389. APPORTIONMENT BILL, Opposition to.—
The ground of the opposition to
the apportionment bill has been founded on
the discovery that the ratio of 30,000 gave
smaller fractions to the southern than to the
eastern States, and to prevent this a variety
of propositions have been made, among which
is the following: To apply the ratio of 30,000
to the aggregate population of the Union (not
that of the individual States) which will give
120 members, and then apportion those members
among the several States by as many
different ratios as there are States; or to the
population of each State, giving them one for
every 30,000 as far as it will go, making 112,
and then distribute the remaining eight members
among those States having the highest fractions
of which 5 will be given to the States east
of this [Pennsylvania]. * * * The effect of
this principle must be deemed a very pernicious
one, and in my opinion [is a] subversion
of that contained in the Constitution, which
in the 3d paragraph of the 2d Section, first
Article, founds the representation on the
population of each State, in terms as explicit
as it could well have been done. Besides it
takes the fractions of some States to supply
the deficiency of others, and thus makes the
people of Georgia the instrument of giving
a member to New Hampshire. * * * On our
part, the principle will never be yielded, for
when such obvious encroachments are made on
the plain meaning of the Constitution, the bond
of Union ceases to be the equal measure of
justice to all its parts. On theirs, a very persevering
firmness is likewise observed. They
appear to me to play a hazardous game. The
government secures them many important blessings,
all those which it gives to us and many
more, and yet with these they seem not to be
satisfied.—
To Archibald Stuart.
Ford ed., v, 453.
(Pa.,
March. 1792)
