CONGRESS. (THE APPORTIONMENT.) 



1C1 



the director of the census was directed, in accord- 

 ance with the custom established for many years, 

 to prepare tables not only for the guidance of the 

 Committee on the Census, but also for the benefit 

 of members and (Senators. The experts in that 

 department have prepared a table, called an appor- 

 tionment table, in which they commence with 350 

 members and give the figures up to 400 members, 

 inclusive. They first give the constitutional popu- 

 lation of every State in the Union, and then 

 the constitutional population of the entire United 

 iStates. By means of these tables we can take 

 any of these figures presented, and if we settle 

 upon any number as the membership of this 

 House, can easily determine the representation 

 that will be allotted thereby to any of the States. 



" As I have stated, the majority of the com- 

 mittee in preparing their bill selected first 357, and 

 then in order to determine the membership to be 

 allotted to each State under this new apportion- 

 ment they divided the constitutional population 

 of the United States 74,565,906 by 357, getting 

 a quotient of 208,868, so that under the proposi- 

 tion of the majority of the committee the popula- 

 tion of a Congressional district should aggregate 

 208,868. Taking that number as a divisor, we 

 then took the population of the various States 

 and made the division. For example, dividing the 

 population of Alabama 1,828,697 by 208,868, it 

 gave to the State of Alabama 8 members, with a 

 decimal fraction of 0.755, representing a popula- 

 tion of 157,753. 



" That process was carried out with every State, 

 the aggregate number reached by this process 

 being 335 members, so that by this process we 

 apportion among the several States of the Union 

 335 members. Now, in order to reach the 357 

 members, we find that there are 22 members still 

 to be allotted; but we also find that, by the divi- 

 sion made in the manner that I have indicated, 

 there were major and minor fractions in the 45 

 different States aggregating 4,595,126. 



" Under the old rule that was adopted and main- 

 tained in this country up to 1840 that population 

 of 4,595,126 would have gone unrepresented, ex- 

 cepting the 4 States that under the Constitution 

 are entitled to 1 member each ; but under the pol- 

 icy that has been adopted during the last sixty 

 years these major fractions were represented. It 

 was found, however, that there were major frac- 

 tions for 25 States instead of 22, including the 4 

 States that under the Constitution are entitled 

 to 1 member each. How was that to be reme- 

 died? Under this apportionment 335 members 

 had been assigned to the several States, each on 

 the same ratio that was accorded to its sister 

 States, leaving, as I said, 22 members to be as- 

 signed, as I have already stated. 



" Now, what was the most equitable and just 

 way to dispose of these fractions? The four mil- 

 lion and odd thousands that I have mentioned 

 would be entitled only to 22 members, on the ratio 

 that we have already divided among the other 

 States. That aggregation of fractions would not 

 be entitled to 25 members, but only to 22. Now, 

 it would not be in accordance with the require- 

 ments of the Constitution to give a greater repre- 

 sentation to a fraction than to the integral num- 

 bers. It would not be just and proper to take this 

 population that is represented by these various 

 fractions and give them an increased representa- 

 tion. Then what is the most" equitable and just 

 way to dispose of the 22 members that represent 

 the fractional numbers? 



" Why, Mr. Speaker, there is but one way, and 

 that way was pointed out many years ago by 

 Prof. Walker, superintendent of the ninth and 

 VOL. XLI. 11 A 



tenth censuses. Prof. Walker not only agreed 

 fully with the masterly argument, i.|u,.t. \\as made 

 by Mr. Webster upon the subject, thai, \\e should 

 take an arbitrary number for the membership of 

 the House and have the fractions represented, 

 but he insisted that where such an anomaly 

 existed as we find exists at the present time the 

 only just and proper way would be to lake tin- 

 State with the largest major fraction, and ^ive 

 to that State one of the 22 members, then take the 

 .next State that had the next highest major frac- 

 tion and give to it a member, and so on until the 

 22 members are disposed of in the manner that 1 

 have indicated. 



" Now, these 22 members represent, as I have 

 said, all the fractions, including the population 

 of the 4 States with 1 member each; but it is 

 more equitable and just to apportion an addi- 

 tional member to the State with the highest major 

 fraction than it would be to one with a lower 

 major fraction, because when we come to this 

 question of fractions (which frequently occurs, as 

 you will find by going through these figures), one 

 State may have a major fraction of a thousand 

 or two above the moiety number, and another 

 State just reach the dividing line. Where would 

 you make the division there? 



" Now, I call the attention of the members of 

 the House to this to show that in making this 

 apportionment as has been provided by the Com- 

 mittee on the Census we have been unable to deal 

 out strict and exact justice to all States, but, as 

 Mr. Webster said, the Constitution does not re- 

 quire that. It only requires us to do that as 

 nearly as it is possible to do it in making these 

 divisions. And I submit that when gentlemen 

 come to study these figures as the Committee on 

 the Census have studied them they will readily 

 find that no other apportionment could be made 

 and still preserve the harmony and integrity of 

 the bill." 



Mr. Hopkins went on to discuss the operation 

 of this system in detail, and attempted to justify 

 the result of it as shown in the bill; but various 

 members took up specific cases of its failure in 

 practise, however beautiful in theory. Mr. Shaf- 

 roth, of Colorado, said: 



" Mr. Speaker, it seems to be apparent from the 

 questions which have been propounded to the 

 chairman of the committee that there is something 

 radically wrong in the formation of this bill. A 

 bill which provides for representation in this 

 House for the next ten years by the people of the 

 various States of the Union should be most care- 

 fully framed. 



" 1 have attempted to look into the inequalities 

 of the measure, and I find that they result from 

 the error of adopting a defective system. The 

 system which has been adopted by the chairman of 

 the committee in the formulation of this bill works 



fross injustice to a number of States in the Union, 

 call attention first to the wrong which is done to 

 the State of Colorado, because that is perhaps the 

 most apparent. We find, according to the tables 

 that are sent to us by the director of the census 

 and upon which this bill is framed, that even if 

 this House is reduced to the membership of 350 

 Colorado is entitled to an additional member. 



" If it is fixed at 351, she is entitled to an addi- 

 tional member. If fixed at 353, or 354, or 355, or 

 356, she is entitled to an additional member. But 

 if the number 357 is picked out, then she is not 

 entitled to an additional member. If the member- 

 ship of the House goes beyond that to any extent 

 if it is 358 or 359 or any number up to 400 then 

 she is entitled to an additional member. Out of 

 the two sets of tables that are sent to this House 



