CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



145 



and measure up the population of the States. 

 That is what the Constitution says that Rep- 

 resentatives shall be apportioned among the 

 several States according to their respective 

 numbers; and you take that, as I say, and 

 measure the population of each State by it. 

 You go, for instance, into the State of Geor- 

 gia, and you find that you have a certain num- 

 ber as the Representatives to be assigned to 

 that State ; but after that you have a fraction. 

 Going around to all the States in the same way, 

 and assigning Representatives on even num- 

 bers according to this division, and you will 

 find that your footings up will not reach 320, 

 for in all of the States there will be a remain- 

 der after the first division. Now, how will you 

 supply that remainder? 



" The old method was to take the fractions 

 next in order approaching nearest to the num- 

 ber of population required, and assign the re- 

 maining members to those fractions. Now, we 

 thought that to be right. There was no objec- 

 tion to that rule. The people of the country 

 have assented to it as just and proper. Even 

 in the last Congress, when the communication 

 from the Census Office came in and laid down 

 that principle as the method of operating, no- 

 body got up in the House and let out this great 

 flood of new light and suggested this new order 

 of jthings with which we are met to-day. That 

 was regarded as a proper principle. No objec- 

 tion was made to it, and nobody ever heard of 

 this new plan before. 



"Now, Mr. Speaker, how is it that the new 

 method proposes to get at the number of mem- 

 bers? What is the result? I submit to the 

 Speaker and to the House that it is always a 

 fair test of any question to stop and look back 

 at your result after you get there ; for somehow 

 or other there comes a conviction if your re- 

 sult, when your attention is called to it, does 

 not look right, that there must be something 

 wrong in the argument, something the matter 

 with the process. 



" Now, when you take up this table, as pre- 

 sented by the committee and advocated by the 

 gentleman from New York, what do you find ? 

 When you find that Florida, Rhode Island, and 

 California are to give up one Representative 

 each, you begin to grow a little doubtful as to 

 whether your process is right or not; but 

 when you learn in addition to that that they 

 are not only to surrender it themselves but 

 that they are to lay it down in the laps of Illi- 

 nois, Pennsylvania, and New York, then I am 

 pretty well convinced that it is wrong. Now, 

 is it not wrong? The great States of this 

 Union are able to take care of themselves on 

 this floor." 



Mr. Briggs, of New Hampshire : " They are 

 trying to do it in this bill." 



Mr. Robinson : " My friend from New Hamp- 

 shire says they are trying to do it. No, sir. 

 There are gentlemen in those great States, I 

 believe, who will not support this claim and 

 will not gather power to themselves or to their 



VOL. XXII. 10 A 



States on this floor by sacrificing the weaker. 

 Gentlemen whose States are not affected di- 

 rectly by this computation will not stand tamely 

 by and let this go unheeded. Massachusetts 

 has no interest directly whether the apportion- 

 ment be under the one method or the other, 

 but she is interested with the other States 

 not in her section, for the sections are divided 

 in the extreme ; no 'places could be more re- 

 mote than California, Florida, and Rhode Island 

 in this great Union she is interested, I say, 

 that those other States shall be justly dealt 

 with. 



u What is proposed here ? The gentleman 

 recommending this method speaks of the Ala- 

 bama paradox ; and because under a certain 

 method of figuring there seemed to be some- 

 thing that surprised one, that is an argument 

 for abandoning the old scheme. Now, there 

 will be found to be paradoxes in the new 

 scheme." 



Mr. Bayne, of Pennsylvania : " I defy the 

 gentleman to point out one." 



Mr. Robinson : " I accept the gentleman's 

 defiance right here, because it is a peaceable 

 defiance. What is the plan ? It is to take 

 those numbers of the population of the great 

 States and so divide them up, it is said, that 

 the numbers shall be as near as possible all 

 over the country to the maximum number, 

 154,285. 



u Let us see what the gentleman says who is 

 the parent of the scheme. After commenting 

 upon the old method, he says I read from the 

 communication of Mr. C. W. Seaton, chief clerk 

 of the Census Office : 



" It is my opinion that it is not these remainders, 

 but rather the quotients which result trom dividing 

 the populations of the States by the increased num- 

 ber of Representatives, which should govern the allot- 

 ment, and that the additional Eepresentatives should 

 be so assigned that the population of the districts 

 formed in the State to which additional Kepresenta- 

 tives 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 Eepresentatives. 



" Unless this is in some other language than 

 the English, I have stated it right. But let us 

 look at some of the results. We want para- 

 doxes, it seems. 



" Now, I have some figures here just as they 

 are given under the old method. With six Rep- 

 resentatives for California each would stand for 

 144,615 persons. In Florida, with her two 

 Representatives, each would stand for 134,746. 

 In Rhode Island, with her two Representatives, 

 each would stand for 138,265. In New York, 

 with thirty-three Representatives, each would 

 stand for 154,026. In Pennsylvania, with 

 twenty-eight Representatives, each would stand 

 for 152,960. In Illinois, with twenty Repre- 

 sentatives, each would stand for 153,893. That 

 is under the old method. Now, Mr. Speaker, 



