tion district; so that the Constitution leaves a wide field of choice open to the electors. And if we consider, how various the interests, pursuits, employments, products, and local circumstances of the different States are, we can scarcely be surprised, that there should be a marked anxiety to secure a just representation of all of them in the national councils.

§77. Subject to these reasonable qualifications, the House of Representatives is open to persons of merit of every description, whether native or adopted citizens, whether young or old, whether rich or poor, without any discrimination of rank, or business, or profession, or religious opinion.

$78. The next clause of the Constitution respects the apportionment of Representatives among the States. It declares," Representatives, and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner, as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand; but each State shall have at least one Representative. And until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three; Massachusetts, eight; Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, one; Connecticut, five; New York, six; New Jersey, four; Pennsylvania, eight; Delaware, one; Maryland, six; Virginia, ten; North Carolina, five; South Carolina, five; and Georgia, three."

§79. Under the Confederation, each State was entitled to one vote only, but might send as many delegates to Congress, as it should choose, not less than two, nor more than seven; and of course, the concurrence of a majority of its delegates was necessary to every vote of

each State. In the House of Representatives, each member is entitled to one vote, and therefore the apportionment of Representatives became, among the States, a subject of deep interest, and of no inconsiderable diversity of opinion in the Convention. The small States insisted upon an equality of representation in the House of Representatives, as well as in the Senate, which was strenuously resisted by the large States. The slaveholding States insisted on a representation strictly according to the number of inhabitants, whether they were slaves or free persons, within the State. The nonslave-holding States contended for a representation according to the number of free persons only. The controversy was full of excitement, and was maintained with so much obstinacy, on each side, that the Convention was more than once on the eve of a dissolution. At length, the present system was adopted, by way of compromise. It was seen to be unequal in its operation, but was a necessary sacrifice to that spirit of conciliation, on which the Union was founded. The exception of Indians was of no permanent importance; and the persons bound to service for a term of years were too few to produce any sensible effect in the enumeration. The real difficulty was, as to slaves, who were included under the mild appellation of "all other persons. Three fifths of the slaves are added to the number of free persons, as the basis of the apportionment.

§ 80. In order to reconcile the non-slave-holding States to this arrangement, it was agreed, that direct taxes (the nature of which we shall hereafter consider) should be apportioned in the same manner as Representatives. This provision is more specious than solid; for, in reality, it exempts the remaining two fifths of the slaves from direct taxation. But, in the practical operations of the government, a far more striking inequality has been developed. The principle of representation is uniform and constant; whereas, the imposition of direct taxes is occasional and rare; and, in fact, three direct taxes only have been laid, at distant periods from each other, since the adoption of the Constitution. The slave

holding States have, at the present time, in Congress, twenty-five Representatives more than they would have upon the basis of an enumeration of free persons only. The apportionment, however, viewed as a matter of compromise, is entitled to great praise, for its moderation, its aim at practical utility, and its tendency to satisfy the people of every State in the Union, that the Constitution ought to be dear to all, by the privileges, which it confers, as well as by the blessings, which it secures. It has sometimes been complained of as a grievance, founded in a gross inequality and an unjustifiable surrender of important rights. But whatever force there may be in the suggestion, abstractly considered, it should never be forgotten that it was a necessary price paid for the Union; and if it had been refused, the Constitution never would have been recommended for the adoption of the people, even by the Convention, which framed it.

$81. In order to carry into effect this principle of apportionment, it was indispensable, that some provision should be made for ascertaining, at stated times, the population of each State. Unless this should be done, it is obvious, that, as the growth of the different States would be in very unequal proportions, the representation would soon be marked by a corresponding inequality. To illustrate this, we need only to look at Delaware, which now sends only one Representative, as it did in the first Congress, and to New York, which then sent six, and now sends forty Representatives. Similar, though not as great, diversities exist in the comparative representation of several other States. Some have remained nearly stationary, and others have had a very rapid increase of population. The Constitution has, therefore, wisely provided, that there shall be a new enumeration of the inhabitants of all the States, every ten years, which is commonly called the decennial census.

§ 82. There is one question of great practical importance, as to the apportionment of Representatives, which has constantly been found to involve much embarrassment and difficulty; and that is, how and in what manner the apportionment is to be made. The language of the Con

stitution is, that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, &c., according to their respective numbers ;" and at the first view it would not seem to involve the slightest difficulty. A moment's reflection will dissipate the illusion, and teach us, that there is a difficulty intrinsic in the very nature of the subject. In regard to direct taxes, the natural course would be to assume a particular sum to be raised, as three millions of dollars; and to apportion it among the States according to their relative numbers. But even here, there will always be a very small fractional amount incapable of exact distribution, since the numbers in each State will never exactly coincide with any common divisor, or give an exact aliquot part for each State without any remainder. But, as the amount may be carried through a long series of descending money fractions, it may be ultimately reduced to the smallest fraction of any existing, or even imaginary coin.

§ 83. But the difficulty is far otherwise in regard to Representatives. Here, there can be no subdivision of the unit; each State must be entitled to an entire Representative, and a fraction of a Representative is incapable of apportionment. Yet it will be perceived at once, that it is scarcely possible, and certainly is wholly improbable, that the relative numbers in each State should bear such an exact proportion to the aggregate, that there should exist a common divisor for all, which should leave no fraction in any State. Such a case never yet has existed; and in all human probability it never will. Every common divisor, hitherto applied, has left a fraction, greater or smaller, in every State; and what has been, in the past, must continue to be, for the future. Assume the whole population to be three, or six, or nine, or twelve millions, or any other number; if you follow the injunctions of the Constitution, and attempt to apportion the Representatives according to the numbers in each State, it will be found to be absolutely impossible. The theory, however true, becomes practically false in its application. Each State may have assigned to it a relative proportion of Representatives, up to a given number, the whole being divisible by

some common divisor; but the fraction of population belonging to each beyond that point is left unprovided for. So that the apportionment is, at best, only an approximation to the rule laid down by the Constitution, and not a strict compliance with the rule. The fraction in one State may be ten times as great, as that in another; and so may differ in each State in any assignable mathematical proportion. What then is to be done? Is the Constitution to be wholly disregarded on this point? Or is it to be followed out in its true spirit, though unavoidably differing from the letter, by the nearest approximation to it? If an additional Representative can be assigned to one State beyond its relative proportion to the whole population, it is equally true, that it can be assigned to all, that are in a similar predicament. If a fraction admits of representation in any case, what prohibits the application of the rule to all fractions? The only constitutional limitation seems to be, that no State shall have more than one Representative for every thirty thousand persons. Subject to this, the truest rule seems to be, that the apportionment ought to be the nearest practical approximation to the terms of the Constitution; and the rule ought to be such, that it shall always work the same way in regard to all the States, and be as little open to cavil, or controversy, or abuse, as possible.

§84. But it may be asked, What are the first steps to be taken in order to arrive at a constitutional apportionment? Plainly, by taking the aggregate of population in all the States, (according to the constitutional rule,) and then ascertain the relative proportion of the population of each State to the population of the whole. This is necessarily so in regard to direct taxes; and there is not reason to say, that it can, or ought to be otherwise in regard to Representatives; for that would be to contravene the very injunctions of the Constitution, which require the like rule of apportionment in each case. In the one, the apportionment may be run down below unity; in the other, it cannot. But this does not change the nature of the rule, but only the extent of its application.

§ 85. It is difficult to make this subject clear to the