513 OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS. MARCH 6, 7, 1832.] Apportionment Bill. [SENATE 632.7; while, in New York, each pays but 075.5. This Alabama, six; within the State of Mississippi, two; within is manifestly unjust; it is unconstitutional. the State of Missouri, three.” We claim only our just and equal rights-the constitution secures us equal rights-and, by adopting the principle of the amendment, those rights will be protected against any combination which can be formed by shifting fractions to oppress the smaller States. The Senate then adjourned. TUESDAY, MARCH 6. With his amendment, Mr. WEBSTER submitted the following explanatory statement; which was, at the same time, ordered to be printed, viz. The representative population of the United States is eleven million nine hundred and twenty-nine thousand and five. A House of Representatives, consisting of two hundred and fifty-six members, would give forty-six thousand five hundred and ninety-seven as the common representative number, and would leave a fraction of only 173. The following table exhibits the apportionment of two Mr. CLAYTON explained his views of the bill, and of hundred and fifty-six members among the States, accordthe various amendments which had been moved or suging to their representative population, upon the principle gested, and corrected certain misapprehensions of his of giving to each State the number of representatives meaning which had been expressed by gentlemen oppos- nearest to its true proportion. Where a fraction exceeds ed to his views. a moiety of the common representative number, it is con The apportionment bill was taken up. After some further remarks by Messrs. CLAYTON, TAZEWELL, and EWING, Mr. WEBSTER offered an amendment. Mr. TAZEWELL addressed the Senate at considera-sidered that the greatest attainable equality requires an adble length in support of the bill as it came from the House ditional representative; and where it is less than a moiety, of Representatives, and against the amendment which had that the same equality requires that there should be none. been offered. The first column gives the representative numbers or population of the several States; the second column gives the proportion of two, hundred and fifty-six members, to which each State is entitled, in numbers and decimal fracMr. W. explained and defended the amendment which tions; the third column gives the number of members he had proposed, namely, to allow to those States having proposed for each State, being that number which is neara major fraction, one member, in addition to the number est to its exact mathematical proportion; the fourth and which would be given them by the ratio proposed; which fifth columns contain the fractions belonging to the States was to be considered and divided according to the simple respectively, being the excess or deficiency in their reprerule of proportion, as far as this rule extended; and then sentative numbers, over or under their exact proportion. to add one member to every State having a fraction exceeding five-tenths of the ratio. After Mr. W. concluded, Mr. CLAY asked the Senate to postpone the bill, and take up the question on the tariff; but, on the suggestion of gentlemen opposed, he waived his suggestion; and, After some further remarks from Messrs. TAZEWELL, BIBB, CLAY, HAYNE, WEBSTER, and FOOT, The Senate adjourned. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7. APPORTIONMENT BILL. Representative numbers. STATES. Propor- sented, No. Fractions Fractions propo-represent-not repre sed. ed over true population, Maine, 399,435 8.58 9 19,938 6 10,256 Massach❜tts, Connecticut, 297,665 97,194 1,918,623 319,922 1,348,072 "That, from and after the 3d day of March, one thou- Delaware, sand eight hundred and thirty-three, the House of Repre- Maryland, sentatives shall be composed of such a number of members, Virginia, chosen within each State, as shall bear to the representa- N. Carolina, tive population of such State the same proportion as the S. Carolina, number two hundred and fifty-six bears to the whole re- Georgia, presentative population of the United States; and of one Alabama, additional member to every State in which the addition of Mississippi, such member will bring its number of representatives Louisiana, nearer to its exact proportion than the omission of such Tennessee, additional member; the said number of representatives in Kentucky, any State not exceeding one for every thirty thousand Ohio, persons: that is to say, within the State of Maine, nine; Indiana, within the State of New Hampshire, six; within the State of Illinois, Massachusetts, thirteen; within the State of Rhode Island, Missouri, two; within the State of Connecticut, six; within the State of Vermont, six; within the State of New York, forty-one; within the State of New Jersey, seven; within the State of Pennsylvania, twenty-nine; within the State of Dela- gregate fracware, two; within the State of Maryland, nine; within the tion, State of Virginia, twenty-two; within the State of North Carolina, fourteen; within the State of South Carolina, ten; within the State of Georgia, nine; within the State of Kentucky, thirteen; within the State of Tennessee, thir Deduct ag 3323 [The main object of the amendment is simply to apteen; within the State of Ohio, twenty; within the State proximate more nearly to an equitable representation, by of Indiana, seven; within the State of Louisiana, four; giving to each State, having a fraction exceeding a moiety within the State of Illinois, three; within the State of of the ratio representation, one additional member.] VOL. VIII.-33 Apportionment Bill. Mr. TAZEWELL rejoined in further opposition to the amendment. Mr. SPRAGUE followed in a speech in support of the amendment; and, After some additional remarks by Messrs. MARCY, WEBSTER, and CLAYTON, The Senate adjourned. [MARCH 8, 1832. STER addressed the Senate at considerable without fractions, given by the bill, was but ninety-five, m support of his plan, and in reply to Messrs. and the House of Representatives was composed of one ARCY and TAZEWELL. hundred and five. It was not frue that any President ever Mr. FORSYTH demanded a division of the question, declared that representation by fractions was unconstitu so as to take the sense of the Senate separately on that tional. The next bill, which was approved by President part which proposed to give representatives to the major Jefferson, was drawn upon the very same principle with fractions. that now submitted by the resolution of the Senator from Massachusetts. The same ratio adopted in 1792 was continued in 1802. He showed that, by this bill of 1802, eight or ten States got each one member more than the rule entitled them to. Georgia had four members by the bill, and was entitled by the rule to only three, with a large fraction; and yet the gentleman from Georgia now says that the representation of fractions is unconstitutional. The third apportionment bill, which was approved by Mr. Madison, also allowed representations for fractions. The ratio assumed by the House was thirty-seven thousand. It was rejected in the Senate, on the ground that it was unequal in its operation, giving an undue advantage to the larger States. The Senate did not consider themselves bound by the decision of the House. They undertook to do justice. Mr. CLAY requested of the gentleman from Indiana, They put the ratio at 35,000, and increased the number the reasons why the committee asked to be discharged. from 170 to 186. Mr. C. then showed that several States, Mr. HENDRICKS said he was not instructed by the by that bill, had got one more member than the rule of committee to communicate to the Senate the reasons of apportionment entitled them to. Georgia again was entheir decision. He would say, however, that the consti- titled to but five members, with a fraction of seventy-three tutional question was not taken into consideration, because hundredths, but she got six members by the bill. The the committee were of the opinion that the country was not in a condition to sustain the expense which the work would necessarily require. THURSDAY, MARCH 8. Mr. HENDRICKS, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, to which the petition was referred, praying for the aid of Congress to construct a railroad from Buffalo, in New York, to the Mississippi river, asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. The resolutions submitted yesterday were taken up, and agreed to. The bill providing for the continuation of the Cumberland road in the States of Indiana and Illinois, and for the erection of bridges over the Scioto and Wabash rivers, was taken up. Mr. HENDRICKS said that the progress which had been made in the construction of this road through the States of Indiana and Illinois, was perfectly satisfactory to the people there. The money had been expended in a proper manner. The present appropriation was made in consequence of a bill which originated in the Senate some years since. The bill was then ordered to a third reading. APPORTIONMENT BILL. This bill was then again taken up, together with the substitute offered by Mr. WEBSTER, and the motion of Mr. FORSYTH to strike out from the substitute the clause providing for the representation of fractions. to the small States. Senate objected to the bill from the House on the very grounds which are now urged against the bill before us, and the bill, as amended by the Senate, was finally passed. Mr. C. then went on to show that the apportionment bill of 1822, signed by Mr. Monroe, gave representatives for fractions. Georgia again had one more representative by the bill than the rule of apportionment entitled her to; Under the and several other States a similar proportion. bill now before us, sent to us from the House, the appor tionment was, he contended, grossly unequal and unjust. It allowed representatives, in several cases, for small frac tions, and refused them to very large fractions. This resulted from the assumption of an arbitrary divisor, which gave a result favorable to the large States, and oppressive He went on to give many statements in support of this position. The objection to the bill, resulting from its operation in regard to New York, was to him insuperable; and he could not conceive how honorable gentlemen could, by any mathematical or metaphysical subilety, reconcile it to their sense of justice and propriety. New York, by the rule of proportion, was entitled to thirtyeight members. The bill gives her forty. She had those two Mr. CLAYTON contended that no apportionment bill representatives without constituents at home. Who were had ever passed, which did not, in effect, represent frac- the people whom those two members represented? Where tions. The bill of 1792, rejected by President Washing- did they reside? The member from Delaware is chosen ton, represented fractions, and was rejected solely on the by 76,000 freemen; and he, their representative, sits by ground that it gave more than one representative for each the side of two members who represent nobody. The thirty thousand to several of the States. The rule applied Senator from New York calls upon the State of Virginia to that bill must have been this: that the representation of to support the bill. I call, said Mr. C., upon South Caroeach State should bear to the whole number of represen- lina, upon Illinois, upon all the small States, to help me tatives the same proportion which the representative po- in opposition to those large States; for they are all small pulation of each State bore to the population of the United in comparison with those two States-New York and States. By that bill, New Hampshire had five members, Virginia. But he remembered the time when Virginia, and was entitled to but four: Massachusetts had sixteen, too, stood by the small States, in the contest for equal rebut was entitled to only fifteen, and had a fraction of se-presentation, against the assumption of the large States: venty-seven hundredths: Delaware was entitled to but one he referred to the course of Messrs. Giles and Brent in by the rule, with a fraction of eight-tenths, but had two 1811, in relation to the apportionment bill in that year members by the bill, &c. Gentlemen say the bill was re- passed. The hard bearing of the bill upon the new States jected because fractions were represented by the bill. he next considered. Missouri was left with a fraction of General Washington said there was no common divisor, six-tenths, while Tennessee had one member for a smaller or ratio, applied to the bill. He found no proportion, no fraction. This injustice arose from the arbitrary assump equality, in the bill. There was, in fact, no possible tion of the number of the House, and the assumption, at common divisor which would give the results of that bill; the same time, of an arbitrary divisor. Mr. C. went into and this was a fair ground of objection. But, by the bill several statements to show that this mode of apportionwhich General Washington did sign, fractions were, in ment must necessarily operate to accumulate the fractions fact, represented. The whole number of representatives, upon the small States. This mode of apportionment was MARCH 9, 1832.] OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS. 518 [SENATE. and Mr. TAZEWELL further opposed, the amendment. Mr. WEBSTER again advocated, and Mr. MARCY At half past four the Senate adjourned. FRIDAY, MARCH 9. adopted for the benefit of the large States; and as long as the Senate suffers them to continue it, they will have an advantage over the small States in the popular representation. The five large States had a representation of 121 members, but were entitled only to a representation of 113 members. The nineteen smaller States, with a population of 232,000 more than that of the large States, had only 119 representatives, but were entitled to 122 members. After some other remarks, Mr. C. concluded by invoking the aid of the small States in the support of as he thought, the injustice of the existing provisions of Mr. SILSBEE said that, although the inequalities, and, the rights of the small States. send the bill back to the House, as the bill of 1812 was duced to present some other expositions of those inequaliHe hoped they would the bill seemed to have been demonstrated, yet he was insent back; and, if the House objected to it, he hoped the ties, in which, however, he should be very brief, as the Senate would insist upon their amendment, as the Senate Senator from Delaware [Mr. CLAYTON] had already predid in 1812. sented several views of the effect of the bill, in its present This bill being again taken up, Mr. FORSYTH replied briefly to the Senator from De-form, to which he [Mr. S.] should otherwise have solicited Laware, insisting that he had, to make out his proposition, the attention of the Senate; but which he should now no assumed what he ought to have proved-that his rule of further notice, than to express his confidence in the corapportionment was the rule which the constitution requir-rectness of the calculations and views of that gentleman ed. The State of Georgia, in his view of the rule, had upon this subject. always had a large fraction unrepresented; and the rule The first objection which he should make to this bill, by which the gentleman would represent that, was alto- Mr. S. said, was, that it reduced the representation of some gether arbitrary. If the application of 30,000 as a com- of the parent States to four less than it then was, by demon ratio, in 1792, was constitutional, then the similar ap- priving each of the States of New Hampshire, Massachuplication of a higher ratio at this time was constitutional.setts, Maryland, and Virginia, of a portion of their preThe State which he represented had no particular interest sent representation. in this matter. Her number of representatives would be the same under the amendment as under the bill. He had intended to impose this reduction of power, (it was not Estened to the arguments in favor of the amendment, with a disposition to be convinced; but he had come to the conclusion that the representation of fractions was unconstitutional. In behalf of one of the copartners upon whom it was Mr. S. said that the whole population to be repre for him to explain the views of the others,) he would say that such consequences ought, in his judgment, to be avoided if it could be done without inflicting greater inMr. CLAYTON said, in reply, the ratio he had esta- an advocate for an overwhelming legislative body, Mr. S. jury upon other sections of the Union. Although not blished was not arbitrary. The true ratio must be obtain- observed that he had ever entertained the opinion that ed by a fair proportionment. This is the only rule which, the representation of the old States should not be reduced in the nature of things, can be just and equal. Any ratio, either earlier or faster than was absolutely necessary, and got from other process than fair proportionment, must be he could not perceive the necessity for such a reduction at arbitrary, and therefore unjust. Unless the gentleman this time. Another, and stronger, objection to the bill was, can show that the good old rule of three is incorrect, he Mr. S. said, that it caused a most unequal distribution cannot sustain the bill, nor the ratio adopted in the bill. of the unrepresented fractions, as he would endeavor to The gentleman does not undertake to show us how it is show by some statements which, he believed, had not been that the representation given to New York by the bill is presented by any one who had preceded him in this her fair proportion. Some one was evidently mistaken as debate, and as supplementary to some of those which had to this subject, and it was important that it should be as-been presented by others. certained who it is. It was to him important—because he was sworn to support the constitution. says his State is not interested in the result. But he con-proposed by the bill, would give 250 representatives and The gentleman sented was 11,928,731, which, at a ratio of 47,700, as tended that Georgia, by the bill, got an advantage which a fraction of 3,731. That the number of representatives she denied to other States. The bill was not, as the gen- proposed by the bill was 240, with an aggregate fraction tleman said, temporary in its operation. For five succes-of 480,731: that this aggregate fraction was equal to four Sve Congresses it gave an undue portion of political power per cent. of the whole population to be represented: to the large States. Mr. HAYNE had, he said, listened attentively to the upon their population, was about seven and one-third per that the aggregate fraction of the six New England States, argument on both sides, but he now found a difficulty. cent., while the fractions of all the other States than those of He had, at one time, come to the conclusion to vote against New England was only three and one-third per cent.; and the amendment. But he had been struck with the argu- the fractions of eleven of the States, having 175 of the ment, that, under the apportionment proposed in the bill 240 representatives, and more than two-thirds of the from the House, fractions were represented. Now if frac-whole population, was only about one and three-fourths tions were to be represented at all, he thought the most per cent.: that these eleven States, with a population of equitable mode of representing them was that presented in 8,497,935, and 175 representatives, have fractions of only the bill. He wished the Senate to fix its attention upon 150,430, while the six New England States, with a popula this fact: New York has more than one-sixth of the whole tion of only 1,954,684, and 38 representatives, (less than representatives, but she has less than one-sixth part of the one-fourth the population, and but little over one-fifth the whole population. If so, she has a representative for her representation of those eleven States,) have fractions to the fraction. He wished to see this view met. He could not amount of 142,084; and three adjoining New England conceive how we could give a State more than belonged States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont, to her; though he would imagine that oftentimes it might with a population of 1,160,390, and 22 representatives, be necessary to give her less. By the assumption upon have fractions to the amount of 110,990, very nearly onearbitrary ratio, or an arbitrary number of members of the tenth of their whole population, besides losing two of their House, it would be easy, as he showed by cases which present representation. he pat, to do great injustice to the smaller States. resolution would be to send the bill to a committee with tions cannot be entirely avoided; but I doubt if another This Sir, said Mr. S., I know that an inequality of these fracinstructions to inquire what apportionment would be the ratio can be devised, which will impose upon any six con equitable and constitutional. SENATE.] Apportionment Bill. [MARCH 9, 1832. tiguous States of the Union, or upon any six States that The five States of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, The six States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina, with a population of 6,089,351, being 124,986 over one-half the whole po pulation, are entitled by the bill to 126 members, leaving a population, in the other States, of but 124,986 less than one-half the whole population, and entitled to 118, with only 114 members. "ap. are not contiguous, and that have a population of about Ohio, and Kentucky, with a population of 5,947,844, betwo millions, such an inequality as is imposed, by this bill, ing 16,521 less than one-half of the whole population, upon the six New England States. are entitled, by the provisions of the bill, to 121 of the Mr. S. proceeded to state that the average number of 240 members of which the House of Representatives is constituents represented by each of the 175 delegates to be composed; while the other nineteen States, with from those eleven States would be 48,559; the average 16,521 over a moiety of the whole population, are enti number by each of the 202 delegates from eighteen tled to but 119 of the 240 members-giving to a minority States would be 49,377; while the average number re- of the population a majority of the representation, and to presented by each of the 38 delegates from the six New a majority of the population only a minority of that reEngland States would be 51,439. That, under the pro- presentation. visions of this bill, the seven States of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, will not only lose four representatives, but will have fractions appertaining to their remaining 58 representatives, to the amount of 218,490, equal to an excess of 3,767 to each representative-while seven other States, viz. New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, and Rhode Island, with 112 repre- Can this, said Mr. S., be called a representation " sentatives, have fractions of only 41,425, or an excess of portioned amongst the several States according to their only 369 to each representative, being less than one-tenth respective numbers?" He thought it could not, and hoped of the excess to be represented by each of the 58 dele- the bill would be so amended as to approximate somewhat gates from the other seven States: that Vermont, with nearer to such a representation than it then did, before it only 5 representatives, would have a larger fraction than received the sanction of that body. Touching the conthe seven States last named, with 112 representatives: that stitutionality of the bill, or of any amendment which had Pennsylvania, with 28 representatives, would have a frac-been, or which might be, offered to it, Mr. S. said he tion of 12,472; Kentucky, Tennessee, and Rhode Island, had but a single remark to make, which was this--that with 28 representatives, would have fractions to the he had previously believed, and had become more and amount of 8,739; but Vermont, New Hampshire, Mas- more confirmed in the belief, that by regarding fractions sachusetts, and New Jersey, with the same number of re- we should approach much nearer to such a representapresentatives, (28,) would have fractions to the amount tion as is prescribed by the constitution, than by disre of 144,712: that the State of New York, with a popula- garding them. tion of 1,918,623, would have 40 representatives; while Let us suppose, said Mr. S., that this bill had come to the New England States, with a population of 1,954,684, us, from the other House, without any mention of the would have but 38 representatives, with a population ratio which had been adopted there, (and it is not neces 33,061 less, New York would have a representation of sary that the ratio should be stated in the bill,) but with two members more, than the six New England States. merely the provisions that the House of Representatives The State of New York would have one-sixth part of the should be composed of 240 members, of which number whole representation of the Union, with 69,544 less than the State of Maine should have eight, &c. &c. &c. In one-sixth of its population. The 18 members from Ver- such case, what mode of calculation would most naturally mont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Missouri, Mr. S. occur, to ascertain if those 240 members had been cor said, would have an excess of 141,724, or, 7,873 to each rectly apportioned to the several States? Would it not member; while the 90 members from New York, Pennsyl-be this as the whole population of the Union is to 240, vania, Georgia, and Kentucky, would have an excess of what is the proportion of these 240 members to the po only 25,338, or 281 to each member; the average number pulation of each State? The result of such a mode of of constituents to the first 18 members being 55,573, and apportionment was upon all our tables, and so far differed to the other 90 members only 47,981. Mr. S. said he knew it to be tedious to hear, even more so than to prepare, these arithmetical calculations; but he had felt it to be his duty to present them to the Senate, for the purpose of showing, better than he could do it in any other way, some of the injurious, and, as he could not but think, unjust effects of the existing provisions of the bill; and, with one or two further expositions of the same kind, he should take leave of them, and, probably, of further participation in this discussion. from the provisions of the bill, that, by disposing of the extra 12 members (beyond the 228 which would be dis posed of by the first process) to the twelve States having the largest fractions, and exceeding the moiety of a constitu ency, each of the three States of Vermont, Delaware, and Missouri, would get one more member, and each of the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky, would have one member less than by the provisions of the bill. As between this mode of apportioning the 240 members amongst the States, and that which has been adopted in It will be seen, said Mr. S., that a division of the frac- the bill, Mr. S. said that, with his present impressions on tions of the seven States of New Hampshire, Vermont, the subject, he could not but consider the former as the New Jersey, Delaware, Missouri, Mississippi, and Louisi- most correct of the two. He hoped the bill would not, in ana, amongst their 24 members, will give to each of those its present form, be sustained by the Senate. members a fraction very nearly as large as that of the Mr. WHITE, of Tennessee, said the proposition now whole New York delegation at 40 members; the 24 mem- before the Senate was, whether that part of the substitute bers from those seven States have fractions to the amount of the Senator from Massachusetts, which proposes the of 213,218, proportionable to which the fraction to the direct representation of fractions, shall be stricken out. 40 members from New York should be 355,363, whereas Unless something more should suggest itself to his mind it was only 10,623. Thus, while the average number of on the subject, he should determine that the representa constituents represented by each of the 40 members from tion of fractions, as such, was unconstitutional. The na New York will be 47,963, the average number represented tural course by which the representatives were to be ap by each of the 24 members from the other seven States portioned, was to assure a convenient number for the will be 56,584; and the number represented by the member from Delaware will be 75,432. The whole representative population of the Union, said Mr. S., is 11,928,731; one-half of which is 5,964,365. House, and then to adopt a common divisor, by which the number of representatives from each State should be as certained. The divisor would be ascertained, after ex periment, and chosen in reference to its equal operation MARCH 12, 1832.] on the several States. Mr. HOLMES also advocated the amendment at some length; and then The Senate adjourned to Monday. MONDAY, MARCH 12. APPORTIONMENT BILL. The object to be attained is to be was increasing with unparalleled rapidity. He did not made a just apportionment. If a just apportionment be consider that the substitute was as favorable to the new attained, it is of no consequence what is the process taken; and growing States which he had named, as the original but whatever rule you adopt, must be one which applies to bill. In regard to Tennessee, if the substitute prevailed, the respective numbers of each State. To the rule pro- this would be the fourth time that that rapidly growing posed by the Senator from Massachusetts, he objected State will have been put off with a large unrepresented that it was not an equal rule, applicable to each State, and fraction. If the bill, as it stands, is unequal, it can only be operating in like manner upon each State. The rule gives changed by altering the ratio, or the number of the meman additional member to each of the twelve major frac-bers of the House; and he believed it was the part of the tions, and withholds it from the twelve minor fractions. House, exclusively, to fix upon such a number as to them What one State gains the gentleman says truly another may seem most fit and convenient, unless, indeed, it should State loses, and, therefore, the States having the major be manifest to us, that, by an alteration, some great benefractions have the full benefit of the aggregate minor fit was to be obtained. As to the ratio proposed in the fractions. It was the same old plan, presented in a new bill, he believed it was productive of as much equality and shape, which, forty years ago, was repudiated as unconsti- justice, in relation to the several States, as could be obtutional. Each State must be received as a distinct body, tained by any other ratio. Even if the constitutional obto be distinctly and separately represented. The doctrine jection to the substitute, which with him was insuperable, that a part of the political power or representative num- was out of the question, he would prefer the bill as it came ber of one State could be transferred to another, was the from the House, to the substitute proposed by the Senator doctrine of consolidation. This was the fifth time that from Massachusetts. the subject has been before the Senate; and how is it that Mr. SPRAGUE spoke in reply to the Senator from this plan of representing fractions, of operating upon the Tennessee, and in opposition to the motion to amend the States as a consolidated body, was never before proposed? substitute. He contended that fractions had, by every At the last apportionment, the State of South Carolina bill, been substantially represented, though not so by would have been entitled to one more representative, by provisions expressed on the face of the bill; that such lowering the ratio adopted only one or two hundred; but representation was in accordance with the spirit of the her Senators did not suggest the idea that this fraction constitution, which required a just and equal appor ought to be represented. The apportionment, according tionment of representatives; and that the provisions of the to the whole spirit of the constitution and form of the con- substitute attained a greater degree of equality than those federation, must, according to the respective numbers of of the original bill. the States, be considered as distinct, separate communities. Perfect equality was not expected; it was known to be unattainable, in the apportionment of men--for they are not, like money, divisible. It is true that the large States have an advantage in the apportionment, because their fraction, whatever it is, must bear a less proportion to their whole number of representatives than the fractions of the smaller States to their number of representatives. But this was an advantage of which you cannot deprive the large States, constitutionally. You give, however, to four of the large States, which, you say, have already more than their proportion, an additional member to each. Tennessee has a fraction of 19,902, but is not to have an additional member; but Maine, which, according to the original bill, had a fraction of but 17,000, is to have an additional member. Thirty-one thousand persons are to be transferred from Tennessee to Maine, to be there represented as citizens of a State they were never in, and by a person whom they never saw. This was the Great injustice has been done to the small States, said practical effect of this scheme, which was forced and urged Mr. D., in withholding from them their proper share of upon us as one of equal operation. Pennsylvania, by this power, weight, and influence, in the councils of the na scheme, was to have a representative for a number short tiop; more especially as it respects their numerical force of the ratio by three or four thousand, and Tennessee in the House of Representatives, while they have been was to have but one representative for a number exceed-compelled to bear their undiminished share of public ing the ratio by nineteen thousand and over. Twelve burdens. The condition of the State of New Jersey, States were to be over-represented, and twelve were to contrasted with that of her potent neighbors, New York be under-represented-and the over-represented States and Pennsylvania, will put this subject in a strong point were those among the largest States, and those under-re- of view. In the apportionment of 1810, when the ratio presented were both small and new States, and yet the was fixed at 35,000, New Jersey had an unrepresented plan was recommended as promotive of equality. The fraction of 31,222, while New York had a fraction of bill was better as it stands. It produced less injustice than the plan proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts. He would risk nothing in saying that, if the census of six new States, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, and Illinois, would be taken over again at this moment, it would be found that they had an increased population added to them since the census was taken, which, in addition to the fractions, would entitle each of them to another representative; and yet this scheme was recommended to us by the Senator from Massachusetts as being especially favorable to new States. The fractions, if he could fix them, should fall upon the old States, whose population was stationary, and not upon the new States, whose population The Senate resumed the consideration of this bill, with the amendment thereto offered by Mr. WEBSTER, and the amendment offered by Mr. FonsYTH. Mr. DICKERSON said: Coming, as he did, from a State which has severely felt the unequal and unjust operation of the laws heretofore adopted, and again to be adopted, if the present bill should pass, for apportioning the representatives of the United States among the several States, it was his duty to his constituents to join Senators from States similarly situated, in an effort to arrest, as far as practicable, this system of oppression. 8,043, and Pennsylvania a fraction of 4,773, added together amounting to 12,816. The fraction of New Jersey being nearly three times as great as that of New York and Pennsylvania together; while New York had a representation of 27, Pennsylvania of 23, and New Jersey 6. In the apportionment of 1820, when the ratio was fixed at 40,000, New Jersey had a fraction of 34,551, while New York had a fraction of 8,775, and Pennsylvania of 9,449; and in the apportionment of 1830, according to the present bill, with a ratio of 47.700, New Jersey has a fraction of 33,632, while New York has a fraction of 9,953, and Pennsylvania of 12,052. In this way several States have suffered nearly as much as New Jersey, and the State of |