vor the trade by way of the northern colonies. The state of the negotiation concerning the northeastern boundary was reserved to be communicated, in a special message. The message, further stated, that the claims of our merchants upon France for spoliations, had been adjusted by a satisfactory treaty; and that measures had been taken to obtain indemnity from Spain for injuries sustained since the last treaty, and from Naples for spoliations committed by the order of Murat. Measures had also been taken to chastise the pirates on the Malay coast for an attack upon an American merchantinan; and for the protection of the fishermen at the Falkland islands against aggression under the authority of Beunos Ayres; and in general the aspect of the relations between the United States and foreign powers was stated to be favorable to the continuance of tranquillity and peace. Among the subjects recommended to Congress, were a revision of the laws relating to American consuls; an extension of the judiciary system to the States of Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana; such a modification of the tariff as should bring the revenue down to the wants of the government and adjust the duties with a view of equal justice in relation to all national interests, and to the counteraction of foreign legislation against those interests; a change of the constitution so as to limit the executive to one term of service; a general reform in the system of keeping the public accounts; and the establishment of a local legislature for the District of Columbia. The change in the policy of the government in relation to the Indians was stated to be producing the happiest effects; the revenue was improving; and the opinions expressed in the previous message against the United States bank were reiterated, as not having been changed by experience. Among the most urgent subjects of consideration at the present session of Congress was the apportionment of representation according to the census of 1830. By that census the southern and eastern states had lost a portion of their relative weight, and the western states had acquired a greater preponderance than before. The inefficiency of the marshals however had prevented Congress from acting, as it should have done on that subject at the last session, and of course the States that had increased more rapidly than the rest, were inadequately represented in this Congress. With the view of giving to each State the power intended by the Constitution at the next Presidential election, steps were taken to bring this subject at an early day before the consideration of the House, and on the fourth of January, Mr Polk reported a bill from a select commitee appointed for the purpose, fixing upon the ratio of representation under the 5th census of the United States. By that report, the ratio was fixed at one representative for 48,000 inhabitants, according to the federal enumeration, which would increase the number of that no common divisor would members to 237. give to the States the number of representatives allowed them by the bill; and that the proposed number of Representatives was greater than one for every 30,000; and that therefore the bill was unconstitutional. The House had acquiesced in this construction, and reported, accordingly, a new bill, the effect of which was, that each State lost its supernumerary fraction. This early exposition of the constitution had been afterwards regarded as settled, and had been acted on ever since. The constitution imposed but two limitations on this matter; the one was, that no State should have more representatives than for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and, on the other hand, that every State should be entitled to one representative. The committee had recommended a number, which they considered a just medium between these two extremes. When the subject came before the House for consideration, in introducing the bill, Mr Polk observed, that the committee had felt the great difficulty, and even impossibility, of recommending any ratio of representation which should obtain the unanimous assent of the House. The representation of the people of the United States in that House depended, according to the constitution, not on the total population of the Union, but on the respective numbers of inhabitants in the several States, excluding all Indians not taxed, and also two fifths of the slaves, and including all other persons. No ratio could be adopted, which would be perfectly equal in its results upon all the States; whatever number might be fixed on as entitling to a representative on that floor, there must be fractions left in most of the States, larger in some and smaller in others. This inequality, however it might be regretted had its cause in the constitution itself. It had been so sensibly felt, when the ratio of representation was established by the first Congress, that they had attempted to remedy it by allowing to such of the States as had very large residuary fractions an additional representative. The then President of the United States, General Washington, after mature consideration, and after detaining the bill in his hands, until the last day allowed for his decision upon it, sent it back to Congress with his veto and the reasons of it; which were two, viz: one It would give a House of such dimensions, that on the one hand, the people would not be deprived of an adequate representation; and on the other, the number of members would not be such, as to render the House multitudinous, unwieldy and inconvenient. In 1790, the number fixed on as entitled to a Representative, had been 30,000; in 1800, 33,000, 1810, 35,000; and in 1820, 40,000. The bill now reported, proposed 48,000. This was a greater augmentation, than had taken place in forty years. Looking to the unavoidable inequality of the operation of any ratio they could propose, the committee had also considered the effect of various ratios in leaving unrepresented fractions in the different States; and after maturely considering and comparing the difficulties, they had come to the conclusion, that 48,000 distributed the fractions as equally among the States as any other number which could be fixed upon. The aggregate amount of all the fractions left by this arrangement would be 547,483. The committee had had no criteria from which to judge to what number of members the House would be most likely to assent. There existed a variety of opinions, whose advocates were in favor of a House, more or less numerous. If resort should be had to experience, many were of opinion, that the number of the existing House was quite large enough, and might very conveniently be continued. He had, himself, at first, agreed in this opinion; but he had subsequently been induced to coincide with a majority of the committee in the opinion that there ought to be some proportion observed between the increase and wide spread population of the country, and its representation in that House. They inhabited an extensive country, varying in its soil, climate, agricultural productions. Each part of the country, and every class of this community, was entitled to representation on that floor. Ten years ago, two hundred and thirteen members had not been thought too many; it was proposed now to increase that number by the addition of twentyfour more members. Would that give a number too large, to represent all the people of the United States? In many districts there were, at present, ten, twelve, fifteen, and even twenty counties, wholly unrepresented. One representative could not be considered as too much for 48,000 freemen. Ours, he observed, was a popular government, and such a government was best preserved by the representatives of the people. The Constitution, proceeding on that principle, had entrusted them with large powers. All money bills must originate in that House; every tax the people had to pay must be voted by their own immediate representatives. No appropriation could be made of the public money without their consent. They possessed the sole power of impeachment. They had a concurrent voice in the question of war and peace. They were immediately entrusted with all the concerns and interests of the great body of the people. It was surely proper, that the representatives should know his constitutents, and be known by them. There was a natural sympathy between electors and the elected. They were the depository of the wishes, wants, and will of the people. The senators were representatives of the sovereignties of the states, and were elected for a longer term, but the representative came fresh from the people. In turning his attention to the subject submitted to the committee, he had become aware of stitution no fewer than eight of the States had presented as an objection to that instrument their fear, that the House of Representatives would never be suffered to become of a sufficient size to give the people their due weight in the government; and in these eight States amendments had actually been proposed, with a view to guard against such a state of things. The best argument he had heard urged, in favor of a reduction of the number of members in that House was, that a smaller number would more conduce to the despatch of business. The despatch of business, and a due representation of the people were two very different things. It was very possible that a reduction of numbers would tend to despatch of business. If the House should contain but fifty, or even its minimum number of twentyfour members, it would, no doubt, get through its business in a shorter time. But in that case, would the people enjoy an adequate representation? In a despotism, or an aristocracy, there was more despatch of business; but those forms of government were not, on that account, preferable to a republic. The committee were fully aware that the arrangement now proposed, would be considered as pressing very hardly upon those States, whose fractions were very large. This had always been a subject of complaint, when former apportionments had been under consideration. But, according to the ratio now proposed, it would happen, that this inconvenience would press the most heavily on States which before had been the most favored. Mr Craig then moved to strike out the words fortyeight, which af ter an objection to the motion as out of order, became the topic of an animated discussion for several days. It was contended by gentlemen in favor of Mr Craig's amendment, that the number 48,000 by being retained in the bill, had so great an advantage over every other number, which could be proposed in place of it, that it was certain of being finally adopted- an advantage, to which this number was no more entitled than any other. In support of this view it was argued, that every other number which might be proposed would be voted for, not on the ground of its own intrinsic title to favor, but in comparison with the number fortyeight. Thus, if the number fortyfive should be proposed by any member, the question every gentleman would propose to himself, would be not, do I prefer fortyfive to every other number, but do I prefer forty five to fortyeight, and the consequence would be that the number fortyfive would have in its favor those gentlemen only who preferred fortyfive to every other number; while it would have against it all those who preferred fortyeight, and also all others who, though they might not prefer fortyeight for itself, would rather have fortyeight than fortyfive. Thus the friends of the number fortyeight would be a perpetual quantity, always adding to the opponents of every other number; which by thus defeating every othe number, would finally insure the adoption of the number fortyeight. Whereas, should the number fortyeight be stricken out and the bill left in blank, all numbers proposed would have an equal chance. To this it was replied, that the alleged advantage enjoyed by the number 48,000 as being in the bill, was rather imaginary than real, inasmuch as if there was a real majority of the House in favor of any other number than fortyeight, it could in a moment strike forty eight from the bill, and insert that other number in its place; and if there was not a majority of the House in favor of any other number, even if the bill were in blank, that number could never be inserted. In fact, if the bill had been reported in blank, the blank in the bill would enjoy every preference which the number fortyeight now did, because all the members who were opposed to any given number, would prefer the bill remaining in blank to having that number inserted; and the matter amounted to just this, that as long as no majority could be obtained in favor of any one proposed number, no bill could be reported, and the ratio of representation must be left where it was until another Congress. Other gentlemen who took the other side of the question, compared all the numbers that might be named, as well that in the bill as every other, to so many competing candidates at an election by ballot; between the advocates of which successive compromises had to be made, until some one candidate obtained a majority of all the votes. It was generally admitted that the Select Committee in reporting a bill containing a specific number, had done no more than their duty, having strictly complied with the words of the resolution which created them; but at the same time it was noticed that the number reported in the bill operated more favorably to the State (Tennessee) from which the Chairman of the committee came, (Mr Polk,) and that the number fortyseven would have distributed the fractions more equably. This insinuation was warmly repelled by Mr Polk, who stated that a majority of the committee came from other States; that he had given his own vote last; and that the advantage to Tennessee was purely accidental. Mr Craig's motion after several unsuccessful attempts to substitute another number in the place of 48,000 was rejected, yeas 84, nays 93; and the House in committee of the whole thus determined to retain the number of 48,000. The bill was reported to the House without amendment, on the 26th of January, when Mr Wickliffe moved to recommit it to a special committee to strike out the number fortyeight, but it was negatived, yeas 76, nays 116. A motion also made by him to strike out the same number was rejected, yeas 94, nays 99. Mr Hubbard then moved to substitute 44,000 for 48,000 and it was carried, yeas 98, nays 96. This motion, however, was re |