H. of R.

Apportionment of Representation.

the amendment offered by the Senate, to be no more, and, as the ratio proposed is only one thousand more than the fraction which on that ratio will remain to Tennessee, his duty called on him to protest against this procedure.

DECEMBER, 1811.

31,336; and the people of the State of Tennessee will have six representatives, with a remaining fraction of nearly thirty-four thousand. If the object of the amendment be to reduce great fractions, a ratio of 34,800, would have done away the great fraction of Tennessee, and the people of that State would then have had seven representatives. If, then, the ratio must be reduced from 37,000, it is hoped it will be reduced to a number which will remove this great frac tion, so that the people of Tennessee shall have seven representatives.

I will vote, said Mr. R., against concurring with the amendment made by the Senate, which proposes a ratio of thirty-five thousand. And, if that vote was to be spoken with my last breath, it should be cheerfully tendered, not only because the amendment, if agreed to, will operate injuriously and unjustly in relation to Tennessee, but, also, by reason that, if agreed to, it will, in my Mr. Fisk. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to humble opinion, go to fix a principle which, at no represent, in part, a small State, which feels deepvery distant period, may shake the foundation of ly interested in the present question; it is, theresovereignties. Far be it from me to derogate fore, with pleasure, I hear the rights and interests from the constituted powers of the Senate of the of the small States advocated. I am decidedly United States, but it may, with all due respect, in favor of concurring with the amendment of be observed, that a ratio of apportionment made the Senate, and, in support of it, shall endeavor by the House of Representatives of the sovereign to prove that the ratio proposed by the Senate people, and by the commanding majority of 102 will do less injustice and give a more equal repto 18 in that House, merits a considerable degree resentation to the States than that fixed on by of confidence from the Senate, and, if touched this House. By the ratio of 37,000, agreed on by by that honorable House, ought not to be touched the House, Delaware and Vermont, having a popnor broken down unless for reasons of an imperi-ulation of only 288,899, will have a fraction of ous nature. The ratio fixed in the bill was a ratio of compromise, that, thereby, the present representation of the people in any State might not be diminished. When that ratio was fixed in the bill, fractions were little attended to; but it now appears that the avoiding of fractions has taken the place of that magnanimous principle, and crept in to disturb that social and friendly union, which is the basis of the sovereignty of these United States.

66,899, almost equal to the one-fourth of their whole number, and will deprive Delaware of the one-half of her representation, and Vermont of the one-sixth. By the ratio of 35,000, proposed by the Senate, Vermont and Delaware each gain one representative, while Kentucky, Tennessee, New Jersey, and Ohio, with a population of 1,090,084, will be left with a fraction of 100,084, only equal to about the one-eleventh of their whole number. With these facts before us, I cannot understand by what rule of justice the gentlemen last up from Kentucky, Tennessee, and New Jersey, could advocate the interests of the small States, vote for the ratio agreed to by the House, leaving such monstrous fractions to the States of Delaware and Vermont, and now call of the Senate, because of the fractions it leaves in their States, when these fractions are, to their whole numbers, comparatively nothing with those left to Delaware and Vermont by the ratio they voted for. No number can be fixed on as the ratio but what will leave fractions in some of the States. It is but justice, therefore, that we should adopt the Constitutional number which will leave the least fractions, and those on the greatest population.

The offered amendment, then, reduces the ratio to thirty-five thousand. The operation of that ratio on all the other States, except by way of comparison, will be omitted, and its operation by fraction on the State of Tennessee, only, examined. By a ratio of thirty-five thousand, there will remain to Tennessee a fraction of thirty-on us to join them in rejecting the amendment three thousand nine hundred and thirteen, only one thousand and eighty-seven less than the proposed ratio of this amendment for a representative. It appears that, at a ratio of thirty-five thousand, the four great States of the Union-that is: New York will have a fraction of 8,043; Virginia 12,616; Pennsylvania 4,773; and Massachusetts 740. The aggregate of all these fractions is about 26,172. The fractions remaining to the States of New Hampshire and Delaware amount to about 5,464, which, being added to the amount It is proper to mention, that, by the last ratio, of the fractions of the four great States, makes Tennessee had a very small fraction, and Veran aggregate of about 31.636. Hence, it is man-mont a large one; by this ratio, Vermont will ifest that on a ratio of 35,000, a fraction will re- have a small one, and that of Tennessee will be main to Tennessee, which is greater than the larger: thus, by the change, the loss will be equalaggregate of the fractions of the States alluded ized. An objection has been urged against the to. No imperious reason appears, producing this amendment, on the ground of its increasing the effect, and commanding a descending ratio, to a representation in this House. This has no weight point within the number 1,160, giving to the peo- in my mind. This ratio will not give this House ple of Tennessee another representative. If the more members than are to be found in the Legisratio in the proposed amendment be agreed to, latures of many of the small States, where busithe people of the States already named, willness is transacted with great facility and correcthave more than one hundred representatives, with ness. I think a numerous representation conforman aggregate of remaining fractions of about able to sound republican principles.

DECEMBER, 1811.

Apportionment of Representation.

H. of R.

stead of the 35.000 proposed by the Senate, she is to be taxed for ten years more on 34,004 unrepresented. We know that, in this body, her feeble voice could not be heard, however just her claims, or honest her pretensions; but, in the Senate, they have been heard and respected; and I trust will now prevail. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McKEE) seems to feel very much for New Jersey, which has a fraction of 31,222, at 35,000; but his sensations do not extend themselves to Delaware, which, for twenty years has had a fraction of 30,000, and at 37,000, will, for ten years more, have a fraction of 34,004. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. RHEA) seems also to be much alive to the interest of Tennessee; she has a fraction of 33,913; he has said that, if any State had such a fraction imposed on her, he should deem it unjust to impose it, and would oppose it. If he will examine, he will see that Delaware has a fraction of 34,004, and therefore he stands committed to oppose it. Georgia and Massachusetts both have larger fractions than Tennessee.

Against the doctrines advanced yesterday, by the gentleman from South Carolina, I beg leave to enter my most solemn protest. In these moments of danger from abroad, I am not for declaring war against the Senate-a foreign enemy may soon render a declaration of war both necessary and honorable. The best way of supporting the Constitution, is by acknowledging its principles, and moving within the orbit it has prescribed for us. The framers of the Constitution, for good reasons, no doubt, in the distribution of power to the several branches of our Government, saw fit to give the Senate a participation in the power of fixing the ratio for the representation in this House; and it is not competent for us, as legislators, to question the wisdom of this provision. Very little light can be thrown on this subject by precedents drawn from the proceedings of the English Parliament; they are the supreme power; their acts make both the constitution and the law of the country. Not so here. The Constitution is the supreme law and rule to direct our legislative actions. This supreme law, this Constitution, has vested the Senate with the same power, and Sir, this question ought to be decided so that imposed on them the same obligation of exercis- the Constitution might be as nearly gratified as ing a sound discretion in legislating on the sub-possible, by adopting the number that will leave ject before us that it has to this House. They have the same interests in common with us all, they have solemnly sworn faithfully and impartially to discharge the trust reposed in them, and they would be unworthy their station if they did not do it independently.

Mr. WRIGHT.-Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will proceed to decide on the merits of the amendment proposed by the Senate. I, for my part, am prepared to vote for it, although it comes in the inauspicious shape of an amendment from that body, so exceptionable in the opinion of the honorable gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. CALHOUN.) I feel no fears of the Senate's subverting the Government while they have a common interest in it. I certainly, when a member of that body, was not less attached to the best interest of my country than I now am, although now directly elected by the sovereign people..

The Constitution has wisely provided an equal representation in the Senate to prevent the small States from being injured by the overwhelming majority of the large States, and this appears to me to be one of the cases in which the Senate correctly have interfered, for that purpose, and while they revolve on their own axis, and within their own Constitutional orbit, I shall always respect them as a valuable organ of the legislative will of the nation.

the smallest fraction upon the whole. If gentlemen will examine the document upon the subject, they will find, at 35,000, the unrepresented fractions amount to 249,460; that, at 37,000, the unrepresented fractions amount to 302,262, making a difference of 52,802 in favor of 35,000; so that, on taking into view the interest of all, without respect to particular sections of the Union, there are 52,802 in favor of the proposition of the Senate, which, on principle, ought to be preferred.

But we are told that, by fixing on 35,000, the Southern and Western sections of the Union suffer greatly. I have examined that subject, and find that the Southern and Western States, including Maryland, have fractions of 85,764 more than the States to the eastward of Maryland; but I also find, that on examining the fractions of the same sections at the ratio of 37,000, that the Eastern division of the Union have fractions of 121,448 more than the Southern and Western sections, leaving a balance of 35,784 more against the Eastern section at 37,000 than is against the Southern and Western sections at 35.000; so that the sectional fraction is less at 35,000, as well as the aggregate fraction; therefore, in justice, the number 35,000 ought to prevail.

Mr. GHOLSON.-When this subject was first before the House, a ratio of representation was adopted, which seemed to be the result of prinSir, let us examine the case. The Constitu-ciple, and which appeared also to have been intion declares that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers." We find that Delaware, for twenty years, has had a frac tion of 30,000 unrepresented, and we know she was directly taxed in the same manner that all the States were, without respect to that fraction, although nearly equal to one-half her whole number; and now, again, by fixing on 37,000 in

dicated by the federal numbers of some of the small States. The principle assumed had reference partly to the small States, and partly to the number of this branch of the Legislature, and accordingly, the highest ratio which would not reduce the present representation of any State was selected by a very large majority. The ratio taken was one member for 37,000, and this ratio grew not out of fractional calculations, but out of a spirit of magnanimity and conciliation. The

H. OF R.

Apportionment of Representation.

Virginia delegation, I believe, would most of us have preferred 40,000 to a member, but we took 37,000, to prevent what Rhode Island and Connecticut alleged would have been injustice to them, namely, a reduction of their numbers in this body.

For this act of conciliation, how, sir, have we been requited by the small States? They have united in rejecting the ratio of 37,000, and in taking a smaller one, which throws almost all the large fractions on the southern part of the Union. I am very far from ascribing any incorrect inten-I tion to any one. I would not, in the slightest degree, insinuate that it was the intention of the Senate, or that it is now within the view of this House to do injustice to any section of this Confederacy. Yet, from the enactment of this bill, as amended by the Senate, the most obvious and manifest injustice would accrue to almost the entire southern portion of the Union. This will appear from a superficial view of the results arising from the ratio of 35,000, which has been substituted by the Senate.

The nine States to the north and eastward of Maryland contain the federal number of 3,546,848, and then their aggregate fractions or remainders amount to 81,864. The eight Southern States, inclusive of Maryland, comprise the federal number (deducting for the slaves) of 3,037,412. Thus three and a half millions in the North have about eighty thousand unrepresented, while only about 3,000,000 in the South have near one hundred and seventy thousand unrepresented. The disproportion is enormous. If the Northern States have 81,000 of remainders, the Southern States, according to the law of proportion, should have 69,000. But they have in fact 167,000, from which, if you deduct the rightful proportion of 69,000, it will be evident that they have an over proportion of unrepresented remainders, amounting to 98,000. By adopting the Senate's amendment, the Eastern States, moreover, gain nine Representatives, and the Southern States two only. The ratio of 35,000 is therefore peculiarly unequal in its operation, and consequently unjust. If, Mr. Speaker, the principles which at first guided us upon this subject are now to be deserted, all that I ask is equality. It was a few days ago remarked by a venerable gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. MACON,) that at last he expected this matter would resolve itself into pen and ink calculation. Although I reposed much in the discernment of that gentleman, I then hoped his prediction would not be fulfilled. I, however, now begin to discover strong indications that it is to be verified. If so, let this affair be referred for an arithmetical estimate. Let the calculations be only made with tolerable accuracy, and I am content.

The gentleman from Maryland has declared his object to be the reduction of the aggregate fraction, and he therefore takes the smallest ratio. The entire fraction at 37,000 is 52,000 greater than at 35,000. Waiving all other objections to the gentleman's reasoning, I would ask him if it is not better that the whole nation should have

DECEMBER, 1811.

an additional unrepresented remainder of 52,000 than that the Southern country alone should have a disproportionate unrepresented remainder of 98,000? It is certainly better that the whole should yield fifty than one-half near an hundred.

Geographical comparisons and local distinctions are at all times, sir, repugnant to my feelings. I avoid them whenever it is in my power. But I have been driven into the remarks which I have made by the course this business and the debate upon it have taken. And I am sorry that am under the necessity of still trespassing for a moment on the attention of the House while I answer some observations of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE.) If I understood the gentleman, he said the secret was, that the Southern people wanted the preponderance. Is it meant, sir, to convey, by these expressions, an insinuation that there are Southern men on this floor who act in a secret, clandestine way? Who profess one motive and act from another? Whatever may be intended, the observation is unmerited, and I repel it. I will not, for a moment, allow myself to believe that there is any man in this Assembly who would be capable of such conduct.

thought it necessary on this occasion to call over I regret, Mr. Speaker that the gentleman has the roll of appointments that have been conferred on particular States, and that he has entered into and Pennsylvania in this respect. Topics of this a comparison of the favors received by Virginia sort are extremely painful to me, and invidious in themselves. Without, therefore, entering my. self at all on the subject, I will only observe, that if, in fact, from Virginia there have been more high federal officers than from Pennsylvania, I will leave it entirely to the gentleman from that State to calculate the causes of it.

After considerable further debate the question that the House do concur with the Senate in their first amendment, to wit: to strike out the words insert "thirty-five," being taken, it was deter"thirty-seven," before the word "thousand," and mined in the negative-yeas 65, nays 64.

Those who voted in the affirmative, are

William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Daniel Avery, Ezekiel Bacon, Josiah Bartlett, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam Boyd, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport, jr., Roger Davis, Samuel Dinsmore, William Ely, James Emott, William Findley, James Fisk, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough, Isaiah L. Green, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, John M. Hyneman, Richard Jackson, jr., Philip B. Key, Lyman Law, Robert Le James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jonathan O. MoseRoy Livingston, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, ley, William Paulding, jr., William Piper, Timothy Pitkin, junior, Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, Silas Stow, William Strong, Lewis B. Sturges, George Sullivan, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Peleg Tallman, Uri Tracy, Charles Turner, jr., Pierre Van

DECEMBER, 1811.

Foreign Relations.

Cortlandt, jr., Laban Wheaton, Leonard, White, William Widgery, and Robert Wright.

H. OF R.

Mr. PORTER said that the House were probably expecting from the Committee of Foreign Relations some explanations of their views in report

addition to the general exposition of them contained in the report itself. The committee themselves felt that such explanations were due, inasmuch as they had only reported in part, and had intimated their intention to follow up these resolutions, should they be adopted, by the recommendation of ulterior measures.

Those who voted in the negative areWillis Alston, jr., John Baker, David Bard, Burwelling the resolutions now under consideration, in Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Thomas Blount, James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, John Clopton, Lewis Condit, William Crawford, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Elias Earle, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Felix Grundy, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Joseph Lewis, junior., Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, Archibald McBryde, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Joseph Pearson, Israel Pickens, James Pleasants, jr., John Randolph, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, John Smith, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Thomas Wilson, and Richard Winn.

The committee, Mr. P. said, after examining the various documents accompanying the President's Message, were satisfied, as he presumed every member of the House was, that all hopes of accommodating our differences with Great Britain by negotiation must be abandoned. When they looked at the correspondence between the two Governments; when they observed the miserable shifts and evasions (for they were entitled to no better appellation) to which Great Britain resorted to excuse the violations of our maritime rights, it was impossible not to perceive that her conduct towards us was not regulated even by her own probable extent of our forbearance. The last six sense of justice, but solely by a regard to the

The other amendments of the Senate to the bill being governed by the first amendment, were, consequently, disagreed to. It was then ordered, on motion of Mr. RAN-years had been marked by a series of progressive DOLPH, that a conference be held with the Senate on the subject-matter of the said amendments; and Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. LACOCK, and Mr. CONDIT, were appointed managers at the said conference on the part of this House.

FRIDAY, December 6.

Mr. EMOTT presented a petition of Harrison and Lewis, of the city of New York, merchants, praying permission to import from the British West India islands, goods to the amount of debts owing to them by certain inhabitants in said islands. Referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. SMILIE presented a memorial of the Presdent and Managers of the Union Canal Company of Pennsylvania, praying the aid and patronage of the General Government in accomplishing the extensive and useful works in which they are engaged; which was read, and referred to a select committee.

Messrs. SMILIE, RIDGELY, RINGGOLD, BAKER, and BLEECKER, were appointed the committee.

by which she publicly upheld her aggressions, encroachments on our rights; and the principles were as mutable as her conduct. We had seen

her one year advancing doctrines, which the year before she had reprobated. We had seen her one day capturing our vessels under pretexts, which on the preceding day she would have been ashamed or afraid to avow. Indeed, said Mr. P., she seems to have been constantly and carefully feeling our pulse, to ascertain what potions we would bear; and if we go on submitting to one indignity after another, it will not be long before we shall see British subjects, not only taking our property in our harbors, but trampling on our persons in the streets of our cities.

Having become convinced that all hopes from further negotiation were idle, the committee, Mr. P. said, were led to the consideration of another question, which was-whether the maritime rights which Great Britain is violating were such as we ought to support at the hazard and expense of a war? And he believed he was correct in stating that the committee was unanimously of the opinion that they were. The committee thought that A message from the Senate informed the the Orders in Council, so far as they go to interHouse that the Senate insist on their amend-rupt our direct trade, that is, the carrying of the ments, disagreed to by this House, to the bill for the apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the third enumeration;" agree to the proposed conference, and have appointed managers on their part at the same.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.'

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to which Committee of the Whole was committed the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, made some days ago.

The report having been read

productions of this country to a market in the ports of friendly nations, and returning with the proceeds of thein-ought to be resisted by war. How far we ought to go in support of what is commonly called the carrying trade, although the question was agitated in the committee, no definitive opinion was expressed. It was not deemed necessary, at this time, to express such an opinion, inasmuch as the injury we sustain by the inhibition of this trade is merged in the greater one to our direct trade.

The Orders in Council, Mr. P. said, of which there seemed now to be no prospect of a speedy

H. OF R.

Foreign Relations.

DECEMBER, 1811.

repeal certainly none during the continuance of could harass, if not destroy, the vast and profitthe present war-authorized the capture of our able commerce which she is constantly carrying vessels bound to and from ports where British on to every part of this continent. We could commerce is not favorably received; and as that destroy her fisheries to the north; we could depnation is at war with most of the civilized world, redate upon her commerce to the West India the effect was (as he understood from those who islands, which is passing by our doors; we could had much better information on the subject than annoy her trade along the coast of South America; he could pretend to) to cut up, at once, about we could even carry the war to her own shores three-fourths of our best and most profitable com- in Europe. But, Mr. P. said, there was another merce. It was impossible that the mercantile or point where we could attack her, and where she agricultural interests of the United States, which would feel our power still more sensibly. We on the question of a right to the direct trade could could deprive her of her extensive provinces lying never be separated, could submit to such imposi-along our borders to the north. These provinces tions. It was his opinion, that going upon the were not only immensely valuable in themselves, ground of a mere pecuniary calculation, a calcu- but almost indispensable to the existence of Great lation of profits and loss, it would be for our in- Britain, cut off as she now is in a great measure terest to go to war to remove the Orders in from the north of Europe. He had been credibly Council, rather than submit to them, even during informed that the exports from Quebec alone the term of their probable continuance. amounted, during the last year, to near six millions of dollars, and most of these too in articles of the first necessity-in ship timber and in provisions for the support of her fleets and armies. By carrying on such a war as he had described, at the public expense, on land, and by individual enterprise at sea, we should be able in a short time to remunerate ourselves tenfold for all the spoliations she had committed on our commerce.

But there was another point of view in which the subject presented itself to the committee, and that was as regarded the character of the country. We were a young nation, and he hoped we cherished a little pride and spirit, as well as a great deal of justice and moderation. Our situation was not unlike that of a young man just entering into life, and who, if he tamely submitted to one cool, deliberate, intentional indignity, might safely calculate to be kicked and cuffed for the whole of the remainder of his life; or, if he should afterwards undertake to retrieve his character, must do it at ten times the expense which it would have cost him at first to support it. We should clearly understand and define those rights which as a nation we ought to support, and we should support them at every hazard. If there be any such thing as rights between nations surely the people of the United States, occupying the half of a continent, have a right to navigate the seas, without being molested by the inhabitants of the little island of Great Britain.

It was under these views of the subject that the committee did not hesitate to give it as their opinion that we ought to go to war in opposition to the Orders in Council. But as to the extent of the war and the time when it should be commenced, there would of course be some diversity of sentiment in the House, as there was, at first, in the committee.

That we can contend with Great Britain openly and even handed on the element where she injures us, it would be folly to pretend. Were it even in our power to build a navy which should be able to cope with her, no man who has any regard for the happiness of the people of this country would venture to advise such a measure. All the fame and glory which the British navy has acquired at sea, have been dearly paid for in the sufferings and misery of that ill-fated people at home-sufferings occasioned in a great measure by the expense of that stupendous establishment. But without such a navy the United States could make a serious impression upon Great Britain, even at sea. We could have, within six months after a declaration of war, hundreds of privateers in every part of the ocean. We

It was with a view to make preparations for such a war, that the committee had offered the resolutions on the table. Whether the means recommended were adequate to the object, or whether they were best adapted to the end, it would be for the House, when they came to discuss them separately, to determine. For himself, Mr. P. said, and he presumed such were the feelings of all the members of the committee, he should have no objections to any modifications of them which might be agreeable to the House, so that the great object was still retained. If these resolutions, or any other similar to them in object, should pass; it was then the intention of the committee, as soon as the forces contemplated to be raised should be in any tolerable state of preparation, to recommend the employment of them for the purposes for which they shall have been raised, unless Great Britain shall, in the mean time, have done us justice. In short, it was the determination of the committee to recommend open and decided war-a war as vigorous and effective as the resources of the country and the relative situation of ourselves and our enemy would enable us to prosecute.

The committee, Mr. P. said, have not recommended this course of measures without a full sense of the high responsibility which they have taken upon themselves. They are aware that war, even in its best and fairest form, is an evil deeply to be deprecated. But it is sometimes, and on few occasions perhaps more than on this, a necessary evil. For myself, I confess I have approached the subject not only with diffidence, but with awe. But I will never shrink from my duty because it is arduous or unpleasant; and I can most religiously declare that I never acted under stronger or clearer convictions of duty than I do now in recommending these preparatory