community. It certainly, sir, appears to me that we ought to be extremely careful how we increase this power in the General Government. I believe, sir, with many others, that the influence of that Government has been bearing very hard upon the State governments. I believe, sir, whatever was the theory, that the practice, for some time, has tended to the substantial reduction of the State governments. I believe this has been the policy, and perhaps consistently with their principles, of some who have borne a conspicuous part in the administration of our Government; but, I flatter myself, the doctrine is exploded. In this view, that is, with respect to the State governments, I do not wish to see our own powers too much increased in the augmented numbers of this House. I do not wish to see the State Governments, which I regard, indeed, as the pillars on which the fabric of our liberty rests, drawn within and swallowed up by the vortex of Federal power and influence. In another view, I do not wish to see the powers of this House imprudently enlarged, by too rapid an increase of members. The established theory of our Constitution I admire; I adore it; I believe the arrangement and distribution of power among the several branches of the Government is, in the main, salutary and correct. The equilibrium is well established, and may continue, whilst we are careful not to add too great a weight to either branch. But, sir, give this House too decided a preponderance, by means of its numbers, increased public confidence, and its consequent increased strength, and you hazard

all.

JANUARY, 1802.

the whole number of members? Will not this satisfy the country? When our population was three millions, our representation on this floor consisted of sixty-five members. When our population was nearly four millions, our number of Representatives here was one hundred and six, and so continued until the present day. When our population appears to be five millions, shall we call for one hundred and fifty-six, in direct violation of the principle heretofore established, instead of one hundred and forty-one, which will be the number afforded by the divisor of 33,000, and which is the number we ask for.

I repeat, sir, we must rest somewhere; we cannot long proceed at this rapid rate of increase, in direct proportion to our population. And it appears more reasonable, more politic, gradually to lessen our proportional increase, until we arrive, by a moderate progression, at an ultimatum, than to proceed in full career, and with an intemperate zeal for increase; and thus presently do violence to the habits and expectations of the country, by a sudden. an abrupt discontinuance.

I would therefore prefer even a larger ratio than 33,000 to 30,000, but this not appearing desirable to any part of the House, I shall adhere to that number which appears to me most proper and consistent of any that has been under consideration. As I have before said, I respect the feelings and sentiments of the public upon every occasion, particularly upon the present, when we are upon a subject more interesting to them than any other object of legislation. They are generally right. Taking, necessarily, a strong interest in public affairs, after having bestowed due deliberation and reflection upon a subject, they arrive at the truth. This remark applies to an enlightened country, a country like our own. I consider their opinions as unequivocally expressed, in the first instance, by our Constitution, which directs that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, even at the period of its formation, when our population was so much inferior to the present, clearly implying that even in that state of our population, this ratio was fully low enough; and, of course, that as the population advanced, the ratio or divisor ought to be increased: by the law of Congress passed very soon afterwards, and after the taking of the first census, which, pursu ing this principle, raised the ratio to 33,000, by the recommendation of Congress, (two-thirds of both Houses concurring,) of an article, by way of amendment, to the Constitution, regulating, in effect, the ratio by the population. Here, indeed, some gentlemen triumphantly exclaim: "But that recommended article was rejected; it was not adopted by three-fourths of the States." Those gentlemen, however, should recollect that it was not rejected But, sir, it is said by some gentlemen, that the on account of its principle. It contained, probably difference for which we contend, is trifling; nei- through the inadvertence of its framers, a prother on the score of economy, or any other, can it position which was inconsistent and contradictory be material, &c. I confess, the number of fifteen, in itself. By the terms of it, after the number of abstractedly, is not very large; but is not the Representatives should have amounted to two addition of thirty-five members, which will be the hundred, the proportion was to have been so reguincrease, according to the ratio of 33,000, a con-lated that there were not to be less than two hunsiderable one? Is it not large, when compared to dred members, nor more than one for every 30,000;

We have seen melancholy instances of public evils resulting from struggles for power between different branches of the same political establishment. When, by accident, intrigue, or other circumstances, the physical power of a people has been more peculiarly and completely attached or devoted to one of those branches, we have frequently beheld it, conscious of this advantage, and under the influence of the most dangerous passions, sweep everything before it that opposed the gratification of those passions. I need not particularize; the history of every country that has ever enjoyed even a semblance of liberty, where there has been even a pretended division or distribution of power, will furnish us with cases. I do, therefore, feel a strong regard, a strong solicitude for the preservation and permanent firmness of the other branches of the present Government, whilst I am augmenting the numbers, confidence, and power, of this House. We are at present, and, by a moderate progression, will continue, a sufficient counterbalance to the other branches. If we practise upon the pure principles of the Constitution, I am persuaded it is so.

A

sacrifice to this object any important advantages of a Representative Government; but there is no danger of such a consequence.

The gentleman from Delaware, in adverting to a struggle which, some time since, took place in his State, respecting a surrender of their sovereignty, acknowledged the fact, but very unnecessarily went on to tell us that the attempt was made by those who were formerly called Jacobins, afterwards Democrats, and who now call themselves Republicans. It is a little extraordinary, I confess, and only to be accounted for by local circumstances, unknown to us, that they should have had to contend in a struggle of this kind with a set of people formerly called Federalists; afterwards, Aristocrats; and now called Royalists. The opposition of this latter class cannot have been consistent with their usual principles; principles which, after full experience, have met with the public reprobation.

JANUARY, 1802.

The bill for the apportionment of Representatives coming up for its third reading, a motion was made to recommit the bill to the Committee of the Whole, that certain returns of the new census, not made precisely according to law, might receive legislative sanction before the apportionment among the several States should be made.

[The Marshal of South Carolina had not taken the oath prescribed by law, though he took an oath some days after he made the return, that it was faithfully made.]

Mr. VAN RENSSELAER did not rise with a view to offer any arguments to the committee in expectation that any one member would be influenced thereby, so as to induce him to change his opinion different from what he had expressed on the floor of the House, or signified by a vote on the different questions that have been decided; but merely to express his opinion and to assign his reason for the vote he was about to give. When the question now before the Committee was first Mr. RUTLEDGE said he would not struggle introduced into the House an honorable gentle-against the sense of the House when unequivocally man from Connecticut, (Mr. GRISWOLD,) moved expressed. It had been determined yesterday not to strike out the divisor 33,000, for the purpose of to strike out, for the purpose of not diminishing introducing 40,000; he voted for it, but the motion the ratios in the bill; but it had not been deterdid not obtain. Circumstanced as he was, in the mined that the ratio should not be increased. shape the business now stood before the Commit- Thirty-five thousand would be the most convenitee, he would vote for striking out 33,000, in hopes ent ratio for the State he had the honor to represent. of obtaining a divisor of 40,000. In doing this he and he thought that number would obtain if the was actuated by the same motive that influenced question could fairly be brought before the House. him on a former occasion-that of opposing a too As the bill was engrossed for a third reading, no numerous representation. As to two of the rea- alteration could be made in it without a recommitsons his colleague (Mr. VAN NESS) had offered in ment. He hoped therefore the motion would pass. support of the present bill before the committeethe act of the House of Representatives, in the year 1793, fixing the ratio at 33,000, and the instance of the late convention in the State of New York lessening the State legislature-Mr. VAN R. said they made more in favor of the divisor of 40,000 than otherwise; for that the ratio of 33,000 for each member in 1793 was on three million, which made a very considerable augmentation to the House. In the present case the divisor ought to be received because we have at this time upwards of five million of souls. If, then, precedents and local considerations might be brought to bear on the present question, it certainly would give the preference to the divisor of 40,000 rather than 33.000.

Mr. ELMER would not be opposed to a recommitment if thirty-five would suit the States generally better than thirty-three, and there was a prospect of carrying that number; but he believed that number would be injurious to the small States; he should therefore be opposed to the motion.

Mr. SOUTHARD thought, as the subject had been long before the House and under solemn consideration, there was no occasion for the postponement. By increasing the ratio, Rhode Island and some other of the small States would be deprived of a member. This had heretofore been viewed as a very important consideration, and he hoped it would be so viewed, and that the bill would not be recommitted.

Mr. DENNIS said, one reason assigned for recomMr. S. SMITH, and Mr. LOWNDES followed, and mitting was, in order to pass a law to make the reassigned reasons in favor of the ratio of thirty-turn from South Carolina valid. He believed this three thousand.

On the question being taken for striking out thirty-three, it was lost-yeas 42, nays 48.

Mr. DENNIS moved to strike out eight, the number of Representatives allotted to Maryland, and insert nine; which amendment had been ren

would legalize that return as much as if fifty bills should be passed on the subject. He was not for being over-scrupulous on such occasions.

Mr. BAYARD hoped the bill would be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole. It was very discernable that the House yesterday was not dis

JANUARY, 1802.

Apportionment Bill.

H. OF R.

hours? He thought such a temper did not become those who were about to correct the line of conduct pursued for twelve years past.

posed to hear arguments on the subject. He of a great nation? Did not it appear so when a thought the efficacy of the law was at stake by a gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON,) whose hasty determination. Irregularities have occurred age and steady sober habits he revered, rose in his in the returns in many instances, and it was im- place, and declared that, sooner than agree to any proper to countenance such proceedings. In re-postponement, he would sit there for forty-eight spect to South Carolina, the marshal had not taken an oath prior to his making the return, and yet gentlemen say it is valid, although the law requires an oath. If this is admitted, how can we expect that such requisitions will in future be attended to? If there be any solemnity in an oath, it is not to be so easily dispensed with, or hereafter there may be a general failure in complying with the laws respecting the census. By passing a law on the subject, that danger will be avoided. Without they proceeded in that way their laws would become mere waste paper, or dry leaves, that the winds would drive about in every direction.

adapted to the interest of the United States; nor was he afraid to trust himself or others on this subject, which did not appear to be the case with those opposed to a recommitment.

nent session of a Legislature, and of great cor│ruption that ensued; and he did not wish to see the experiment here. It frequently occurred yesterday, that when gentlemen rose to deliver their sentiments, there were repeated calls for the question, and therefore gentlemen would not force themselves upon the House.

Are gentlemen afraid to trust to themselves, that they oppose the recommitment of the bill? Were they afraid to have the question fully discussed? He never did agree to vote for thirty thousand as the ratio. The arguments of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. EUSTIS,) struck him as forcible, that a principle appeared to be formerly fixed, that the ratio of representation should increase with our population. Mr. G. thought the bill ought to be recommitted, as the There were perhaps but little hopes of success return from Tennessee was not before them, and as he had brought forward the motion, yet he had no legal return from another State. The census been long enough in the House to know that they was the basis of legislation on this subject. He might vote one way to-day and differently to-mor-wished that ratio to be fixed that would be best row. Mr. B. was not confident that there might not be a change of opinion. Yesterday there was not sufficient calmness and sober judgment to hear arguments, but the House decided rather by the impulse of feeling. On the motion for recom- Mr. RUTLEDGE thought that calmness did not mitment he intended to call for the yeas and nays. exist yesterday, that should always be observed by Mr. S. SMITH trusted that the House would not the House. If one gentleman were willing to recommit the bill. They had with tranquillity list-stay, others were not. He had heard of a permaened yesterday to every word the gentleman from Delaware had to say on the occasion. They could not expect anything new on the subject. If anything new were possible he was persuaded the ingenuity of that gentleman would have brought it forward. It has been said the return from South Carolina is not according to law; but it should be remembered it was not the intention of the law to preclude any State from its proper number of representatives. There was a penalty upon the marshal if he did not comply with the law, but that was not to make the census ineffectual. He considered the return from New York a fair return, although it was not made within the time prescribed by law. The Marshal of South Carolina, though he did not take the oath before he made the return, yet in a few days he took an oath that it was faithfully made. The intention of the law was to give a fair ratio according to the returns, and any little informality did not invalidate them. He was suprised that a gentleman so correct as the gentleman from Delaware usually was, should charge the House with want of temper. Mr. S. had been long a member, and never saw the House preserve its temper better than it did yesterday; but he had on former occasions, when gentlemen of different political sentiments from the present majority possessed an ascendency, seen a want of temper, such as the gentleman now without reason complained of.

Mr. GODDARD was unacquainted with the conduct of the House formerly. Yesterday he did think the conduct of the House was very strange when it was by some claimed to be the first republican representation under the new Constitution. Was there not a temper unbecoming the Legislature

The question should be fully debated: this had not been the case. He allowed it had been sufficiently debated whether it should be thirty or thirty-three thousand, but not in respect to a higher number. He was for thirty-five thousand, and hoped it would obtain, not by any new light that would be thrown on the subject; but as several persons yesterday expressed themselves in favor of a higher number, he believed many would vote for thirtyfive. He did not see why they should have the doors closed upon them, and be thus prohibited from further debate with respect to higher numbers. His State felt a deep interest in the subject, and he should vote for a recommitment.

Mr. BACON said, a principal reason urged for a commitment was the unbecoming and unmanly conduct of the House yesterday, and he had been held up as eminent in the unworthy affair. The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. GODDARD) had discovered in him a disposition unbecoming his age and the sober habits of his native State.

He confessed he did think it strange yesterday, when some gentlemen assigned as a reason for postponing the bill, that the last return from Maryland had not been compared with the former return, when they were told it was on the Clerk's table, where they might satisfy themselves by comparing it with the former, which was also there. He saw it with his own eyes. He did

suppose that something unfair must be intended by that objection being perseveringly urged, when every member could so easily satisfy himself. Under these circumstances, he would submit it to the House, whether it was unbecoming his years, or the sober habits of his native State. to say that he would sit there till that time the next day, to hear any arguments the gentlemen could offer, that another day need not be lost on the subject.

JANUARY, 1802.

with intemperate zeal, and an obstinacy unfavorable to fair discussion.

Mr. DANA then detailed the necessary formalities in the returns; if they were not complied with the business ought not to be rashly passed over. That the House were to examine and determine on the validity of returns, and the mode should be uniform. Some of the returns on their face are liable to suspicion. If they received those returns. would it not be waiving the penalty laid on marshals; or be sufficient to induce the President to enter a nolle prosequi?

Mr. RANDOLPH perceived this business was like

Mr. T. MORRIS was in favor of the recommitment, not for the purpose of altering the ratio, which he considered as already fixed by the House, but for making the returns valid by law. With-ly to go out to the people in a shape calculated to out doing this he believed they would establish a make them believe a majority of this House were dangerous precedent. disposed to suppress discussion, and act on illegiMr. SMILIE was not surprised to see the dissat-timate documents. It was proper to inquire wheisfaction that prevailed as to the decision made yesterday; it was the consequence of State interests and State attachments. He thought full time had been given for gentlemen to make up their minds upon different returns. The House, he contended, had a right to decide when the question should be put, and he thought it was then ripe for the question. The proceedings that morning were a mere trial of strength between the ratio of thirty and thirty-three thousand. Gentlemen want time, for what? To carry their point.

Mr. UPHAM believed the question had been decided, that a smaller number than thirty-three thousand should not be inserted. He wished the bill recommitted to try that point, yet he did not know that it would be in favor of New Hampshire to raise the ratio.

ther that was the fact. The passage of that bill, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. DENNIS) justly observed, makes the informal returns valid. They were compelled to act upon those returns or not at all. Gentlemen complained they could not get at the question of raising the ratio; this is not the fact. If the House refuse to recommit, does it not show clearly it is opposed to raising the ratio? As to obstinacy, might not the charge be recriminated? Did not reiterated motions for the Committee to rise show as much obstinacy as when gentlemen say they would decide before they rose? There were instances of sittings being continued until nine or ten o'clock, formerly, to decide questions. A gentleman from Connecticut says this disposition comes into existence when there is the first republican House of Representatives. Mr. R. denied that this was the first republican House. He was of opinion that the republican interest went out of that House when the British Treaty came in. After the law for carrying that treaty into effect passed, the gentlemen now in the minority gained an ascendency. He was unwilling to admit that to be the first republican House of Representatives.

Mr. VAN NESS was more than ever convinced that local interest should not be attended to on this subject. He supposed that inflicting the penalty of the law on delinquent marshals would be the best mode of preventing future neglect. The temper of the House yesterday had been adverted to, and an expression made by a gentleman from Massachusetts had been spoken of with considerable animation. But was there not the same Mr. GODDARD explained, and stated that he said, temper manifested by the minority? The gen-"which some claimed to be the first republican tleman from South Carolina had talked of perma- House;" but it was far from being his opinion; he nent sessions, turning his eye, he supposed, across believed all former Houses had been republican, the Atlantic. He might have found them nearer and he hoped this would show itself to be so too. home. Mr. VAN NESS had read of nocturnal sessions of that House, and also in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. He did not, however, approve of nocturnal sessions.

Mr. DANA could not pretend to measure the minds of other gentlemen by his own, though some appeared to go on that plan. He could not wrap himself up in his own superlative intelligence and say that nothing new could be adduced; and he thought when such insinuations were thrown out, there was a want of that urbanity which should prevail in the House. He and his friends were charged with urging unnecessary delay; he felt no solicitude for any further discussion on the subject, but he did feel a solicitude as to the impropriety of their proceedings. Yesterday manifested, that public bodies are at times actuated by strong sympathy, and push forward

Mr. DENNIS thought they must receive the returns as they were. He was not for the present ratio; yet he thought it was fairly taken; still he was in favor of going into the Committee of the Whole to bring the question for a higher ratio fairly before the House. The arguments about the formality of returns proved too much. According to them a new census should be taken in South Carolina. They should not be so rigid in that House as in a court of justice; they had every reason to suppose the returns were properly taken. If the bill should be recommitted he believed he would move for thirty-seven instead of thirty-three thousand; and if he could not get that, he would be for thirty-five thousand.

Mr. PERKINS considered the subject of importance as it respected the regularity of proceeding, which was certainly a matter of very great importance. He would not say the returns ought