CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



143 



the House, on February 7th, the bill to appor- 

 tion Representatives was considered. 



Mr. Prescott, of New York : u The sys- 

 tem upon which this bill is based is best set 

 out in the letter of its originator, Mr. 0. W. 

 Seaton, from which I request the Clerk to 

 read." 



The Clerk read as follows : 



The present tables differ from those contained in 

 your letter of January 17, 1881, addressed to Hon. S. 

 8. Cox, chairman of the Committee on the Census, 

 House of Representatives, in that they are based upon 

 the population as now finally determined, and in that 

 the calculations have been made upon assumptions as 

 to the total number of Representatives ranging from 

 275 to 350, both inclusive, the range in the original 

 tables having been from 293 to 325. 



While making these calculations I met with the so- 

 called " Alabama paradox," where Alabama was al- 

 lotted 8 Representatives out of a total of 299, receiving 

 but 7 when the total became 300. 



Such a result as this is to me conclusive proof that 

 the process employed in obtaining it is defective, and 

 that it does not in fact "apportion Representatives 

 among the several States according to their respective 

 numbers." 



This conclusion has been confirmed by the discov- 

 ery of other anomalies, and the result of my study of 

 this question is the strong conviction that an entirely 

 different process should be employed. 



That heretofore used is the following : 



The total representative population of the country 

 is divided by the proposed total number of Represent- 

 atives. The quotient obtained is " the ratio of Rep- 

 resentatives to population," or, in better phrase for 

 our present purpose, it is the number of inhabitants 

 which would fall to each congressional district, were 

 it possible to divide the whole country into districts 

 exactly equal in population. This number may, for 

 convenience in the discussion, be termed the modulus. 



This modulus is then applied as a divisor to the 

 population of the several States. The entire quo- 

 tient thus obtained for each State, after rejecting the 

 fraction, is evidently the minimum number of Repre- 

 sentatives which can be assigned to such State (except 

 in the case of a State having a population less than 

 the modulus, each State being entitled to at least one 

 Representative). 



Making a preliminary allotment of minimums in 

 this manner, the sum of the numbers so allotted will 

 be less than the number of Representatives originally 

 taken. 



The difference must now be made up by increasing 

 the allotment to certain States. It will result from 

 such assignment, of course, that the average number 

 of inhabitants to each Representative in the State to 

 which additional Representatives are allotted will be 

 less than the modulus, and that one or more of the 

 districts formed in such State shall have less than 

 their full quota. It is the mode of determining to 

 which of the States the additional Representatives 

 shall be assigned which I believe to be erroneous, and 

 it is at this point that the variance between the process 

 heretofore employed and the one which I now pro- 

 pose begins. (For the sake of convenience the two 

 processes will hereafter be characterized respectively 

 as the old and the new method.) 



The old method compares the remainders left after 

 the divisions above described, and assigns an addi- 

 tional Representative, first, to that State where the re- 

 mainder after division was greatest ; next, to the State 

 where the remainder was next in size ; and so on in 

 order of rank of the remainders until the difference 

 is made up. It is my opinion that it is not these re- 

 mainders out rather the quotients which result from 

 dividing the populations of the States by the increased 

 number of Representatives which should govern the 

 allotment, and that the additional Representatives 



should be so assigned that the population of the dis- 

 tricts formed in the State to which additional Repre- 

 sentatives are allotted shall fall as little below the 

 average number for the United States as possible ; in 

 other words, that the districts ultimately formed from 

 the States so increased shall approximate as closely as 

 possible in population to that of a district which 

 should be formed by dividing the total population of 

 the United States exactly by the proposed total num- 

 ber of Representatives. If it were true that districts 

 each containing a population exactly equal to the ratio 

 of Representatives to population for the United States 

 must first be carved out of each State, and that enough 

 districts to fill the quota were afterward to be made 

 from the fragments left, then the old method of allot- 

 ment would no doubt be the proper one. In that case 

 the largest remaining fragments would necessarily 

 receive the additional Representatives. But the prac- 

 tice and, so far as I know, the law has uniformly 

 aimed to divide the States finally, after the number 

 of Representatives for each State has been determined, 

 in such manner that in each State the districts shall 

 be as nearly equal to each other in population as pos- 

 sible. 



Having, therefore, as before, made the preliminary 

 allotment of minimums and ascertained the number 

 of Representatives which must still be assigned, I 

 would then determine, by trial, under what additional 

 distribution the number of inhabitants per Represent- 

 ative in the States whose representation is increased 

 would fall least below the ratio, and distribute accord- 

 ingly. 



Mr. Prescott : " Doubtless each member has 

 carefully studied the explanation and tables, 

 and I will spend no time in explanation further 

 of same. The committee after careful con- 

 sideration adopted this method, because they 

 believed it embodied the intent and design of 

 the Constitution, and apportioned the members 

 among the several States according to their 

 respective numbers. 



" At 320, the number provided in this bill, 

 Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont lose 1 

 under any form of division; but as between 

 the former method and the Seaton method, 

 California, Florida, and Rhode Island each gain 

 1 by the old method which by the Seaton 

 method they lose, and Illinois, New York, and 

 Pennsylvania gain the same. In other words, 

 Florida by the old method will have 134,746 

 to a member, Rhode Island 138,265 to a mem- 

 ber, and California 144,115 to a member, in 

 preference to giving these to the other three 

 States, which would then have Illinois, 146,- 

 565 ; Pennsylvania, 147,685 ; and New York, 

 149,496. 



" By the old method you give it to the largest 

 fraction, by the Seaton method you obtain 

 equality of representation as nearly as is pos- 

 sible. As between the methods there is no 

 dispute or uncertainty, but one question pre- 

 sented is whether New York with her 5,082,871 

 inhabitants, with an assessed valuation of prop- 

 erty subject to taxation of $2,686,139,133, 

 whose citizens hold $210,264,250 of the na- 

 tion's bonds, or about one third of all held by 

 citizens of the United States, being nineteen 

 times as many as are held in California, fifty- 

 two times as many as are held in Rhode Island, 

 eight hundred and thirty-one times as many as 

 in Florida; who represent one fifth of the 



