Wednesday, December 16.
Another member, to wit, Benjamin Huger, from South Carolina, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.
Ratio of Representation.
The House, according to the order of the day, proceeded to consider the first resolution reported yesterday from the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union, in the words following, to wit:
"Resolved, That the apportionment of Representatives amongst the several States, according to the second enumeration of the people, ought to be in a ratio of one Representative for every thirty-three thousand persons in each State."
Mr. Griswold remarked, that the effect of adopting this resolution would be an increase of members in that House; that the number would amount to nearly one hundred and fifty. He was of opinion that the present House was sufficiently numerous for every correct purpose, as well of legislation, as for obtaining all desirable information from the people. Should an augmentation be made, the consequences would be an increase of expense, and business would inevitably be protracted. He moved, therefore, to strike out the words "thirty-three," meaning, if they were stricken out, to propose the substitution of a larger number.
On this motion a desultory debate ensued, in which Messrs. Griswold, S. Smith, Nicholson, Giles, Bayard, Alston, Elmer, Eustis, Sprigg, and other gentlemen, took part.
Mr. Griswold stood alone in advocating an apportionment of one member to every 40,000 persons.
Messrs. Giles and Bayard were for one member for every 30,000.
Messrs. S. Smith, Nicholson, and Eustis, were for one member for 33,000.
Mr. Alston was in favor of one representative for every 31,000.
The preferences avowed by the several speakers, appeared to arise from the application of that divisor to the State from which each member came, which left the least fraction.
Some gentlemen, however, declared, and particularly Mr. Giles, that he had made no calculation, and that his preference of the smallest ratio proposed was the preference of principle.
Those in favor of a small ratio argued that, though the expense attending the compensation of the members might be somewhat increased, yet that it would be trifling compared with the great advantages that would result from a larger representation; that such a representation would be productive of true economy, as it would oppose all extravagant expenditure of money; that the weight of expense incurred by the Government, did not arise from the expense of the civil list, which formed but a speck in the mass of expenditure; that it was important to this Government to adopt those measures which would ensure the respect and the confidence of the people; that this end would be best attained by each Representative being familiarly acquainted with the interests of his constituents; and that this could only be the case when the number of his constituents were limited within certain bounds. It was true that it had been said that a body of more than one hundred, even though it be composed of philosophers, was a mob; but it was replied that the long experience of this country had proved the reverse, for that many of the State Legislatures consisted of more members.
These ideas were but feebly opposed. The diversity of opinion expressed chiefly arose from a division of the House on the ratios of thirty thousand and thirty-three thousand. The former was advocated principally from a regard to Delaware and Rhode Island, which, by its adoption, would have each two Representatives instead of one, if a higher ratio were preferred.
During the discussion, it was moved to strike out the word "three;" leaving thirty thousand as the ratio. This motion was lost—yeas 43, nays 46.
Mr. Bayard then moved to strike out "thirty-three," leaving the resolution blank, in order that it might be filled up with such number as should be agreeable to the House.
This motion was opposed chiefly by Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Eustis, who were of opinion that the progressive increase of the members would be sufficiently large on the ratio of thirty-three thousand persons to a member. They were also further in favor of this number as it left the fewest fractions. The only two States much injured by it would be Delaware and North Carolina; whereas, if the ratio was increased to thirty-five thousand, New Jersey would have a fraction of 31,000; Delaware of 26,000; Maryland of 30,000; Georgia of 23,000; and Kentucky of 29,000.
On the question being taken for striking out "thirty-three," there rose only thirty-one members. It was therefore declared to be lost.
The question was then taken on the original motion, and carried without a division, and a committee of three members appointed to bring in a bill conformably thereto.