Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

relying upon such cases, as the reasoning from an extreme generally led to an extreme, yet he thought the relative circumstances of Delaware and Virginia, as stated, to be correct; for it was a fact that Virginia, entitled to twenty-two Representatives, was not so much affected by any given fraction, as Delaware, entitled to but one Representative.

[DECEMBER, 1801 thirty thousand, and in the law passed immediately after the adoption of the constitution, fixing the ratio at thirty-three thousand.

It was the opinion of some gentlemen that the essential principle of our Government was the equal representation of the States in the Senate. This was a mistaken opinion. The federalism of the Government might have been as well preserved by an unequal representation in the Senate. The feature was not the offspring of principle, but of concession. If we looked to antiquity, we would observe the smaller States of a Confederation always inferior to the larger; and he recollected one case of a Confederation, in which one State was entitled to three, another to two, and the third to one representative.

As to the experience of the State, so often appealed to, he would state that of his own. The constitution of New York originally fixed the representation in one branch at three hundred, and in the other at one hundred and fifty. After But the reply to the inequality of her repre- suffering the inconveniences of so large a legissentation here is, that she has two Representa-lative body, a convention had been called, which tives in the Senate; and it is inferred that she reduced the one branch to one hundred and will hence derive a larger weight in the Union. fifty, and the other to thirty-two members. Such was the theory of the thing. But what was the result of experience? Mr. G. said, he had once supposed that the small States would have an undue advantage over the large States. His opinion had since altered. All the small States were surrounded and compressed by large States, and derived their political sympathies from them. It was true, the small States had each two votes in the Senate. Yet, what superior advantage have they in the Government generally? He was, therefore, clearly of opinion that the claims of the small States to the largest representation that could be constitutionally given them, ought not to be affected by their representation in the Senate. The fact was that this House was the basis of confidence in the Government. We had heard much about an alarm, about disorganization, and the disposition of large States to swallow up the rights of all the other States. He would ask, whether the adoption of a large ratio would lessen this clamor, promote the general confidence, and increase the stability of the Government?

Mr. SMILIE heartily concurred in opinion with the gentleman from New York, that we ought not to respect local feelings, but that we ought to go upon general grounds. Possessing these principles, we still know how difficult it is to do complete justice. For himself he would be satisfied with the ratio of thirty-three, if he could not obtain that of thirty thousand. He was in favor of a large representation, because he relied

Mr. JONES hoped the amendment would pre-on that for safety and economy. For, when he vail. There was not a doubt but that the small considered the great powers of the other branches States would be materially affected by the ratio of the Government, (powers, in the opinion of in the bill. It was true, that, according to the some men, too great,) he thought it was their theory of our Government, the members of that duty to impart to that House all the constituHouse did not represent the States. But, what tional power that could be conferred. This was the fact? In truth, our representation was would enable the House to resist all encroachthat of absolute locality. Can I, said Mr. J., rep-ments attempted to be made upon it. resent as effectually Massachusetts, or Vermont, as Pennsylvania?

Mr. VAN NESS declared himself to be uninfluenced by local considerations, or particular inconveniences. If we attempted to avoid them by the adoption of any ratio, we should be mistaken. The inequality of States could not be remedied. If a remedy was sought, it must be found in the Senate. The large States had not that exclusive weight which had been stated. If the number of the large States in this House should overbear the smaller States, they would find their protection in the Senate. The fractional loss, so much dwelt on, was not a loss to the State, it was only a loss to that part of the State which was unrepresented, and the loss would be the same to a larger State, if its unrepresented fraction was equally great.

Mr. V. N. said, it had always been his desire to consult the wishes of the people and to conform to them. He considered those wishes as solemnly expressed in the constitution, which had decided that the ratio should not be less than

Mr. BACON said that, for himself, he was satisfied with the present ratio, as it stood in the bill. This was the ratio which had been adopted when our numbers were much less than they now are; that it did not appear but that it had given general satisfaction; and that no other inconveniences had accrued than such as might be expected to follow from the adoption of any other ratio whatever. It would seem to be rather unnatural, and the reverse of what was contemplated by those who enacted the constitution, as our numbers increase, to lessen the ratio of representation. He was, therefore, against striking out the number thirty-three, with a view to insert a lower number.

A divisor of thirty-three thousand would now give a House consisting of at least one hundred and forty members, which, even on the present ratio, must soon become not only too expensive, but unwieldy. It had been repeatedly urged that the present ratio leaves a very large fraction to the State of Delaware. This, it was admitted, was matter of regret; but that, let what

[blocks in formation]

ratio might be adopted, such fractional parts must be expected to fall somewhere; that such fractions would be likely to vary, from time to time, and shift from State to State, as the population may increase and vary in the several States. And Mr. B. did not conceive that the particular case of Delaware, hard as it might seem, furnished a sufficient reason for altering an entire system.

[H. OF R.

Mr. DENNIS did not rise to say any thing new on the subject; but merely, as he had altered his mind since the business was before the House, to assign some of the reasons which had influenced him. He was now in favor of the ratio of thirty thousand. His first impressions were against it from an apprehension that the increased numbers of the House would increase expense, and produce disorder. But he acknowledged himself convinced by the arguments which had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia, which he thought counterbalanced his previous appreob-hension. Mr. D. thought it all-important to preserve an equilibrium between the different departments of the Government, and he was convinced that this would be best effected by making the representation in this House as large as the constitution permitted, and convenience justified. If we expected to retain the confidence of the people, it was necessary to increase the Representative branch; for it would be in vain to look for that confidence necessary to give it a proper portion of energy, unless there existed a sympathy between the elector and the elected.

As to what had been urged of the disadvantage to which Electors were subjected in large districts, of not knowing the characters of their Representatives and candidates, Mr. B. served that this was a disadvantage which was lessening with rapidity from year to year, and from one election to another; that to whatever inconvenience electors may heretofore have been subjected by the want of a knowledge of their candidate, from this inconvenience they are already in a great measure relieved; and it must, in a very short time, entirely cease to exist. If any inconvenience of this kind still remains, by an election or two more, it would be entirely removed. It had been urged that Delaware had but one Representative, and every State ought to have two. But, why two, Mr. B. queried, rather than three? It is true, that two are better than one; and three are better than either one or two; for, as we have long since been told, "a three-fold cord is not easily broken."

Mr. B. concluded by saying that, as thirtythree thousand was the ratio which had been adopted when our population was much less than it now is; and as it has been practised upon without any inconvenience or general dissatisfaction, he was unwilling to risk the uncertain consequences of an innovation at this particular time.

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the amendment would not obtain. The difference between the effects of the two ratios was not very important; but it was highly important that a doctrine so heretical and improper as that which had been avowed, should be exploded on its first annunciation. He meant that doctrine which considered this House as the Representatives of the people. When the constitution was formed, two great difficulties presented themselves. The large States refused to confer on the Government greater powers than those it enjoyed, which deeply affected their wealth and their numbers, unless, according to the ratio of their numbers, they should participate in the adminSen-istration of it; while the smaller States withheld their concurrence, unless their sovereignties were guarantied and protected. These two difficulties were surmounted by the plan of the present constitution; according to which the members of this House were the Representatives, not of the people, but of the States in proportion to their numbers. This was the theory of the Government for which he must contend.

Mr. T. MORRIS was of opinion that the arguments drawn from the representation in the ate had nothing to do with this question. The House had a constitutional duty to perform, that was highly interesting. The only question is, How it shall be performed? The people ought to be fully represented; that is, the number of their representatives should be increased until that number became inconvenient for the transaction of business. He had never been a friend to an enormous Legislature; such as that in France, a mob convention. He thought the idea incorrect that this House should acquire a weight that might cause it to bear down the other branch of the Legislature. He hoped, if any such attempt should be made, that body would have sufficient spirit to resist it; and he trusted there would always be firmness enough here to resist any encroachment attempted.

As to the present ratio guiding, he did not think that the House should be governed by any uniform rule. They ought, on the contrary, to be governed by the existing circumstances. Not believing that any inconvenience would arise from the augmented representation on the ratio of thirty thousand, he would be in favor of it from the reasons he had assigned.

Mr. R. believed that the strongest objection urged against the adoption of the constitution, was, that it tended to a consolidation of the States. But when he looked into it with a Federal eye, (and with no other eye could he ever look at it,) he saw the State sovereignties in all its parts acknowledged and protected. Of this, the very bill was itself a proof. For the apportionment was not among the people, but among the States, according to the numbers of each. Believing that this House is the representative of States, it was his opinion that so long as the relative weight of States could be preserved, it was immaterial that each State should be represented by a large number of members.

It was with extreme regret, and some diffi

H. OF R.]

Delegate from Mississippi.

[DECEMBER, 1801.

MONDAY, December 21. Georgia Limits, and Delegate from Mississippi.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the report of the Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the credentials of Narsworthy Hunter, who has appeared as a Delegate from the Territory of the United States known by the name of the Mississippi Territory.

dence, Mr. R. said, that he differed from his
colleague on this subject. His colleague wished
to increase the House to such an extent as to
make it the depository of the whole confidence
of the people. Mr. R. wished it to possess that
confidence so far as related to Federal objects,
but no further. Increase it, according to the
theory of gentlemen, make it in point of num-
bers, a British Parliament, or a French con-
vention, and you will proportionably diminish
the confidence of the people in the State gov-
ernments. They will become feeble barriers
against the powers of the General Government;
and the people will inquire for what purpose
they elect their State Legislatures. Mr. R. be-
lieved it to be of infinite importance that the
poises of the Government should be preserved;
that it should confine itself to Federal objects.
His object, therefore, was to preserve on that
floor the proportionate weight between the sev-read but in part.]
eral States which the constitution had fixed.

Mr. MILLEDGE spoke forcibly, and with considerable eloquence against agreeing to the report of the committee; he said it was not a matter of private but of general concern-that Georgia had jurisdiction over that territory; to prove this, he called for the reading of the me morial of Georgia to the Legislature of the Union.

[The memorial was extremely long, and was Mr. M. insisted on the right of Georgia to Had any objection been made to the old Con- the soil; he would assert to that body and to gress under the Confederation, that was fede- the world that she had never given up that rally organized, for the want of talents or integ-right; and that therefore the laws that had rity? No. The only objection was, that they been passed by Congress for the government of wanted power. Had the public affairs been con- that territory were void, and the gentleman ducted with less ability than they are at pre-elected as a delegate to Congress by the Legissent? He had neither heard, nor did he believe that they had.

Mr. R. concluded, by making some remarks on the score of convenience, similar to those already stated.

Mr. MITOHILL, in a speech of some length, supported the ratio of thirty thousand.

Mr. S. SMITH felt indifferent whether the ratio of thirty-three, or that of thirty thousand, were adopted; but felt anxious that justice should be done to the State of Maryland. He understood that radical errors existed in the numbers given to that State; that in Harford County there were returned only three thousand slaves, whereas there ought to have been returned eighteen thousand; and that in Cecil there had been returned nine thousand, instead of fifteen thousand. He hoped, in order to have these errors corrected, the committee would rise, that the original returns in the office of State might be examined.

This motion gave rise to a conversation of some length, in which on one side the impropriety and injustice of making an apportionment under the existing errors, and without the return from Tennessee, were argued; and, on the other side, the great inconvenience of delay, and the inability of the House to obtain a correction of errors, which, if attempted in one instance, might be attempted in many.

Mr. VAN NESS informed the committee that the return from Tennessee was received at the office of State, and that it made the population of that State amount to ninety-two thousand free inhabitants, and thirteen thonsand slaves. It was ultimately agreed that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again; which was granted.

lature of that territory had no right to a seat in the House. Gentlemen might say what they please of the expediency of Congress making laws for the government of that territory, yet that expediency must yield to justice and to just claims; depriving Georgia of her command over that soil and over the people of that soil, was a glaring violation of right. Commissioners had been appointed to settle the dispute between the United States and Georgia; those commissioners are here, and probably it will not be long before those claims are adjusted; he hoped and trusted no further proceedings would take place till the dispute was completely settled.

Mr. BAYARD.-The gentleman from Georgia appeared to mistake the object of the report of the select committee; that committee was appointed to examine the credentials of Mr. Hunter, and to see whether the Legislature of the Missis sippi territory had a right, by the law of Congress regulating that government, to send a delegate, to exercise here the right of debating, but not of voting; it was not to admit into the Union a new State, or to erect a new State within the bounds of another. The law of Congress, establishing the government of that territory, declares that when in that territory there shall be such a number of inhabitants, they shall have a House of Representatives and a Legislature; and that when their inhabitants shall have increased to such a number, the Legislature may appoint a delegate to Congress, with the right of debating, but not of voting. It is not now a question whether a new State shall be erected, but whether this member be duly chosen. Nor are the interests of Georgia at all affected: the fifth section of the law establishing this Government expressly declares that nothing in the law for establishing a temporary government there, shall in any man

[blocks in formation]

ner affect any claims of the State of Georgia to that soil. Commissioners are appointed on the part of the United States and Georgia to settle the dispute between the two Governments; but till those disputes shall be settled, shall the inhabitants of that territory be without a government? No, sir, it is not a matter of discretion with us; we are bound by a positive law of Congress. If the gentleman was urgent against Mr. HUNTER's taking his seat, the only way to effect it is, by repealing the law of Congress establishing the Government of the Mississippi Territory.

Mr. DAVIS.-The House have no business to meddle, in this case, with the claims of the United States, or of Georgia, to that territory; we have only to examine the credentials of the member, and to see whether the Legislature, in conformity to the act of Congress, were authorized, or not, to send a delegate. If that act of Congress be unconstitutional, it must be repealed by the Senate and House; yet, as it now is, we are bound to but one decision on this subject.

Mr. RANDOLPH.-He thought gentlemen did not treat the member from Georgia with due candor and respect. It should be remembered that Georgia had ever protested against the laws relative to the Mississippi Territory. It was the duty of that gentleman, as a member from the State of Georgia, to dissent; constructions might be put on silence. The United States had arrogated the power of governing that territory, at the same time saying that such assumption of power should not affect any claims of Georgia; but did not this very assumption of a right to govern, prejudge claims? We are told the commissioners are on the eve of settling the dispute; let us wait till this be accomplished. Mr. R. motioned that the committee rise.

Mr. CLAIBORNE.-He thought it right in the gentleman from Georgia to dissent; it was to be expected; he did not rise to censure him. He did not conceive that any gentleman in the House wished, in this matter, to do any thing that would prejudice the interest or claims of Georgia. The assumption of a power to give laws to the Mississippi Territory arose from the necessity of the thing, and from benevolence to the inhabitants; he would not suffer an infraction of the constitution for the world; no, not to save a world. [The Chairman called him to order: the question was now on the committee's rising.] Mr. C. said he did not know but he might be out of order, but if he was, he believed others had been in the same situation. He wished to express his opinions on the subject in common with others. It should be considered that the delegate from the Mississippi territory would have no right to vote, but only to debate; he would be only a sting, but without poison. We ought, moreover, to oblige our brethren of that Southern hemisphere; we ought to bear their statements, attend to their wants, &c.

VOL. II.-37

[H. OF R.

Mr. DANA. He was for the committee's rising. It had been usual to suffer the reports of the Committee of Elections to lie on the table, and if no protest or complaint were entered, nothing further was done with them, and the members kept their seats. In the case of the North-western and Indiana Territories, they were obliged to inquire, if it was the first time, whether there was a right to send a delegate; such is the situation now of the member from the Mississippi Territory; the records show their right to send, the report states that this delegate is duly chosen. Let the report lie on the table, and the member keep his seat.

Mr. GRISWOLD.-He was not in favor of the committee's rising. It was extremely unpleasant to the delegate from the Mississippi Territory to remain in this situation; he himself claimed a seat in that House, not as a matter of favor but of right; and this House had not the power of depriving him of this right, without repealing the act of Congress establishing a government over that Territory. Some gentlemen have said that the rights of Georgia will be affected by the admittance of this member to a seat; such certainly could not be the case; if the claims of Georgia are at all affected, it is done already by act of Congress; yet, for his part, he did not consider the claims of Georgia as affected or injured. Nor ought we to wait the decision of the commissioners: that decision may take place in a month, and perhaps will not these six months.

Mr. MACON.-There ought to be some petition or statement of facts presented by the member from Georgia, or some other person, to justify a discussion at this time, or to prevent the delegate from taking his seat. He wished his right and his credentials treated as those of any other member. He agreed with the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,) that it were better for the committee to rise, without leave to sit again; the member would then be entitled to his seat and his pay, till it should be shown that he has no claim to them.

Mr. BAYARD.-He did not agree with the Speaker; the face of the report of the select committee gives sufficient cause for a decision of the Committee of the Whole. The gentleman from Georgia opposes the decision of the select committee; and it is due to the member from Georgia, and to the delegate, to have the opinion of the House-to have a prompt decision. The mere question is, whether he has been duly elected; not whether the Legislature of the Mississippi Territory had a right to elect him. Gentlemen have said we are prejudicing the claims of Georgia, that their rights are implicated in this step; they have said that the act of Congress establishing a government was an assumption of power; not so: by the Spanish treaty that territory was ceded to the United States; the inhabitants were without a government; they petitioned Congress for some form of government. What was to be done? The interposition of Congress arose ex necessitate

[blocks in formation]

rei. It was no assumption of power or assertion of claims. It was a necessary establishment of a temporary government, to continue while there was necessity. He was for an immediate decision.

Messrs. RANDOLPH, DAVIS, BAYARD, S. SMITH, MACON, and GRISWOLD, continued the debate.

The report of the select committee was agreed to. Mr. MILLEDGE wished the yeas and nays, even if he stood alone. They were taken, and stood, yeas 77, nays 8.

TUESDAY, December 22.

Another member, to wit, JOHN RUTLEDGE, from South Carolina, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

TUESDAY, December 29.

Library of Congress.

Mr. RANDOLPH reported a "bill concerning the library for the use of both Houses of Congress;" which, after being twice read, was committed to a Committee of the whole House: Mr. RUTLEDGE in the chair.

The bill provided that the members of both Houses, the President and Vice President of the United States, and the Judges of the Supreme Court, should have liberty to take any book from the library to read.

Mr. SPRIGG moved, to add the Judges of the District of Columbia. He was supported in argument by Mr. DENNIS, upon the ground of the importance of the causes which this especial district would present, and the great expense and extreme scarcity of some most valuable and necessary law books.

Mr. BAYARD objected to the motion, because he could discover no reason for distinguishing the judges of the district from others; but Judges of the Supreme Court being far from their libraries, required such references. He hoped the Congressional Library would never be subjected to the abuse which books used in courts of justice were too liable to.

The motion was not agreed to.

[DECEMBER, 1801

WEDNESDAY, December 30.

Internal Taxes.

Mr. DAVIS moved the appointment of a com mittee to inquire into the expediency of repealing the acts imposing duties on stills and distilled spirits, on refined sugars, on sales at auction, and on pleasure carriages.

Mr. DAVIS said his object, in making this motion, was, that the House should accomplish that directly, which had been this session attempted in so circuitous a way as to embarrass and delay its proceedings. He saw no reason for going into a Committee of the Whole, in order to arrive at decisions that might better be made directly by the House itself.

On this motion a debate of considerable length ensued, in which, on the one side, the reference to a select committee, and on the other a reference to a Committee of the whole House was advocated. No decision was had, and of course the motion of Mr. D. was ordered to lie on the table.

Army Reduction.

Mr. BAYARD, during the course of the debate -in allusion to the adoption yesterday of the resolution of Mr. RANDOLPH for reducing the Military Establishment, which he thought premature, not considering the House as sufficiently acquainted with the details of the subject, to act upon it said, that if gentlemen were for reducing the Army in whatever degree, or for abandoning it altogether, he should go with them. He would, on such occasion, be gor erned by the same principles which had hitherto guided him. He had heretofore been disposed to repose a liberal confidence in the Executive of the United States; and when an increase of our military force had been recommended by the President, he had invariably been for it; much more would he be disposed, when a reduction was recommended from the same quar ter, to sanction it by his vote. With the Execu tive rested the responsibility of the exterior defence of the nation; and if the Executive was of opinion that the nation was secure with a force of three, two, or one thousand, or with

Some observations were made as to the time out even a single man, he would concur with which the library was to remain open.

Mr. GRISWOLD moved to confine it to the time of the session of Congress.

It was carried, with an exception moved by Mr. SOUTHARD, in favor of the Judges of the Supreme Court, whose sessions do not accord with those of Congress.

A blank was left as to the sum to be appropriated, in addition to the remaining part of the five thousand dollars heretofore appropriated, for the purchase of books.

On the Chairman's asking the sum with which to fill the blank, Mr. RANDOLPH moved to strike out the sections, observing that, of that sum, not more than $2,200 had been used, and $2,800 remained unexpended. He entertained no doubt but Congress would aid the institution by every timely grant.

him in giving effect to such a conviction.

Mr. RANDOLPH was called up by these remarks. He had little thought that his motion, agreed to yesterday sub silentio, and without the least hesitation, would have been made the topic of such animated animadversion as he had heard to-day. He would tell the gentleman from Delaware, that his motion had neither been immature in substance, nor premature as to time. It would be recollected, that previous to its adoption, the Secretary of War had been called upon to furnish information to the House. He had furnished information, to his mind com. pletely satisfactory. He had stated the establishment to be five thousand men; and his opinion that all the garrisons required only three thousand men. Could it, then, with any reason be called premature to act upon such in

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »