The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventeenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 1] Page: 209
[621] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
209
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
510.
February, 1822;
Apportionment Bill.
Senate.
\
Mr. Eaton moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Public Lands; which, on motion,
after some opposition by Mr. Johnson, who feared
that any further delay would be fatal to its pas-
sage, during the present, session, the bill was re-
committed.
The Senate then resumed the consideration of
the bill for the relief of Ebenezer Stevens, and
others, representatives of Comfort Sands, and
others; the motion still pending to strike out the
clause allowing interest on that part of the claim
which the bill proposes to grant.
A long debate again ensued on this question,
and the merits of the claim generally, which con-
tinued till past four o'clock. Finally the motion
to strike out the interest prevailed, by a small ma-
jority.
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Mr. Barbour, with the view, of postponing the
resolution which he had introduced (proposing to
amend the Constitution so as to limit the number
of Representatives in Congress) to a day beyond
the passage of the apportionment bill, which it
would be desirable to have definitively acted on
before the resolution should be further discussed,
moved to take up the resolution; which motion
prevailing, Mr. B. said he would take this oppor-
tunity of correcting a misapprehension which ap-
peared, by what had been published, to have taken
place, of the remarks which he had offered on
Friday in reference to this subject. In speaking
of the oracles of the land, whom he had consulted,
as to the expediency of this amendment of the
Constitution, he did not refer to those statesmen
who had retired from public life, he meant to say
that he had consulted with venerable characters
Who had advanced so far in life that it was rea-
sonable to suppose they were free from all influ-
ence of personal considerations; that the measure
of their experience was full, and adding disinter-
estedness to the lessons of experience, their opin-
ions might be looked on as the oracles of political
wisdom; these men, however, to whom he refer-
red and whom he had consulted, had not retired
to private life; they were still engaged in the dis-
charge of public duties. Mr. B. thought it proper
to make this explanation, lest it might be inferred
that he had alluded to some of the venerable men,
now no longer in the service of their country, and
make them responsible for opinions on a subject
on which he had not consulted them. Mr. B.
concluded by moving to postpone the resolution
te>" this day fortnight; which was agreed to.
APPORTIONMENT BILL.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the
bill to apportion Representatives among the sev-
eral States, according to the fourth census; the mo-
tion to insert a ratio of 40,000 being still pending.
Mr. King, of Alabama, after repeating the dis-
advantage which that State labored under from
not having her population fully returned, (which
arose from the death of the first marshal, and the
inability of the second to complete the business
within the prescribed term,) and the propriety of
making provision for the case, when the returns
shall be received, stated that he had an amend-
ment provided to meet the case, which he would
offer now if in order, but that not being the case,
he moved to recommit the bill to the Judiciary
Committee, with instructions to report a provision?
substantially, to give further time for completing
the census in that State, and that the next session
be authorized to allow, by law, such additional
number of Representatives as the State may be
entitled to by the ratio now adopted. Mr. K. ac-
companied this motion with a number of remarks,
further explanatory of the circumstances which
justified the course he proposed.
A pretty wide debate followed on this motion,
of which the following; is a brief summary:
Mr. Holmes, of Maine, opposed the recommit-
ment on account of the delay it would cause.
Mr. Otis also opposed it on the ground that the
apportionment was made imperative at a partic-
ular time, by the Constitution; that this operation
was indivisible; that it must be done wholly and
entirely at one timeānot partial, or by piecemeal;
and that such an indulgence would be in violation
of the Constitution ; at any rate he thought some
partial inconvenience had better be sustained than
a system be commenced which would lead to
mischief. He inquired whether the same rule
could be.applied to laying a direct tax, to be con-
tingent as to any one State; and if it could not
in that case, whether it could in the analogous
case of apportioning representation ? He thought
the objection insuperable, and spoke* at much
length to sustain his opinions. The case, he
agreed, was a hard one, but it was without a
remedy.
Mr. Chandler thought it would open a way
for unfairness in accommodating the number of
the population to be ascertained to the ratio
adopted so as to avoid a large fraction; and that
it would be a bad precedent and might hereafter
be extended to other States.
Mr. Lowrie did not think the recommitment
necessary, though he was friendly to the amend-
ment. He was opposed to any delay in the pro-
gress of the bill to attain an object which could
be accomplished without any delay.
Mr. Walker maintained the propriety of the
recommitment, and the delay of a few hours, or
even of a day, ought not to be considered any ob-
stacle, if it were to avert manifest injustice from
a State. He replied to Mr. Otis at some length,
to obviate his objections, and pointed out former
instances in which further time was given to com-
plete the census of a Stateāat the census of 1790
one of the returns was received in 1792ābut then,
as would be in the case of Alabama now, the num-
ber returned was in reference to its actual number
in 1790, when the other States were enumerated.
There was nothing in the Constitutioo, he argued,
which would forbid even the changing of the ratio,
or the making, of any other regulation concerning
the apportionment; what was asked now, had been
granted before. A mistake, he thought, pervaded
all that Mr. O. had urged> to show which he cited
the cases of the admission of the new States, since
the last census, previous to which their population
Upcoming Pages
Hereās whatās next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales and Seaton. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventeenth Congress, First Session, [Volume 1], book, 1855; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30365/m1/103/: accessed May 4, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.