CONGRESS. PHILADELPHIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MONDAY, December 19 DEBATE ON THE REPRESENTATION BILL [Continued.] [The Senate had amended the bill by encreaftng the ratio Jrom 30,000 to 33,000 ; the tiouje haddjagreed to this amendment ; the Senate vv ted to adhere. It was moved in the Houjc this day, that they Jhould re cede Jrom their disagreement J MR. FINPLEY. —From the various observa tions which had been made on the fubjedt, said it had become neceHary that a votelheuld be given with due deliberation—such a vote as con ltitutioual justice (hall require—on the ground of constitutional justice, for as to general j ustice, it is entirely out of the question—and indeed he said that general justice could not be done on the principles of any government under heaven.— He adverted to the particular lituation of the re fpetftive Hates, and iaid that this general justice was not attainable in any one of them. We are not to be moved by any threats ; we a>fi on prin ciple, and will entrench ourselves in princi ple— and this principle of constitutional equality js all tUat we crfn pretend to. But it is objected that the ratio will produce fra&ions—and to get rid of this difficulty of fractions, we are to re duce the representation of the people from the constitutional number of one to every 30,000 — that is, we are to strike off one sixteenth part of the whole representation of the Union—he urg ed that the representation on the ratio of 30,000 ■would not be too great —he instanced the repre sentation of Geneva, and other foreign states.— If there fhouldarife any inconvenience from the present ratio of 30,000, government were not obliged to wait for the expiration of ten years to remedy the defecfi ; it was always in the power of Congress to order another census to be taken at any time. For his own part he had not consi dered fractions as an obstacle to the bill ; on the contrary, he was rejoiced that the population of the country increased so rapidly as to make those fractions always quickly increase to an whole number. To conclude, he was for going on ge neral principles, which would certainly reftetft the most honor on the proceedings of the legis lature. Mr. W. Smith said be had hitherto voted uni formly in favor of a fnialler representation than that which was contemplated in the bill, and in doing so he bad atfted from principle, without any reference to the do<slrine of fractions—as the enumeration of his date was not yet known, it must be evident to every gentleman in the House that this was the cafe : but he now saw the necef fiiy of changing his vote, since the bill had been returned from the Senate, where it seemed there was a disposition to modify every bill and every proceeding of this Honfe jull as they pleased. He thought it would have a very awkward ap pearance to the world, if the House fheuld give ■way in all cases whatever, and more especially in the present instance, where the Senate had teen equally divided, and the question was de cided by the vote of a single member of that bo dy—the Vice-Prefident. For these reasons, and the locality and fractions that had been intro duced into the debate, lie would vote for an ad herence to the former decision of the House, in order to support that balance which ftiould be preserved between the two branches of the legis lature. Mr. Benfon said, that if this business is in fu ture to be made a lottery, let us at once declare it—for if principle is entirely out of the qneftion, it remains that we should declare explicitly the truth. J Mr. Sedgwick said, that it was impossible for him to underhand on what principle the man ft om South-Carolina, and his colleague, were to give their votes, (contrary to their former ex prefled opinion, excepting that they had disco vered that the Senate concurred with them, •which would not, he hoped, be generally consi dered as a good ground for changing ; as it seem ed to be embracing contradiction for the purpose of contradiction ;) nnlefs, as the declared, that at the time he formed his opinion he did it on principle, by the abandonment of which, he could acquire an undue weight to the district of country from which he came, by de parting from a just equality in repiefentarion. Gentlemen had teemed to wish to obscure the merits of the present controversy, by confulerinw it as a contest between the larger and fmalle'r states, and by supposing that the latter would be compensated for their loss of weight and infhi cnce in this house, which would result from an unequal apportionment of the representation, by the undue influence which they poflefled in the Senate. He himfelf came from a very large and important state. Justice, however, ybliged him to declare that this mode of conducting the argument, only tended to divert the judgment from the true merits of thequeftioti. What had the distribution of the powers of the government which by the constitution tfasadjufted tothein terefts and sovereignty of the states, to do with the apportionment of representation, as it re speCted either its numbers or the various inter elts which' Were to be secured by equality of in fluence ? Was it possible that any mind should be so weak as to discover that the constitutional organization of the Senate was not wholly irre lative to thole considerations which should influ ence in the decision of the present question ? In contemplating thefubjeCt before theHoufe, he observed, that a vast variety of circutnftances were entitled to deliberate consideration. A mong others, the number of representatives com pared with the number of inhabitants of the U nited States. In determining which, the nature and objeCts of the government we were adminif tering, its machinery, the distribution of its parts, the conftruCtioH of the other branch of the legislature, and many other objeCts were to be considered. That we had not on any of these subjeCts the aid of experience, and that the go vernment itfelf was a novel experiment. He need not therefore that there were no data from which any certain conclusion could be drawn. All was uncertainty and conjecture. Was an apportionment of a ratio of 30,000 eligi ble ? as an abstraCt proposition he was disposed to give it a preference to any other. But if he was aflced wherefore, he could only answer, that it was rather an inclination of sentiment, than the result of rational reflection. He would not therefore, because justice would not permit it, facrifice to the efFeCt of conjecture, which might be only the result of whim, the important and indispensable duty he owed to respeCt the claims of states to equality. If an apportioment was made by a ratio of 30,000, the members would fee 7 more than if the amendment of the Senate were adopted. Which ever proposition was agreed to, would a ny one venture to affirm that the liberties of the people would be more or less secure, the House a gg re g ate, y nore or less wife, or the due ba] ance between the two Houses better or worse adjust ed ? Considering thus the subjeCt, does not the earnestness with which gentlemen contend for the proposition of the House, appear perfectly unaccountable ? But in thrprogi ess of this bnfi nefs, it is discovered that an application of the principle of the Houfe,gives a balance of weight and influence to one part of the United States, to which it is not entitled by the equal apporti onment contemplated by the constitution, This is agreed by all, it is demonflrated by figures. Nor can it be denied that equality is am6ng the most eflential principles of istprefentation, and expressly provided for by the constitution, as far as would consist with the state of our society, having a due regard to our particular circum stances. Yet all important as this consideration is, it is to be facrificed with all the interests in volved in it, to a fanciful idea of theory. The ory unfanCtioned by experience. For his own part, he believed that wife policy would be found perfectly to coincide with, and reconcile the various interests of this extensive country. It could nor, however, have escaped , vat '? n . °f erer y gentleman, that there existed an opinion of an opposition of interests between the northern and southern states. The influence of this opinion had beer, felt in the dis cussion of every important question which had come under the consideration of the legislature. The extreme anxiety of gentlemen on the pre sent occasion, would render all other evidence fu pern nous on this subject. Such a belief, he raid, however ill founded, would as long as it continued have the fame efFeCt as if it existed in U • i eeh "g. the weight of this observation.and the influence ir ought to have to give to everv pair of the United States as nearly as might be a due proportion of constitutional weight in the' pub]ic councils, he was incapable of reconcil ing the conduct of members who were disposed to facrifice the most important interests of their immediate constituents, to their ftrange:ideas of conjectural perfection. It seemed to him that the gentlemen who came from the north, and on this occasion djdented from their neighbours were disposed blindly to surrender all the iml portant interests of their immediate constituents to the arbitration of chose, the whole course of whose. condnCt had demonstrated that they tho't thole interests adverse to their own. He concluded, by warning those who had hi therto composed a majority on this fuUjeCt, to reflect on the danger that would result from a pertinacious adherence ro a mealure so produc tive of the f o „ rC es of jealoufv. And he called on their generofhy, magnanimity and justice to respeCt the claims of the minority tow equal 294 weight in the government, on the principles of" the constitution. Mr. Gerry made Tome reply to his colleague, Mr. Sedgwick, respecting locality of imerelts, and declared that he never would agree to a re duction of the people's representation. Mr. Lawrance said he had always advocated a large reprefenration, without any reference to the part of the Union frqm which the members are to come—3o,ooo will give the num ber that we can get —he conld have wilhed it had been larger—but as it could not, he should vote againlt 33,000, which would diminish the num ber—and this was the principle he acted upon. If an equality is the objert, is there not a num- s ber which will produce a (till greater equality than that proposed by the Senate—if there is, there is 110 principle in the ratio of 33,000, for it ought to be carried to the full extent to make it perfectly equal. He was sorry that the discussion of the qneftion had excited those dif.igreeable reflexions which had been made, and that the discussion of general principles was dwindled in to a debate on fractions, and on the interests of the northern and southern parts of the Union. He was persuaded this would rot be the proper mode of obtaining the end, which ought to be in view, but would only tend to diflurb the tran quility and harmony that ought to cxift in invefc tigatingand determining this fnbjetft. Mr. Kitrera having at firft voted for 30,000, lie thought it proper to offer a few reasons for al tering his opinion.—He had voted for 30,000 be canfe it would give the largefl representation— but finding its nnjnfl and unequal operation, in refpedt to a majority of the (tares, he had deter mined to vote for the ratio of 33,000. —He then noticed the remark of Mr. Findley, that the in juflice may be corrected by an enumeration atan earlier period than that proposed in the consti tution—he obferred that this was in efFecft faying, let ns do injnftice, and wait a number of years, and then justice /hall he done. Why not do jus tice now,as far as is in our power ?—Mr.Lawrance had said, why not ndopt a ratio that would leave less fractions than 33,000? —He said this was in effect faying, that because we could not do com plete justice, we would not do it to any degree whatever--The superior degree of equality which would result from the amendment of the Senate, had been so fully demonstrated, that he ftjould now vote to recede from the disagreement of the House to it. The motion to recede was negatived, as lias already appeared. MONDAY, January 9, 1792. The bill to establish pod-offices and port roads in the United States, was brought in, engrofled,' and read the third time—Mr. Murray moved to recommit the bill, in order to amend the fertion refpetfting newspapers, by reducing the portage on them to an half cent—Some opposition was made to this motion, and the queltion being put it was negatived. The Honfe then proceeded to fill up the blanks —the blank for the term of the contract was fill ed with u fin; years"—Penalty for obftrutfting the transportation of the mail roo dollars For negligence 011 the part of any ferry-man, by which the mail may be delayed, 10 dollars for every half hour—Advertisement for contract to be publfhed 12 weeks—The blank for the Port- Master General's salary was filled with 200 c dol lars—that of the allirtant tooo dollars—The new rates of portage to commence the 1 ft day of March next—Penalty for exacfting a greater rate of port age than that established by law 100dollars—-Pe nalty for setting up ports for carrying letters, &c. in opposition to the general port-office 200 dollars—for continuing so to offend, 200 dollars per week—For the deputy port-mailer's neglect ing to account with the post-master genera? for way letters, 100 dollars- Penalty for unlawfully opening, detaining or embezzling letters, pack ets, &c. by any pet foil in the port-office depart ment, 300 dollars, or imprisonment for fix months —For quitting and deferring the mail so that ic should nor reach its destination in season, 100 dollars—For carrying letters contrary to the pro visions of the law, 50 dollars—The compensation to any deputy polt-inarter not to exceed 20 per cent on the portage, and in no one instance to exceed dollars—1 500, 2090, and 2JOO dollars were severally proposed to fill this blank ; after Tome debate 2500 and 2000 were put ar;;] nega tived— 1950 were then proposed, the debate on the motion was renewed, and continued till the time of adjournment, which took place without a decision. TUESDAY, January io, A memorial of George Turner, ore of the judges of the Western 1 erritory, was read, and referred to a fe'etft committee, confiding of Mefll Livermore, Lavvrance, White, Williamfon and Smith, (S. C.) A petition n r James Demir was read, and re ferred to the Secietary of War—as 'vere also the p 1 : s tions o; Henry Skinner, Elizabeth Jones, Bar. nabas Murphy, Aaron Stratton, James Shields,
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers