby those who urg ed a large representation. Sir, I most heartily agreed in the principle on which by a large ma jority this House made 30,000 the ratio. As I still am of that opinion, I (hall be indulged by this House while I give my reasons for adhering with a firmnefs which may be deemed by some tenaci oufnefs, to a rejection of the amendment of the Senate. I voted for 30,000 because I saw in that ratio the constitutional wishes and expectations of the people. I deemed the largest possible ratio al_ lowed by the constitution to he the source of na tional government, and its bell security, "No thing, fir, which I have yet heard has convinced ine to the contrary. It is unnecellary to recapi tulate whatever has been said 011 this point. I inuft remark, however, that during the difcuilion, the members of this House who suggested that principle appeared to me to be convinced. They seemed to be matters of their own opinions, and to agree in this idea, without adverting to the dodirine of fractions, that the sole question was a point of theory rather than a meal'ure of ex pedience ; and they decided by a very large nia 290 jority, that in this House, immediately warm from the very bosom of the people, the ratio ot 30,000 was theoretically correct and practically ulefiil. The bill was lent up to the Senate, who returned it with an amendment of 13,000 as the ratio. 1 voted against that amendment, because it was an attack upon the principle of an enlarg ed representation ; and because the idea of frac tional representation aimed at by the amend ment, was but a commutation of the evil of frac tions from one State to another, from the eastern on the southern j and contained a fuj'tender ot the principle without an of conve nience. Sir, it has been in the 'course of debate foretold, that that honorable body would be a - verse to an enlarged representation here. What ever has been augured, has been verified by ex perience ; nor can any nun be at a lols to lee that the temper against large representation, though not openly avowed, for t-hat would have been impolitic, has been covertly and luccefsful ly exerted under the semblance of 1 -quality of re presentation, by this doiftrine of fractions, it was sent down into this House in the form ot jealousy and ful'picion—and it has produced its effeifts. It has roused the latent and local inter ests from their plans, and we have had debates entirely conftrudted 011 the tenets of northern and southern interests and influence. A proposition was made by a member from New-York, ( Mr. Benfon ) and reiterated by the gentleman from Delaware. The object ot rhis proposition was to sum up the fractions, and from the aggregate take seven .members. Sir, if 1 was furprilied, I confefs I was deligliied to fee men who a few days before had opposed in the ory the idea of a large representation, come down with moderation, and fugged this great princi ple even in a bad form. 1 imagined they were converted. I voted aj>aind this proposition, be cause 1 thought it, firft, unconstitutional, inaf mucb as it could have been contemplated but in the consolidation of dates ; and because I tho't it contained a solecism in politics. 1 deemed it unconditional, as the conditution calls for a representation of the people of the rtfpsßive states in a ratio of 30,000 ; and if this had ob tained it was to be done by collecting the frag ments of condiments from dates widely separate, and giving a representation of their fractions thus divided to that date which had the largest fraction. Thus, fir, the two from Delaware would be chosen by less than the condiiution contemplates, as there are not 60,000; and it is in vain to fay that the member chosen by 25,000 is elected by the addition of 5,000 in any other date in order to complete his proper number of condituents, for they do not eltß him : and if it be laid that he nevertheless does repiefent them as his condituents, it can only be by the idea of a consolidation having pre-exided, which no man has yet openly averred to be the doctrine on this subject. The very, firft and mod intelligible principle of representation in government is that the representative is rcfponfible to his conditu ents ; bur, fir, this, though an abdract truth, mud be shown to the people not in a fiction, but in a solid and practical mode, congenial with their habits,and palpable to their underdandings. In the adoption of this extraordinary proposi tion, the idea of virtual representation is the on ly one which at all protects it. No man, howe ver, who knows the country, will tamper and trifle with so solid a part of government as that of actual representation and actual responsibility. I never, fir, could consent to commute a known and practical meal'ure of good, for a flimfy (pe culation which could only have been invented to serve particular views, and was never thought of till it was difcovcred in what manner the fracti ons would affect particular dates. For these reasons, Sir, I voted against that pro pofitioti. I (hall now vote against the amend ment of the Senate, because 1 find no cute, but a partial one, for the inconvenience of fractions ; and even this is to be obtained at the expence of principle. Though this amendment may gratify some States, as New-Jersey, that may have large fractions, it throws off the evil from them on other Slates. The fracftion of Maflachufetts may be (mailer, but the State of Maryland loses a member and will have a large fraction. Sir, I can find nothing in this amendment but the de sign to accomplish what I humbly conceive an uuwholefome end by improper means, and (hall therefore vote against the proposed amendment. (to be continued.) WEDNESDAY, January 4, Several petitions for compensations, pensions, &c. were read and referred to the Secretary of War. Mr. Lawrance from the committee to whom was referred the petitition of Brigadier-General Jofiah Harmar, in behalf of himfelf and a num of other conuuillioned nfficers, praying an aug mentation of their ]>ay, made a report in favor of the petitioners, which was read and laid on the table.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers