صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

tribunals.1 These prosecutions are, therefore, conducted by the representatives of the nation, in their public capacity, in the face of the nation, and upon a

rule, adopted, but the assignment was matter of arbitrary discretion. A member was allowed to New-Hampshire, for example, for a fraction of less than one half the ratio, thus placing her representation further from her exact proportion, than it was without such additional member; while a member was refused to Georgia, whose case closely resembled that of New-Hampshire, both having what were thought large fractions, but,both still under a moiety of the ratio, and distinguished from each other only by a very slight difference of absolute numbers. The committee have already fully expressed their opinion on such a mode of apportionment.

"In regard to this character of the bill, President Washington said: 'The constitution has prescribed, that representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers; and there is no one proportion, or divisor, which, applied to the respective numbers of the states, will yield the number and allotment of representatives proposed by the bill.'

"This was all undoubtedly true, and was, in the judgment of the committee, a decisive objection against the bill. It is nevertheless to be observed, that the other objection completely covered the whole ground. There could, in that bill, be no allowance for a fraction, great or small; because congress had taken for the ratio the lowest number allowed by the constitution, viz. thirty thousand. Whatever fraction a state might have less than that ratio, no member could be allowed for it. It is scarcely necessary to observe, that no such objection applies to the amendment now proposed. No state, should the amendment prevail, will have a greater number of members than one for every thirty thousand; nor is it likely, that that objection will ever again occur. The whole force of the precedent, whatever it be, in its application to the present case, is drawn from the other objection. And what is the true import of that objection? Does it mean any thing more than, that the apportionment was not made on a common rule or principle, applicable, and applied alike to all the states?

"President Washington's words are, 'there is no one proportion or divisor, which, applied to the respective numbers of the states, will yield the number and allotment of representatives proposed by the bill.'

"If, then, he could have found a common proportion, it would have removed this objection. He required a proportion or divisor. These

1 4 Black. Comm. 260; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 22, p. 210, 211; 2 Woodeson's Lect. 40, p. 596, &c.

[blocks in formation]

responsibility, which is at once felt, and reverenced by the whole community. The notoriety of the proceedings; the solemn manner, in which they are conducted;

words he evidently uses, as explanatory of each other. He meant by divisor, therefore, no more than by proportion. What he sought was, some common and equal rule, by which the allotment had been made among the several states; he did not find such common rule; and on that ground, he thought the bill objectionable.

"In the opinion of the committee, no such objection applies to the amendment recommended by them. That amendment gives a rule, plain, simple, just, uniform, and of universal application. The rule has been frequently stated. It may be clearly expressed in either of two ways. Let the rule be, that the whole number of the proposed house shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, giving to each state that number of members, which comes nearest to her exact mathematical part or proportion; or, let the rule be, that the population of each state shall be divided by a common divisor, and that, in addition to the number of members resulting from such division, a member shall be allowed to each state, whose fraction exceeds a moiety of the divisor.

"Either of these is, it seems to the committee, a fair and just rule, capable of uniform application, and operating with entire impartiality. There is no want of a common proportion, or a common divisor; there is nothing left to arbitrary discretion. If the rule, in either of these forms, be adopted, it can never be doubtful how every member of any proposed number for a house of representatives ought to be assigned. Nothing will be left in the discretion of congress; the right of each state will be a mathematical right, easily ascertained, about which there can be neither doubt nor difficulty; and, in the application of the rule, there will be no room for preference, partiality, or injustice. In any case, in all time to come, it will do all, that human means can do, to allot to every state in the Union its proper and just proportion of representative power. And it is because of this, its capability of constant application, as well as because of its impartiality and justice, that the committee are earnest in recommending its adoption to congress. If it shall be adopted, they believe it will remove a cause of uneasiness and dissatisfaction, recurring, or liable to recur, with every new census, and place the rights of the states, in this respect, on a fixed basis, of which none can with reason complain. It is true, that there may be some numbers assumed for the composition of the house of representatives, to which, if the rule were applied, the result might give a member to the

1 Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 22, p. 209.

the deep extent, to which they affect the reputations of the accused; the ignominy of a conviction, which is to be known through all time; and the glory of an acquittal, which ascertains and confirms innocence;- these are all calculated to produce a vivid and lasting interest in the public mind; and to give to such prosecutions, when necessary, a vast importance, both as a check to crime, and an incitement to virtue.

§ 687. This subject will be resumed hereafter, when the other provisions of the constitution, in regard to impeachments, come under review. It does not appear, that the vesting of the power of impeachment in the house of representatives was deemed a matter of serious doubt or question, either in the convention, or with the people. If the true spirit of the constitution is consulted, it would seem difficult to arrive at any other conclusion, than of its fitness. It is designed, as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. If such is the design, who can so properly be the inquisitors

house more than was proposed. But it will be always easy to correct this, by altering the proposed number by adding one to it, or taking one from it; so that this can be considered no objection to the rule.

"The committee, in conclusion, cannot admit, that it is sufficient reason for rejecting this mode of apportionment, that a different process has heretofore prevailed. The truth is, the errors and inequalities of that process were at first not obvious and startling. But they have gone on increasing; they are greatly augmented and accumulated every new census; and it is of the very nature of the process itself, that its unjust results must grow greater and greater in proportion as the population of the country enlarges. What was objectionable, though tolerable yesterday, becomes intolerable to-morrow. A change, the committee are persuaded, must come, or the whole just balance and proportion of representative power among the states will be disturbed and broken up."

Mr. Everett also made a very able speech on the same subject, in which he pressed some additional arguments with great force on the same side. See his printed Speech of 17th May, 1832.

1 Journal of Convention, p. 69, 121, 137, 225, 226, 236; 3 Elliot's Debates, 43, 44, 45, 46.

for the nation, as the representatives of the people themselves? They must be presumed to be watchful of the interests, alive to the sympathies, and ready to redress the grievances, of the people. If it is made their duty to bring official delinquents to justice, they can scarcely fail of performing it without public denunciation, and political desertion, on the part of their constituents.



§ 638. THE third section of the first article relates to the organization and powers of the senate.

§ 689. In considering the organization of the senate, our inquiries naturally lead us to ascertain; first, the nature of the representation and vote of the states therein; secondly, the mode of appointment; thirdly, the number of the senators; fourthly, their term of service; and fifthly, their qualifications.

§ 690. The first clause of the third section is in the following words: "The senate of the United States "shall be composed of two senators from each state, "chosen by the legislature thereof for six years; and "each senator shall have one vote."

§ 691. In the first place, the nature of the represen

tation and vote in the senate. Each state is entitled to two senators; and each senator is entitled to one vote. This, of course, involves in the very constitution of this branch of the legislature a perfect equality among all the states, without any reference to their respective size, population, wealth, or power. In this respect there is a marked contrast between the senate and the house of representatives. In the latter, there is a represenation of the people according to the relative population of each state upon a given basis; in the former, each state in its political capacity is represented upon a footing of perfect equality, like a congress of sovereigns, or ambassadors, or like an assembly of peers. The only difference between it and the continental congress under the old confederation is, that in this

« السابقةمتابعة »