trine of representation according to population.
As a theory, it was very beautiful and pretty-
yet it had no existence in fact. If it was a correct
principle, it must he susceptible of a practi-
cal application. To give it a practical applica-
tion, it must be carried out to its fullest extent.
The falling short of carrying out the entire prin-
ciple, was an abandonment of the principle to that
extent, if not altogether. Gentleman had refer-
red to the Constitution of the United States as
based upon this theory. He would deny this,
and also deny that representation according to
population obtained these, and he would prove
the truth of his denial. Let them examine the
Constitution of the United States, and they would
there find an article which gave to Delaware
and Rhode Island, and all the smaller States, the
same representation in the Senate that the larger
States have, to wit, two senators to each State,
without any reference to population or even ex-
tent of territory. The two senators representing
the State sovereignty. This was a principle in-
sisted on when the Convention was formed, and
without which the Constitution never could have
been adopted. He would go further and say,
that he did not believe the government of the
United States would or could survive one hour
the abandonment of this conservative feature of
the Constitution. Here then is an entire absence
of any thing like popular representation in the
Senate.
How is it as regards the election of President.
He is elected by an arbitrary rule, by electors,
and not by a majority of the people by direct
vote. He may be elected by a minority vote.
He may be elected by a minority of the people.
but by a majority of the electors. Otherwise
why have we heard so much about minority Pre-
sidents. The House of Representative have at
least in two instances, the people having failed
to make an election, elected a President. The
first was the famous case of the contest between
Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, in which Jef-
ferson was elected by one vote, the other was the
case of the contest between Andrew Jackson and
John Quincy Adams, in which the latter was
elected. No representation according to popu-
lation in either case, each State having one
vote. Delaware and Rhode Island had as much
weight in the election as New York and Penn-
sylvania. How stands the principle as regards
the House of Representatives. There he admit-
ted the principle obtained to some extent. Let
us examine it. The Constitution provides that
representation shall be apportioned among the
States according to population, and taxation by
adding to the number of free persons three-fifths
of every other discription of persons except In-
dians not taxed, and also providing that each
State shall have one representative.
Here he admitted was a partial adoption
of the principle upon what is usually called
the federal basis. But is it not also perceived
that even here there is also an abandonment of
the abstract principle as an entirety? Congress
has the power to fix the basis of representation
in the several States. The number to be fixed
7 |
upon as the ratio of representation is altogether
arbitrary. There is no two Congressional dis-
tricts in the United States that have the same
numbers in population, and yet they have one
representative. Now, to the extent that any
inequality of numbers exists in the Congressional
districts of any State or of the several States
growing out of the arbitrary ratio of representation
fixed by Congress, to the same extent is the
principle of representation according to popula-
tion departed from The ratio of representation
being arbitrary, it cannot be contended, with any
hope of success, that the representation based
upon such arbitrary ratio sustains the abstract
principle of representation according to popula-
tion. It must partake in some degree of the ar-
bitrary basis upon which it is founded A mon-
archy is founded upon the principle of the rights
of one man to govern. A pure Democracy is
founded upon the principle of the right of a ma-
jority of the aggregate number to govern. The
Government of the United States is neither the
one, nor the other. It is a government of checks
and balances. It is a government of compromise
securing to the whole, and each, and every part,
equal rights, equal privileges, and equal protec-
tion. It is founded on the principles of well re-
gulated popular rights, State sovereignty, and.
eternal justice. He thought he had made good
his position that the principle of representation
according to population did not obtain in the
Government of the United States to the extent
contended for by the advocates of the principle.
But he would go further, and inquire who are
the people? The honorable gentleman from Bal-
timore, not now in his seat, spoke of human
rights. Mr. B. thought that human rights had
nothing to do with political rights. If the doc-
trine of the gentleman from Baltimore was cor-
rect, that every human being was possessed of
equal political rights, and therefore should have
representation according to population, what
would be the principle? If the principle was
correct, he would say that it went to this extent,
and could not fall short of it—that every human
being, white or black, of all sorts, sizes and de-
scriptions, would be embraced under the general
principle of the gentleman. No man would con-
tend for this.
He had a word for the gentleman from Car-
roll, but he did not see him present He wished
he was in the Hall, and he hoped some one
would ask him to come in.
Mr. BROWN at this moment entered, amid
much merriment.
Mr. BLAKISTONE expressed himself sorry to
interrupt the gentleman from Carroll, in his en-
joyment; but he desired to talk of him, and did
not like to do it behind his back. The gentleman
had been making thrusts at the gentleman from
Kent. He, (Mr. B.,) would not fight his battles,
because he was incompetent to underlake such a
task. But the gentleman from Carroll had run
over his, (Mr, B.'s,) track, and he would get him
out of the way. He had said that if the gentle-
man from Kent, was in England, he could talk
about the freedom of the people of this country,
but would— |
