146 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



it is apparent that those numbers are pretty 

 nearly alike, while varying somewhat. 



*' I will now go over to the new method and 

 see how it will bear the same comparison. In 

 California, with five Representatives, each must 

 stand for 172,938. In Florida, with one Rep- 

 resentative, that one Representative must stand 

 for 269,493 persons. Paradox No. 1 ! In 

 Rhode Island, with her one Representative, 

 that one man must stand for 276,531 persons. 

 Paradox No. 2 ! In New York, with thirty- 

 four Representatives, each one will stand for 

 149,496. In Pennsylvania, each will stand for 

 147,685, and in Illinois each will stand for 146,- 

 565. 



" Now, at first blush, does anybody think 

 that is right ? Is that a fair representation of 

 the people of the United States ? I know they 

 raise able and brilliant men in Rhode Island. 

 I do not believe they raise any one quite smart 

 enough to overlie that whole State and have 

 superfluous energy enough to represent 276,531 

 people on the scale of 154,285. The compari- 

 son shows that Pennsylvania and New York 

 are not quite up to that standard, and they want 

 more men. 



" There is another statement. Under the 

 old method -the California members would each 

 represent 9,670 people less than the full num- 

 ber. The Florida members would each repre- 

 sent 19,869 less than the full number. The 

 Rhode Island members would each represent 

 16,020 less than the full number. The New 

 York members would each represent 159 less 

 than the full number. The Pennsylvania mem- 

 bers would each represent 1,325 less than the 

 full number. The Illinois members would 

 each represent 392 less than the full num- 

 ber. 



" Now go to the new method. California : 

 each man would represent 18,653 more than 

 the full number. Florida : its member would 

 represent 105,208 more than the full number. 

 Rhode Island : its member would represent 

 122,246 more than the full number. Now look 

 at the other three States. New York : each 

 member would represent 4,789 less than the 

 full number. Pennsylvania : each member would 

 represent 6,600 less than the full number. And 

 Illinois : each member would represent 7,720 

 less than the full number." 



Mr. Calkins, of Indiana: "That is, in each 

 district?" 



Mr. Robinson : " I am speaking of the num- 

 ber for each Representative. Is that equality 

 of representation? Do you want any more 

 paradoxes ? 



"I suppose it is not seriously claimed, Mr.. 

 Speaker, in this House, that the wealth of any 

 State shall ultimately determine the ratio of 

 representation. Much may be pardoned to the 

 gentleman from New York, of course, for his 

 pride in his State. We all have the same pride 

 in our respective States. We find something 

 very dear to us in the people we represent 

 upon this floor. That is all right. It is right 



for us to have that pride and deep sense of 

 honor. But, after all, when the fathers wrote 

 in the Constitution that the Representatives 

 should be apportioned among the several States 

 according to their respective numbers, they 

 did not make it within the power of this Con- 

 gress thereafter to prescribe the qualification 

 of wealth, nor that the members who sit here 

 should be able to make their qualifications se- 

 cure by presenting the roll of their bonds or of 

 the acres of their lands. I have proposed an 

 amendment to the bill to strike out the first 

 section and to replace it with a new first sec- 

 tion, making the number 320, because, as I 

 said, I did not propose to discuss that question 

 of the total number, What I may choose to 

 vote by-and-by, in regard to the whole number 

 of the House, is not of importance in my pres- 

 ent consideration. But I ought to say, perhaps, 

 that as little increase as practicable from the 

 present number I believe to be wise. 



" Of course we have given a great deal of 

 consideration in this hall during the last Con- 

 gress to this subject. We find that taking dif- 

 ferent parts of the country, and making the 

 allotments to the several States, the number 



319 would be practically fair and equal. But 



320 differs from that so little that it does not 

 seem to me that we would make much by any 

 long discussion as to what should be the total 

 number. I want to say that I have not only 

 recognized that full number in the amendment 

 which I have offered, but. I have made the 

 amendment to correspond to the line of my 

 argument. 



" That is, I have said to Pennsylvania, New 

 York, and Illinois, you are entitled to one less 

 each under this old scheme ; and to the States 

 of Florida, Rhode Island, and California, you 

 ought to have one more. In other words, I 

 say that the new method proposed is so 

 wretchedly and palpably at fault, is so un- 

 just to the three States last named by me, and 

 does more than justice to the three States first 

 named, that we ought not adopt it, but should 

 rather retain the old one." 



Mr. Mills, of Texas: " Mr. Speaker, the pri- 

 mal, central object of the provision in the Con- 

 stitution requiring a census of the population 

 of the States to be taken every ten years was 

 to afford a basis for the distribution of polit- 

 ical power. This is a representative govern- 

 ment, and our fathers in forming this govern- 

 ment were careful to provide for a correct rep- 

 resentation of its people. They have laid down 

 a defined method of representation in this 

 House ; and that political power which is the 

 safeguard of their liberties and the safeguard 

 of the liberties and rights of their children 

 they have said shall be distributed among the 

 people of the States in proportion to their 

 numbers." 



The Speaker : " The next amendment in or- 

 der is that offered by the gentleman from Kan- 

 sas (Mr. Anderson), which will be read." 



The Clerk read as follows: 





