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.