162 



CONGRESS. (THE APPORTIONMENT.) 



by the director of the census, tabulating 100 illus- 

 trations, 50 under one system and 50 under an- 

 other, there is but one number by which Colorado 

 fails to get an additional member, and that is the 

 number fixed by the committee that has brought 

 the bill into this House. 



"Now, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that any bill 

 which is predicated upon a system that admits of 

 an injustice of that kind is" radically wrong. I 

 want to call attention to the fact that if the rep- 

 resentation is fixed at 213.000 inhabitants and for 

 each major fraction of that number, Colorado is 

 entitled to an additional member. If it is placed 

 at 212,000. or 211,000, or 210,000, or 209,000 and 

 major fraction, she is entitled to an additional 

 member. But if it is fixed at 208,868 and 

 major fraction, she is not. Can any man, accord- 

 ing to principles of justice, explain that paradox 

 satisfactorily? Is there any justice in a system 

 that works such a wrong as that? 



" It may be that the system works out in 

 mathematics that way; but no man can say it is 

 just that a State which is entitled to an additional 

 member, when its people are entitled to it, accord- 

 ing to an apportionment of 213,000, is not entitled 

 to it when that number is reduced to 208,000. 

 I 1 here is no justice or fairness in selecting that 

 number, and that is the only number by which 

 Colorado fails to get the representation to which 

 she is entitled. 



" Now, that is one illustration only as to how 

 this system works. It also works the same with 

 some other States. It works so with the State of 

 Maine. Upon a certain apportionment Maine is 

 entitled to maintain 4 members in this House, and 

 yet upon an increased membership of the House 

 it is entitled to but 3. If the membership is placed 

 at 383, 384, or 385, Maine is entitled to 4 Repre- 

 sentatives, but if fixed at 386, she is entitled to 

 only 3. If placed at 387 or 388, she is again en- 

 titled to 4 members; but if fixed at 389 or 390, 

 she is entitled to only 3. ' Now you see it and 

 now you don't.' Any system that works an injus- 

 tice of that kind can not be defended by anybody 

 upon principles of equity or fairness. If the State 

 of Maine is entitled to 4 members upon the ratio 

 of 1 Representative to each 194,689 inhabitants 

 and major fraction, she is unquestionably entitled 

 to the same number upon the ratio of 1 member 

 to each 191,194 inhabitants and major fraction. 



" It is done by means of a system which does 

 not recognize that all major fractions are entitled 

 to representation. The details of it are uninterest- 

 ing. I went to the Census Bureau and told them 

 there must be a mistake in their first set of tables. 

 I saw the gentleman in charge of this compilation. 

 He looked at it and said, ' Colorado entitled to an 

 additional member at 350 or 351, and not entitled 

 to one at a membership of 357? That must be a 

 mistake.' He .looked at it further and said, 'I 

 don't know whether it is a mistake or not.' He 

 ran over the column of figures, recalculated it, and 

 at last said, 'No; it is no mistake.' There may 

 be no mistake, but it shows the injustice and un- 

 fairness of a bill predicated upon such a system. 



" He explained it on the same theory that the 

 gentleman from Illinois attempted to the shifting 

 of the major fraction upon change of ratio. But 

 he did not claim that it was fair. In fact, he said 

 that it showed a serious defect in the system, and 

 that the bureau had not recommended any 

 system." 



Mr. Littlefield, of Maine, discussed at some 

 length the contention that a further increase of 

 the membership would lessen the working capacity 

 of the House and impair its character. He argued 

 that if there were more members, representing 



smaller districts, there would be more opportunity 

 for each one, liberated to some extent from the 

 calls of his constituents, to attend to public af- 

 fairs. He said: 



" Now, I desire to call attention for a few mo- 

 ments to the objections raised by the majority of 

 the committee to increasing the size of this House. 

 xVs I remember the statement of the gentleman 

 from Illinois, it was based largely on inconve- 

 nience. The report of the committee says it is kept 

 at its present size by reason of economy and des- 

 patch in business. The suggestion is made that 

 the House has grown unwieldy; that it is inca- 

 pable of properly performing its functions. The 

 distinguished chairman of the committee does not 

 make the statement in that broad language, but 

 he substantially states that it is inconvenient, that 

 we are adding trouble, as a reason why the basis 

 of representation should not be increased, but 

 should be continued at its present size, as a reason 

 why there should be a reversal of the policy of 

 the republic in this beginning of the twentieth 

 century. 



" It is a singular fact that this is not the first 

 time that the argument of an unwieldy character, 

 overgrown size, and disorderly body has been ad- 

 dressed to the House. For many a year it has 

 been the fashion to denounce the House of Repre- 

 sentatives as one of the most disorderly bodies in 

 the world, and as being incapable of properly 

 transacting business. The suggestion is made 

 that no man is heard, no man can take a part in 

 debate and receive the attention of the members, 

 on account of the size of this great body. 



" As long ago as 1842 sixty years ago with a 

 House of 240 members in size, 117 less than the 

 present size, the same conditions were supposed to 

 exist. I qiiote now briefly from a speech made by 

 Mr. Wise in discussing an apportionment bill, in 

 which he says that 



" * Never since he had held a seat in this House 

 had it been so inefficient a body as it was at this 

 moment. The deterioration had been constant, as 

 well in the despatch of business as in the manner 

 and the matter of its debate, owing, as he believed, 

 to its overgrown size.' 



" Mr. Johnson said the Senate had stigmatized 

 the House as a bear-garden, and contended, for 

 that reason, that its number must be reduced. Mr. 

 Pickens, in making an answer to some suggestions 

 to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Adams, 

 said that instead of meeting here for consultation 

 and legitimate discussion, if the House was in- 

 creased in size, it would be a body thrown into 

 confusion, and from its very numbers it would be 

 imbecile for all the purposes laid down in the 

 Constitution. 



" He further said that 



" ' He knew not what the reasons were which 

 had influenced the other body, but for himself he 

 was influenced by a fear that this House, if a large 

 body, would degenerate into a mob and break 

 down the barriers laid down in the Constitution.' 



" Now, the gentleman from Illinois does not 

 draw anything like so harrowing a picture of the 

 condition of this House as was drawn by these 

 great statesmen sixty years ago. Yet this House 

 still lives; it still exists as a deliberative body; 

 and there never was a time when it could transact 

 its business with greater despatch than it can this 

 very minute under the rules that now govern it. 

 We here have simply an illustration of the fact 

 that these difficulties and changes are not only 

 largely exaggerated, but to a great degree im- 

 aginary. 



" Let me go a little further and read another 

 quotation. 



