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