The second amendment being again read, and the question put to insert in lieu of the said ninth section, the words following: "And be it further enacted, That, in case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State, for the time being, shall act as President of the United States, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." It was resolved in the affirmative. The House then proceeded to the farther consideration of the said bill; made some progress therein, and then adjourned. MONDAY, February 13. Ordered, That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill or bills to continue an act entitled "An act declaring the assent of Congress to certain acts of the States of Maryland, Georgia, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations;" and that Mr. STERRETT, Mr. BOURNE, of Rhode Island, and Mr. BALDWIN, be the said committee. The House resumed the consideration of the bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act relative to the election of a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the officer who shall act as President, in case of vacancies in the offices both of President and Vice President;" Whereupon Resolved, That the said bill, with the amendments, be again recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow. APPORTIONMENT BILL. [FEBRUARY, 1792. vernment is the same, whether it respects a free or a despotic Government; it is not a small number that can govern in any country. Standing armies supply in Despotic Governments the place of a large representation in a Free Government. Still, the operations of Government, in both cases, depend on a large number of people. The question for inserting 30,000 was carried in the affirmative-30 to 21. Mr. MERCER then moved to strike out "the third day of March, 1793," and to insert "the first when the States shall be represented by the numday of October, 1792"-referring to the period ber arising from the first enumeration. He informed the House that Virginia had already made provision to send forward their supplementary numbers. He urged the right of the States respectively to fill up their representation agreeably to the enumeration, &c. Mr. GERRY supported the motion. Mr. HILLHOUSE suggested another mode. He proposed that the present Congress should expire after the present session, and a new House be elected agreeable to the census, to meet at the time to which the present Congress may be adjourned. He urged many advantages which would result from this plan. Mr. MERCER said, his idea was, that the choosing these additional members would be only filling up vacancies. Mr. MURRAY was for striking out "the third day of March, 1793," for the purpose of inserting an earlier day. The great objection is its inconvenience. It is said the members which now compose this House will have to continue by law another session, and the supplemental members The House resolved itself into a Committee of would have to continue but to fill the intermediate the Whole House on the bill for an Apportionment space of time from the election to the 3d of March. of Representatives among the several States, ac- He begged gentlemen to give him leave to say, cording to the first Enumeration, and making pro- that the only possible obstacle to their thinking as vision for another Enumeration and an Apportion- he did arose from themselves-from a desire, he ment of Representatives, after the third day of would not say how disinterested, to continue in March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-power longer than they were entitled to remain seven-Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, in the Chair. The bill was read through by the Clerk. The first section being repeated by the Chairman, Mr. SENEY moved that the blank should be filled with the word "thirty," which would determine that the ratio of representation should be 30,000. This motion was opposed by Mr. HILLHOUSE, on the old ground of its unequal operation. Mr. GERRY replied to Mr. HILLHOUSE. He observed that this apportionment on the aggregate Federal number would be more equal than by the ratio of 33,000; but this had been rejected by the Senate; and as the ratio of 33,000 would not perfectly cure the difficulty, and would operate to reduce the whole number of the Representatives, he conceived that no new light had been thrown on the subject to induce the House to consent to such diminution. Mr. MERCER entered into a general view of the subject. He supported a large representation, and urged its importance, as it respects the democratical part of the community. The theory of Go This under the Constitution. The act of Congress FEBRUARY, 1792.] Election of President. [H. of R. He wished the Committee to reflect that the prin- he was in favor of the whole, both the proposition cipal objection to the motion was easily removed, and the proviso: the first meditates a more equal if members would act a disinterested part; and representation of the wishes of the people of that if it be admitted that the duration of the pre- America in the election of the two great officers sent Congress is the objection to the admission of the State; the proviso guards against a confuof the supplemental members, gentlemen cannot sion which might take place without the provihesitate between the gratification of what evi- sion. The present representation in Congress is dently appears to be the rights of the people, under by no means equal; the States, in their convena fair construction of the Constitution, and a de- tional deliberation, produced the present proporclaratory law, which is repealable, and which is tion of Representatives more from compromisc so contrary to reason. The objection is remova- than authenticated data; no census had then meable-the right is permanent. It is certainly of sured to the public the proportions of population more consequence to adhere to the principle of a which one State bore to another; and Representjust and numerous representation, and to adopt an atives, including Senators and Electors of Presiearly day to give it operation, than to give the dent and Vice President, being the same in numprinciple the go-by, merely to support a stretched ber, and the scale of Representatives being unduration of our term, under a law that oversets founded in facts and evidence, the inequality, the most obvious truths and reasoning on repre- which is evident, is not to be wondered at. sentation. As to the members from Georgia, if proposition remedies the inequality; the proviso the law giving an extra term to the seats of mem- was not perfectly agreeable to his wishes; but as bers was not repealed, he would still vote for it refers the number of Electors to a scale of repreGeorgia's having three members till the term ex-sentation ascertained by an actual enumeration, pired; but at all events he hoped the motion would be agreed to. The motion was finally disagreed to. TUESDAY, February 14. Mr. STERRETT, from the committee appointed, presented a bill declaring the consent of Congress to a certain act of the State of Maryland, and to continue for a longer time "An act declaring the assent of Congress to certain acts of the States of Maryland, Georgia, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," so far as the same respects the States of Georgia and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; which was received, and read twice and committed. This and at the same time will remove the probability of confusion by making each State uniform with others as to the rule of fixing the number of Electors, he should vote for it. This was a great object attained. It is not a difficult thing to foresee, without jealousy or suspicion, that, unless the States are uniform as to the rule of apportioning Electors, the repose of the Union might be violated. Should this law refer to an apportionment to be hereafter made by Congress, this event might take place. A disagreement might happen between this House and the Senate, and, in the tumults and contumacy by which they might be agitated towards each other, no apportionment might be made; in this situation the Executive would be left at the mercy of the two Houses, and the order of things violently deranged. But even ELECTION OF PRESIDENT, &c. if the people, having a census before them, though The House again resolved itself into a Com- not acted on by Congress, were to make their mittee of the Whole House on the bill sent from elections agreeably to what might be their respectthe Senate entitled "An act relative to the elec-ive ideas of the apportionment to which the cention of a President and Vice President of the Uni ted States, and declaring the officer who shall act as President, in case of vacancies in the offices both of President and Vice President." A motion made yesterday, to insert a clause restricting the number of Electors to the number of the present Senate and House of Representatives, being put and negatived Mr. GERRY moved to insert a clause which specifies that "the Electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States may by law be entitled at the time when the President and Vice President thus to be chosen should come into office: Provided, always, That where no apportionment of Representatives shall have been made after any enumeration, at the time of choosing Electors, then the number of Electors shall be according to the existing apportionment of Senators and Representatives." This motion, with very little objection, was adopted; its propriety will appear from the following remarks made by Mr. MURRAY, who said sus apparently entitled them, yet we are not certain that they would all act by a uniform rule; and, if they acted without such rule, there might appear before the tribunal of the public two Presidents, or two men of great power claiming the Presidency of America. This would be an evil of great and alarming size, and one which he so much deprecated, that he willingly yielded to the proviso, which he thought would tend to lessen the opportunity by which designing men could effect it. Ordered, That the said bill be read the third time to-morrow. WEDNESDAY, February 15. The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act relative to the election of a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the officer who shall act as President, in case of vacancies in the offices both of President and Vice President," together with the amendments thereto, was read the third time and passed. Ordered, That the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate therewith. The bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act for regulating processes in the courts of the United States, and providing compensations for the officers of the said courts, and for jurors and witnesses," was read twice and committed. [FEBRUARY, 1792.. The Constitution refers to the respective numbers of the States, and not to any aggregate number. The proposition breaks down the barriers between the State and General Governments, and involves a consolidation. Mr. LIVERMORE replied to Mr. KITTERA. He observed, that if Virginia was represented agreeThe House again resolved itself into a Com-ably to the proposition contemplated for New mittee of the Whole House on the bill for an Hampshire, that is, four members, Virginia would Apportionment of Representatives among the sev-be entitled to only seventeen-this would appear eral States, according to the first Enumeration, on calculation. and making provision for another Enumeration Mr. WILLIAMSON contended that, by the Conand an Apportionment of Representatives, after stitution, whatever ratio was adopted it is to be the third day of March, one thousand seven hun-applied as a divisor to the number of persons in dred and ninety-seven; and, after some time spent each State respectively. This idea of an aggretherein, the Committee rose, and had leave to sit gate number looks like a consolidation of the Goagain. vernment; not only so, but the supplementary member proposed for those States who had not inhabitants to vote for such supplementary mem→ ber, would not be elected agreeably to the Constitution. THURSDAY, February 16. APPORTIONMENT BILL. The House again resolved itself into a Com- Mr. SENEY opposed the proposition. He ob- mittee of the Whole House, on the bill for an Ap-served, that it was very extraordinary, indeed, portionment of Representatives among the several States according to the first Enumeration, and making provision for another Enumeration, and an apportionment of Representatives thereon, to compose the House of Representatives after the 3d day of March, 1797. that those persons who, in the previous discussion, were opposed to the ratio of thirty thousand on account of giving so large a representation, should now advocate this proposition, which in fact increases the whole number. He hoped that it would be rejected. Mr. VENABLE stated various particulars to show that the plan of transferring the fractions from one State to another, comparing them with the general ratio, would produce greater inequality than the plan contended for by those who oppose the present motion. Mr. VINING's proposition being under consideraMr. VINING said a few words to exculpate the tion-the first article of which is, that New Hamp-friends of the proposition from the charge of inshire shall be entitled to five Representatives- consistency. Mr. LIVERMORE rose in support of the general principle of the proposition, which is to apportion the Representatives agreeably to the aggregate number of the people of the United States; he urged, in brief, the arguments which had before been adduced on the importance of making the representation as equal as possible, and concluded Mr.LIVERMORE justified himself from the charge with saying he hoped that the number proposed of inconsistency; he was always in favor of an for New Hampshire (five) would be agreed to. equal representation; with this he began, and with Mr. BALDWIN said, that if New Hampshire this he should end; and he was not solicitous should have five members, Georgia, according to which way the vote determined the matter, proits present number, which is about one half of that vided the principle of equality was adhered to, of New Hampshire, would be entitled to three-and therefore he should not regret New Hamp but this is not proposed, nor do the members from that State expect it should be. Mr. KITTERA observed, that apportioning Representatives to the State of Virginia, on the principle contended for by the gentleman from New Hampshire, would give Virginia twenty-four members. Mr. NILES supported the proposition. He urged that the fractions would be diminished on the whole by it; and though perfect equality is not attainable, he could not conceive on what gentlemen founded their opposition to that plan which came the nearest to this equality; and as the Constitution fully warrants a liberal, though strictly just construction, the apportionment now contemplated he hoped would be agreed to. shire being restricted to four members, provided Virginia had only 17-which is the highest number she will be entitled to, apportioning them agreeably to four for New Hampshire. He observed that the friends of the proposition might be outvoted by numbers; he wished, if it could be done, that they might be outreasoned as well as outnumbered. Mr. LAURANCE said, having advocated in a former discussion the ratio of thirty thousand, he hoped he should not be charged with inconsistency if he gave his assent to the present proposition, as he had explicitly declared that he advocated that: number as giving the largest representation-andthis proposition not only preserved that idea, but enhanced the number, and on more equal princiMr. MADISON repeated the substance of what ples. He then entered into an examination of the he had before offered in objection to this proposi-clause in the Constitution respecting taxes and tion. Fractions will exist, said he, on every possible plan; this is to be a permanent law, and in its operation will probably increase those fractions. Representatives, which it is expressly declared shall be according to numbers. He reprobated the idea of members considering themselves as Repre แ sentatives merely of particular parts of the Union. The members of this House are the Representatives of America. The States, as States, are represented in the Senate. A member of this House from Georgia is a Representative of the State of New York, as much as if he came from the latter State. Conceiving the idea of the meaning of the Constitution which he had given to be just, he should vote for the proposition. [H. OF R. clause. It curtails, but cannot be supposed to change the natural import of the preceding power. It is against the fair rules of construction so to change it. 3d. The sense is perfect without the words one to 30,000 in each State. Expressum facit cessare tacitu. 4th. The construction makes tautology. The first clause having directed the manner of apportioning Representatives among the several States according to their respective numbers, might have been wholly omitted, one to 30,000 in each State Mr. FINDLEY said he should vote against the proposition. He did not like the principle of it, if it had any; he rather thought it was destitute of all principle, for it contemplates no ratio at all-being a final apportionment. it is rather an arbitrary apportionment of the representation. Adverting to the article respecting taxation, he observed that the proposition does not accord with the idea of the gentlemen who advocate it, for still there will be fractions left, and are not these fractions to be taxed? In reply to Mr. LAURANCE's remarks respecting local representation, he observed that the gentleman's idea proved too much; for, if the idea of representing local interests is destroyed, the essence of representation is done away altogether, and all responsibility is lost. Mr. AMES.-The Constitution says, that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be appor"tioned among the several States, which may be "included within this Union, according to their "respective numbers," &c. The number of Reแ presentatives shall not exceed one for every "thirty thousand, but each State shall have at "least one Representative." Deductions from the above 1st. You may not exceed one to 30,000. 2d. You may have as many as one to 30,000 of the whole number of the Union. 3d. Supposing the amendment ratified, you must have 100 members, if one to 30,000 will give them. These principles were not disputed till lately. But it is now pretended that the ratio may be applied to each State, and the number of Representatives no more than the multiples of 30,000 in each State. Some even go so far as to say that it must be so applied, and that Congress may not have as many members as one to 30,000 of the whole Union. This construction seems to be violent. 1st. The word Representatives, first used, can only mean the whole number of Representatives, for they are to be apportioned among the several States. The word is used in the same sense after wards-"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one to 30,000," again meaning the whole number of Representatives. The whole number of Representatives shall not exceed one to 30,000 of the whole people. To avoid this obvious meaning, they say it should read, "shall not exceed one to 30,000 in each State." These words are supplied wholly without authority. 2d. The clause merely restrains the number of Representatives so as not to exceed one to 30,000. The members in Congress might have been increased to any number, had not this restriction existed. It is a restrictive, and not an explanatory 5th. Words must not be supplied by construction repugnant to words expressed. The result of an apportionment according to numbers, as first directed by the Constitution, differs in terms from a ratio of one to 30,000 in each State. It differs in its operation no less. The members in the next House will be 113. Apportion them according to numbers among the several States, Virginia would have 19-19 being to 113, as 630,000, the numbers of Virginia, to 3,619,000, the whole people of the United States. But by the construction which supplies the words in each State, she will have 21 members. 6th. The words one to 30,000 are merely restrictive of the number in Congress from the whole people, and do not change the sense of the first clause, for taxes and Representatives are to be apportioned according to numbers. The construction cannot be extended to taxes with any good sense. Yet, as taxes and Representatives are to be apportioned similarly, the construction applying to the one should apply to the other. Yet the advocates of this construction say that taxes shall be imposed according to numbers, and not the multiples of 30,000 in each State. Taking it for proved, that the sense of the first clause is not changed, but its operation limited by the clause shall not exceed one to 30,000, it remains to see what is the sense of the first clause standing alone. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their re spective numbers." The Rule-of-Three will show the number of members any State is entitled to. Thus, as the whole number 3,619,000 is to the number of the next House 113, so is the number of persons in a State, say Virginia, which are 630,000, to her quota of members. The result is 19 members. The bill, pursuing another rule, obtained as we have seen by a forced construction, gives that State 21 members. 7th. The amendment to the Constitution refutes the sense of the construction. The words: are, "there shall be one for every 30,000 till the number shall amount to 100." Plainly the whole number of the nation is intended. The whole number is to be formed by one for every 30,000. The words contended for are therefore excluded, and no construction will avail in this place to add them. 8th. The ratio of one to 30,000 in each State is inconsistent with this amendment; for, according to that, 3,000,000 of persons must have 100 members in Congress. Had the numbers by the census H. OF R.] Apportionment Bill. [FEBRUARY, 1792. fallen short of a surplus beyond 3,000,000, suffi- convince the House that the Committee were in cient to cover the fractions or lost numbers, this an error, they may correct it; but surely, sir, the amendment to the Constitution could not be car-Committee cannot now, without violating order, ried into execution, according to the principles of the bill. For the amendment requiring 100 members, the numbers being more than 3,000,000, it would appear that 100 members could not be obtained by applying the ratio of 30,000 to the numbers in each State, instead of taking the entire number of the Union. Here, then, would be a constitutional obligation to have 100 members in Congress, and an absolute impossibility of having them according to the principles of this bill. 10th. The number of Representatives is limited not to exceed one for 30,000. Pursue the letter of the Constitution, and avoid all construction, the number of Representatives will be 120. Adopt the construction that you are to have no more than one to 30,000 will give you, and you bring down the number to 113. But this process, erroneous as it is, only fixes the number-it does not apportion them. That should be done according to numbers, and Virginia would not be found entitled to 21 of 113. According to the principle of the bill, if it may be called a principle, it is defective. The letter and true intention of the Constitution will be violated by,a forced construction, which gives some States more and others less than their due share of the Representatives. and being charged with a great inconsistency, agree to the motion before you. Truth is my aim, said the member from Massachusetts; it is miné as much as his: but, without pretending to decide whether his construction of the Constitution is right or not, I will ask him, how are we to arrive at the truth we now aim at? That is, how find the numbers to be inserted in the blanks, if his construction be right? For, according to that construction, we must apply the ratio to the whole Federal number of the United States, before we can find the number of Representatives for any one State; and can this be done till South Carolina has made the return of her census? And if this construction be right, may not South Carolina, if it be the interest of that State to retain its present representation, keep back that return? This construction, then, is attended with an insuperable difficulty, and, indeed, I think with my colleague, [Mr. MADISON,] was never thought of till lately within this House. Our constituents put the construction which the majority of the Committee and of the House have hitherto put on the Constitution; and several States have shown, by their acts, that their construction is the same. Mr. VINING said, if by consolidation is meant a consolidation of interests, he gloried in the idea; but if a consolidation of States is intended, he was opposed to such an idea as much as any member on the floor. Adverting to Mr. FINDLEY's idea of local interests being represented, he contended he had given up the contest; for if the gentleman is sincere, he must concede that the proposition now under consideration, more perfectly accorded with that idea than his own. Virginia, represented as Delaware, would have but about ten members: are the local interests, then, of Delaware, represented by one member, when Virginia is represented by twenty-one? Mr. PAGE. I rise not to enter into a debate on the question before you, sir, because, as I said yesterday, it being out of order, it did not admit of debate. It is true, the question is now a little varied, but it comes to the same thing; for, if we vote in favor of it, we must vote contrary to a solemn decision of this very Committee. What I wish to observe, sir, is in reply to the member from New Hampshire, who seemed dissatisfied with my ideas of order; and to make one remark on what the member from Massachusetts [Mr. AMES] said, as to truth being his aim. As to the point of order, it must be most evident that it is Mr. MURRAY hoped that number would not be to no purpose to put a question in a Committee inserted. If, however, the motion were carried, of the Whole, if, when the sense of the Commit- he wished its friends would, if consistent with tee has been taken, another question may be pro- order, amend the preliminary section of the bill, posed, which may lead to a decision directly con- by inserting the principle under which this motrary to that before made: but the gentleman tells tion is made. The principle is, that the ratio of us that the Committee were taken in; that they thirty thousand is to be applied to the aggregate began, too, at the wrong end; but surely, sir, this number of the Continent, and not to the aggregate cannot be said, for the blank in the sixteenth line number of each State. He could not, on the fullwas not filled up till after solemn debate; and it est and most liberal reflection, give his assent to was generally understood, that by filling it up, we such a principle; but observed, that at all events should fix the principle of the bill. On that ques- some principle, whatever it might be, ought to tion, the ratio of one for thirty thousand was esta-show that the vote of the House was regulated by blished, and applied in a clause respecting South rule, rather than by expedience. On a question so Carolina in such a manner as, without inconsist-important as that of Representation, the measure ency, must lead the Committee to fill up the blanks now under consideration. But, sir, if such debating as is contended for be allowable, when can the business before us be finished? How many amendments of this sort may not be proposed? Is it not sufficient for gentlemen to vote against the motion, if they dislike it, and then, in the House, where they will have a right to be heard, to propose their own amendments? There, if they can agreed to ought to result from some established If |