CONGRESS. PHILADELPHIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY,- February 16. IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. On the Rsprefentation Bill. MR. VINING's proposition under confedera tion—the fir ft article of which is, that New- Hampshire shall be entitled to J Representatives — this being read by the Chairman. Mr. Livermore rose in support of the general of the proposition—which is to appor tion the representatives agreeable to the aggre gate number of the people of the United States— he urged in brief, the arguments which had be fore been adduced on the importance of making the representation as equal as poflible, and con eluded with faying, he hoped that the number proposed for New-Hamplhire (five) would be a greed to. Mr. Baldwin said, that if New-Ham pfliire should have five members, Georgia, according to its pre sent number, which is about one half of that of New-Hampfliire, would be entitled tothree—but thi* is not proposed ; nor do the members from that ftalfe expecft it (honld be. Mr. Kittera observed, that apportioning repre sentatives to the state of Virginia, 011 the princi ple contended for by the gentleman from New- Hampfbire, would give Virginia 24 members. Mi". Niles supported the proposition.— He urg ed that the fractions would be dimitiiibed on the whole by it—and tho' perfe<ft equality is not at tainable, he could not conceive on what gentle men founded their opposition to that plan which came the nearefttothis equality—and asthe con- Hitution fully warrants oil a liberal, tho' ftritftly just conftrurtion, the apportionment now contem plated, he hoped it would be agreed to. Mr. Madifen repeated the substance of what he had before offered in objetftion to this proposition. Fractions will exist, said he, on every poflible plan—this is to be a permanent law—and in its operation will probably increase those fractions. The conftilution refers to the refpec r tSve numbers of the states, and not to any aggregate number. The proposition break* down the barriers between the state and general governments, and involves a consolidation. Mr. Livermore replied to Mr. Kittera.—Heob ferved that if Virginia was represented agreeable to the proposition contemplated for New-Hamp ihire, that is four members, Virginia would be entitled to only feventeen —this would appear on calculation. Mr. Williamfon contended that, by the consti tution, whaieveV ratio was adopted, it is to be ap plied as a divisor to the number of persons in each state refptßively. This idea of an aggregate num ber, looks like a confolidatlon of the government; not only so, but the supplementary member pro posed for those dates who had not inhabitants to vote for such supplementary member, would not be elecfted agreeable to the conftitiitiou. Mr. Seney opposed the proposition.—He ob served that it was very extraordinary indeed that those persons who, in the previous difcuflion, ■were opposed to the ratio of 30,000, on account of giving so Urge a representation, should now advocate this proposition, which, in fart.entreafes the whole number. He hoped that it would be rejected. Mr. Vining said a few words to exculpate the friends of the proposition from the charge of in eonfiftency. Mr. Venable stated various particulars tofhew that the plan of transferring the fractions from one (late to another, comparing them with the general ratio, would produce greater inequality than the plan contended for by thofc whooppofe the present motion. Mr. Livermore juftified himfelf from tliecharge of inconfiflency—he was always in favor of an equal representation—with this he began, and ■with this he (hould end — and he was: not folicit otis which way the vote determined the matter, provided the principle of 5 equality was adhered to—and therefore he should not regret N. Ham p fhire being reftridted to 4inembers, provided Vir ginia had only 17 ; which is the highest number {he will be entitled to, apportioning them agree able to four for New-Hamp(hire. He observed that the friends of the proposition might be out voted by numbers—he wiflied, if i: could be done that they might be outreafoned as well as out numbered. Mr. Lawrance said, having advocated in a for jner discussion rhe iat id of 30,000, he hoped he ihctild not be charged with inconsistency if lie gave his a (lent to the present proposition—as he had explicitly declared that he advocated that number, as giving the largest representation— and this propoficioH not only preserved that idea, but enhanced the number, and on more equal principles, he then entered into an examina tion of the clause in the constitution respecting taxes and representatives, which it is expi'Msly declared shall be according to numbers. He re probated the idea of members considering thetn felvesas representatives merely of particular parts ot the Union. The members of this house, Cud he, are the representatives of America. The dates, as states, are represented in the Senate. A membe- of this house from Georgia, is a repre sentative of the state of New-York, as much as if he came from the latter rtate. Conceiving the idea of the meaning of the constitution which he had given to be just, he fliould vote for the pro position. Mr. Findley said he (hould vote against the pro position— he did not like the principle of it, if it had any—he rather thought it was destitute of all principle, for it content plates no ratio at all—. it is rather an arbitrary apportionment of the representation. Adverting to the article refpedling taxation, he observed that the proposition does not accord with the idea of the gentlemen who advocate it, for flill there will be fractions left—and, said he, are not these fratfions to be taxed ? In reply to Mr. Lawrance's remarks refpeifting local representation, he observed that the gentle man's idea proved too much ; for if the idea of representing local intereds is dedroyed, the es sence of representation is done away altogether, and all responsibility is loft. Mr. Ames.—The Conditution fays, tliat " Re " prefentatives and diredt taxes shall be appor " tioned among the several dates, which may be " included within this union, according to their " refpeiftive numbers." &c. &c. " The number of reprefeinatives (hall not ex " ceed one for every thirty thonfand, but each " (late shall have at lead one representative." Dedu(slions from the above. id. You may not exceed one to 30,00 c 2d. You may have as many as one to 30,000 of the whole number of the Union. 3d. Supposing the amendment ratified, you must haveiooineinbers,if oneto 30,000wi1l give them These principles were not disputed [ill lately. But it is now pretended that the ratio may be ap plied to each ltate, and the number of represent atives no more than the multiples of 30,000 in each state- Some even go so far as to fay that it muji be so applied, and that Congress may n*t have as many members as one to 30,000 of the whole Union. This conftrudtion leeins to be violent 1 ft. The word reprefentaiives, firft used, can only mean the whole number of representatives —for they are to be apportioned amoug the se veral stares. The word is used in the fame sense afterwards, " The number of representatives fhal 1 no exceed one to 30,000," again meaning the whole nnmberofreprefentatives. ThewWf number of representatives shall not exceed one to. 30,000 of the whole people. To avoid thia ob vious meaning, they fay it (hould read, " (hall not exceed one to 30,000 in each /late." These words are supplied wholly without authority. 2d. The clause merely restrains the number of representatives, so as not to exceed one to 30,000. The members in Congress might have been increased to any number, had not this re ftritftion existed. It is a reftritfiive, and not an explanatory clause. It curtails, but cannot be supposed to change the natural import of the preceding power. It is against the fair rules of conftrutftion so to change it. 3d. The sense is perfect without the words one to 30,000 in each Jlate. ExprefTum facit ceflare tacitu. 4 r •>• The conftru(stion makes tautology. The fir 11 clause having directed the manner of appor tioning representatives among the several Hates according to their refpetfive numbers, might have been wholly omitted, one to 30,000 in each jlate being a final apportionment. ith. Words mult not be fupplicd by con/fruffion repugnant to words expreded. The refultof an apportionment according to numbers as firft di rected by the constitution, differs in terms from a ratio of one to 30,000 in. each slate. It differs in its operation no less. The members in the next house will be 113 —Apportion them accord ing to numbers among the (everal states, Virgi nia would have 19 —19 being to 113, as 630,000 the numbers of Virginia, to 3,619,000 the whole people of the United States. But by the con- Itruction which supplies the words'in each (late, (he will have 21 members. 6ih. ] he words one to 30,000, are merely re ft 1 ktive ot the number in Congrefi from the whole people, and do not change the sense of the fiiil clause, for taxes and representatives are to be apportioned according ro numbers. The conftroiSion cannot be extended to tjw;es with any goou sense. Yet as taxes and representatives are to be apportioned the conftruiftion 378 applying to the one, (hould apply to the otVr. Yet the ad vocates of this conftrutfion fay, that taxes shall be imposed according to numbers, and not the multiples of 30,000 in eac(j Hate. Tak ing it for proved that the sense of tire firft clause is not changed, but its operation limitted by the clause shall not exceed one to 30,000. It remains to fee what is the sense of the firlt clause (land ing alone. " Reprefentaiives (hall be apporti oned among the several dates according to their refpedtive numbers." The rule of three will (hew the the number of members any state is en titled to—Thus, as the whole number 3,619,000 is to the number of the next house 113 —so isthe. number of persons in a state, f?y Virginia, which are 630,000, to her quota of members. The re fultis 19 members. The bill pursuing another rule, obtafned as we have seen by a forced cou ftrutlion, gives that state 21 members. 7th. The amendment to the constitution re futes the sense of the conftrufHon. The words arc " there (hall be one for every 30,000 till the number (hall amount to 100." Plainly the whole number of the nation is intended. The whole number is to be formed by one for every 30,000. The words contended for are therefore exclud ed, and no conftrudiion will avail in this place to add them. Bth. The ratio of one to 30,000 in each state is inconsistent with this amendment. For ac cording to that, 3,000,000 of persons mull have 100 members in Congress. Had the numbers by the census fallen (hor: of a surplus bey ond 3 mil lions fuflficient to cover the fra<flions orloft num bers, this amendment to the constitution could not be carried into execution, according to the principles of the bill. For the amendment re quiring 100 members, the numbers being more than 3,000,000, it would appear that roo mem bers could not be obtained by applying the ratio of 30,000 to the numbers in each state, instead of taking the entire number of the Union. Heie then would be a conftitntional obligation to have 100 members in Congress, and an abfoluteimpof fibilitv of having them according to the princi. pies of this bill. loth. The number of representatives is limit ed not to exceed one for 30,«00. Purfnethe let ter of the constitution and avoid all conftru'ftiot), t e number of representatives will be 120. A dopt the conftrtiiflion that you are to have no more than one to 30,000 will give you, and you bring down (he number to 113. But this process, erroneous as it is, only fixes the number—it does not apportion them. 1 hat should be done according to numbers, and Vir ginia would not be found entitled to 21 of 113- According to the principle of the bill ; if it may be called a principle, it is defective. The let ter and true intention of the constitution will be violated by a forced conftru<ftion, which gives forrve states more and others less than their due (hire of the representatives. (t« BE CONTINCtB.) WEDNESDAY, March 21. The petition of the merchants of Rhode-lflancl, was referred to a committee of the whole oil the (late of the Union. The report of the Attorney-General, on the petition of Andrew Jackson, was referred loafe left committee. A nieflage was received from the Senate, in forming the House that they had pa fled a bill for compensating the Doorkeepers of both Houses for extra services, with amendments, to which they requefl the concurrence of the House. The nieffage received yesterday from the Pre fidenr, refpediing a Brigadier-Genernl, was ie ferred to a select committee to report by bill. Order of the Day. The House proceeded in the difcufllon or > ie Georgia election— Mr. Giles' morion for declar ing General Jackson duly elected, &c. was tur ther debated, and finally decided— Y E A S. Mefirs. A (he, Baldwin, Bi own, Clark, Fmdley, Gerry, Giles, Gregg, Griffin, Grove, Jacobs, Lee, Macon, Madison, Moore, Ni f '> Wage, Parker, Schoonmaker, Seney, I. Smith, Sterret, Sturges, Sumpter, Treadweli, Veuable, Willis— 29. NAYS. Me firs. Ames, Barnwell, Benfon, Bounino , Bourne, S. Bourne, Fitzfinions, Gilman, Goo u » Gordon, Hartley, Hillhoufe. Huger, Key, '5/ Kitchell, Lawrance, Learned, Liverinore, leuberg, Sedgwick, W. Smith, Steele, _>) ** ' Thatcher, Tucker, Wadfworth, Ward, _ _ ' 29 —It was then determined in "the negative the Speaker's carting vote. The following resolution was then P a^' et * ' " Resolved, that the feat ot Anthony n as a member of. this house, is, and t ie ar hereby declared to be vacant.- -Or ei e '~Jjn2 the Speaker do transmit a copy o! the P y resolution, and of this order, to tne execu . the State of Georgia, 10 the end lhat 11 ie a ecutive may issue writs of elwSion to 11 vacancy.,"
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers