time the seventh census was taken pursuant to the act of May 23, 1850, and California declared, by virtue of her ascertained numbers, to be still entitled to two and only two representatives; and yet Congress thought proper, by act of June 2, 1852, ch. 91, for reasons appearing in the body of the act, to accord to her one additional representative in the 37th Congress.

The act of February 26, 1857, ch. 60, enables the people of Minnesota to form a State government, and provides for the taking of a census in the Territory with a view to ascertain the number of representatives to which, as a State, she would be entitled. The act of May 11, 1858, ch. 31, admits her to the Union, with two representatives "until the next apportionment."

The act of February 14, 1859, ch. 33, admits Oregon to the Union, with one representative "until the next census and apportionment."

The act of May 4, 1858, ch. 26, providing for the admission to the Union of Kansas, under the Lecompton constitution, and that of January 29, 1861, ch. 20, admitting her, under the Wyandotte constitution, both declare her entitled to one representative "until the next general apportionment."

The act of December 31, 1862, ch. 6, erects a portion of the State of Virginia into the new State of West Virginia, with three representatives, leaving unchanged the number to which Virginia is entitled.

The act of March 21, 1864, ch. 36, enables the people of Nevada to form a State government with one representative "until the next general census ;" and, on the 19th of April, 1864, an act similar in all respects was passed by the people of Nebraska, under which acts both States have been admitted to the Union, completing the present number, 37.

These various acts have been collated at some pains, to show how completely the number of representatives in the House has been contested, at the discretion of Congress, a discretion scarcely less absolute than that of each house over "the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members."

This is illustrated by the arbitrary, nay, artificial numbers, at which the ratio was successively fixed, by allowing representatives for the fractions of the ratio, by the admission of new States with one, two, three, or more representatives according to their estimated populations, by reducing the representation of a State whose population had been reduced by the excision of part of her territory, by increasing the representation of States, as in the case of Alabama and California, when it was manifested that their population had been under-estimated, and by determining the aggregate number of the House and requiring our executive officer to make the apportionment among the several States. It is illustrated even more forcibly, if possible, by the act of March 4, 1836, ch. 36, which increases the number of representatives from 233, the number established by the general law of May 23, 1850, to 241, giving to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island, each one additional member to which they were not entitled under the general law.

In a word, these acts establish the general proposition that Congress has complete jurisdiction to adjust the representative numbers of the House, and has repeatedly and constantly exercised it at discretion, according to the varied equity of each particular case.

THE CASE OF TENNESSEE.

The case of Tennessee is this: According to the census of 1860, the inhabitants of the United States, reckoning all free persons and three

fifths of all others, numbered 29,553,273. Divide by 241, the number of members now composing the House, it gives 122,627 as the present representative ratio. Tennessee had 834,082 free inhabitants, white and colored, and 275,719 slaves; a total of 1,109,801. Three-fifths of her slaves, however, added to her free population, on the principle of the representative enumeration, made 999,514, by virtue whereof she has now eight representatives.

In February, 1865, she, by voluntary act, a popular vote, manumitted and emancipated her 275,719 slaves, nearly one-fourth of her population. Two-fifths of this number, 110,288, are thereby added to those already entitled to representation. This, with a previous representative fraction, leaves 128,785, for which the State has no representative, counting only the population as it was in 1860. This excess of popular numbers over the number of her present representatives is not the result of growth or natural increase, in which the several parts of the country are presumed to keep pace, at least, until the contrary is demonstrated by the census, but of a great political act as conspicuous and distinctive as would be the annexation of a foreign territory containing so many people. For the purpose of this inquiry, it is as if the boundaries of Maine were, by treaty, extended to embrace Nova Scotia, with 110,288 inhabitants. Is it equitable and just that they should be denied a representative? The undersigned think not.

Since the voluntary action of Tennessee in emancipating her slaves, Congress has taken not only an important step toward settling the status of American citizenship, but also indicating a further proper basis of representation. On the 16th of June, 1866, what is known as Article XIV was submitted to the legislatures of the different States. On July 20, 1868, this article was formally proclaimed as a part of the Constitution of the United States by the Secretary of State. The second section of said article, to which particular attention is invited, reads as follows:

SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for Presi dent and Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being 21 years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 21 years of age in such State.

This section, though general in its terms, was adopted with particular • reference to the recently emancipated colored population, and is a declaration to the several States in which this population is found, that if they are enfranchised, the State shall be represented accordingly; if not, representation shall be diminished. It either means this, or is a mockery and means nothing.

As soon as possible after the promulgation of the proposed amend, ment-on the 16th of June, 1866-Tennessee convened her legislature and ratified it. She then changed her franchise laws to conform to the spirit of this amendment by removing from all colored people within her boundaries all civil and political disabilities, and conferring upon them the right to elect and to be elected to every office, from the highest to the lowest. Having done this, and the 14th article having be come valid as a part of the Constitution, what was before a claim for full and complete representation, resting in the discretion of Congress, became now an absolute, constitutional right. For it must be borne in mind always that this action of Tennessee has been her own, independ

ent and in advance of executive proclamations, constitutional amendments, and reconstruction acts. She has met all the conditions of the Constitution in a spirit of the most cheerful loyalty, and has created in her favor an obligation which cannot be cancelled by being denied.

Her legislature, viewing the matter in this obvious light, has, by appropriate action, provided for the election of an additional representative. On the 3d day of November, 1868-the day of the late presidential election, and the day designated by law for the election of members of Congress in Tennessee-the people of that State, fully impressed that they were fairly entitled to an additional representative, proceeded to elect, and did elect, the Hon. John B. Rodgers to the 41st Congress.

It was a matter of general notoriety in Tennessee, some time before it occurred, that such an election would be held. The people of the State were duly advertised of the fact by the act of the legislature and executive proclamations. The friends of the present applicant for a seat brought him forward as a candidate at a popular convention, unusually largely attended, at the capital of the State. The popular will was fully reflected at the polls in the fact that the applicant received nearly as many votes as were cast in that State on the same day for the prevailing presidential electoral ticket. The places for voting in this case were the same as those at which votes were given by persons of different political proclivities for different candidates for Congress, and candidates for electors for President and Vice-President. Returns of the result in different counties were made in due form to the secretary of state, as appears in official documents, duly certified to. On these returns, after having been duly canvassed, the result was declared and a certificate of election issued by the governor of Tennessee to the claimant, which has been presented to the House and properly referred.

Thus stand the important facts in the case. The entire proceeding, from its conception to its consummation, has been remarkably regular and consistent.

The precedents cited as bearing upon the case are as weighty and significant as they are singularly numerous. It is believed they have not been, or cannot be, successfully met or explained away. These pointed examples of the unreserved exercise of legislative authority are, in themselves, a powerful warrant for the course which has been pursued by Tennessee. The vital point in the matter, however, is that Tennessee has not only followed "the line of safe precedent," but has conformed strictly to the true intent and meaning of the 14th article of the Constitution.

The fact that Tennessee happens to be the first State to claim the practical application of the inestimable rights conferred in said article should not be regarded as anomalous or involving a precedent of doubtful or "dangerous policy."

Objections founded upon any such reasoning are altogether likely to be speculative and fallacious, and lead to great injustice and wrong.

To admit the correctness of the somewhat sweeping statement sometimes made that the admission of the claimant would be "a most dangerous precedent," would certainly be a most severe commentary upon many of the deliberate acts of the Congresses preceding the present.

In the present instance Tennessee claims no right or privilege she would not willingly concede to any other State having a similar record. If, upon a fair investigation of the grounds upon which she bases her right to an additional representative, it is found her cause rests upon merit and justice, and is sustained by unquestionable authority, her demand should receive a prompt and favorable response. To deny to her a manifest constitutional right upon the questionable and untenable

objection that some other State may set up a similar claim, would surely afford abundant grounds for criticism, and come in direct antagonism with the policy heretofore maintained and pursued by Congress.

The part borne by the 60,000 men of Tennessee who rallied to the standard of the Union in the late great struggle was one upon which the whole country may look with gratification for all time. Of this number 20,000 were colored men whose devotion and patriotism was illustrated upon the historic and sanguinary fields of Franklin and Nashville. Surrounded as Tennessee was by a cordon of slave States, she has no reason to look, other than with pride, at the course she has pursued in securing for our common country universal emancipation.

It is notorious that a new era has been inaugurated in our country as to popular rights. By the wonderful results of the late rebellion, longentertained theories have been overthrown and repulsive dogmas forever obliterated. Four millions of bondmen have been raised from a position of abject servitude to the high and responsible position of American citizenship. The conferring of additional representation in the case of Tennessee will not only be a proper recognition of the claims of the recently enfranchised portion of our fellow-citizens, but will evince a consistent regard for the late decree of the American people expressed in their written Constitution.

The committee therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

Resolved, That John B. Rodgers, upon the facts and circumstances shown in his case, will be rightfully entitled to a seat in this house, from Tennessee, as soon as Congress enacts a law in relation thereto.

Resolved, That the following bill is hereby recommended for adoption: A BILL for an act to allow the State of Tennessee an additional representative in Congress. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Tennessee, by the emancipation and enfranchisement of her colored populationslaves at the taking of the eighth census and the making the apportionment thereon-having added to her population, entitled to be represented in Congress, a number which, added to a portion previously unrepresented, is greater than the ratio by which the representatives are now apportioned, the said State shall be allowed, until the next general cen. sus and apportionment, one additional representative in Congress, who may be chosen from the State at large, unless the legislature of the said State shall otherwise provide.

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.

The undersigned, a minority of the Committee of Elections, are unable to agree to the result arrived at by the majority of the committee, with respect to the claim of General John B. Rodgers to a seat in this house as an additional representative from Tennessee, and with the permission of the House give the following reasons for their dissent:

The claim of General Rodgers to a seat, and of Tennessee to an additional representative, is based upon the following facts: The census of 1860 showed 275,719 slaves in that State, two-fifths of whom, or 110,287, were deducted from her representative numbers, under the Constitution of the United States. Eight representatives were given to Tennessee by the apportionment of 1862, based upon the census of 1860, the ratio of representation being 127,000. In February, 1865, the people of Tennessee, by their own voluntary act, in the adoption of a new constitution, emancipated and enfranchised their slaves, by so doing adding, as it is claimed, to her representative population, with a fraction left unrepresented by the apportionment of 1862, more than sufficient to entitle her to an additional representative.

On the 12th March, 1868, the general assembly of Tennessee, by joint resolution, required the governor "to issue a writ of election to the State at large for the purpose of electing one additional member to the Congress," and the claimant was accordingly elected in November, 1868, as representative at large from the State of Tennessee for the 41st Congress.

No law of the United States exists under which this seat can be claimed; and the act of July 14, 1862, requiring representatives to be elected by single districts, has been violated in the manner of the election of the claimant; but it is alleged that the facts of the case justify, if they do not require us to legalize this claim by the passage of a law for that purpose.

The provision of the Constitution of the United States which regulates representation is as follows:

Representation and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union according to their respective numbers, which shall be deter mined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one representative.

The second section of the fourteenth article of amendments to the Constitution relates to the same subject, and modifies, to some extent, so much of the above as relates to representation, and is as follows:

SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being 21 years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 21 years of age in such State.

While these provisions differ as to the manner in which the representative numbers in the States shall be ascertained, they agree in providing that representatives shall be apportioned among the States according