CONGRESS. (APPORTIONMENT OP REPRESENTATIVE*.) 



221 



the great growth of the population of the 

 :ites compared \\itli the population a 

 ago. On page 4 of the report 

 : i he lix'invs i.f i he population of 1790, 

 Tin- population of the I'nited States 

 'i-.'-J.'J .'.(I. But, .Mr. Speaker, I do 

 r it necessary to dwell upon this in- 

 in our population. It will, however, bo a 

 tier to be considered when we discuss the 

 -tin n wlici her our present representation shall 

 ,nin, or whether it shall be increased accord- 

 to the provisions of this bill. 

 There is a diversity of opinion among the 

 f the House, and there was some 

 ig the members of the committee, upon that 

 it. There were those upon the committee 

 jring the present number of members. There 

 also upon the committee one gentleman, the 

 iber from South Carolina, who advocated a 

 increase in the membership of the House, 

 committee finally decided to accept and 

 _ lopt the number 856. I shall bo asked why 

 tli is number rather than any other was selected. 

 I reply that it was selected because it was found 

 to l>e the number first reached between 332 and 

 that would secure to each State its present 

 resentation. 



1 The committee discovered in the House a de- 

 unwillingness, almost universally enter- 

 icd and very largely expressed, to consent to 

 any reduction in the present number of members 

 <l to any State. This bill, therefore, pro- 

 vides that no State shall suffer a decrease in its 

 present representation. This was one object 

 sought in the apportionment which has been 

 made. The number 356 is also fortunate, as was 

 found, in this, that, using it primarily as a di- 

 visor in the aggregate population of the United 

 States, after subtracting the population of the 

 t of Columbia and the four Territories, a 

 rai io was obtained which, divided into the popu- 

 lation of each State, gave the most favorable re- 

 sults. That ratio was 173,901, With this as a 

 ratio, the present bill has been constructed. The 

 outcome has already been stated to the House. 

 " As I have already said, there has been an in- 

 to thirteen States of one member each. 

 Four States get two additional members each, and 

 one State gets three additional members. Using 

 that number, 173,901, as the divisor, the ratio, it 

 was discovered in its use that there would be 

 left no fraction, and no State unprovided for 

 having a fraction more than one half. That was 

 not found to be true with any other ratio than 

 173,901. If gentlemen will turn to page 13 of 

 the report thev will see that no major fractions 

 remain in making up the number of members 

 assigned to the House. On an even division by 

 this ratio the number of members found was 339. 

 This statement will be found substantially pre- 

 sented on the third page of the report accom- 

 panying this bill. 



"In order to obtain the number 356, after hav- 

 ing obtained the number 339, whether pursuing 

 the old or the new method, fractions were sought 

 which would entitle a given State to an addi- 

 tional member, as 17 additional members were 

 needed in order to make the total number 356. 

 Tho following States were found to have major 

 fractions: Alabama, California, Georgia, Indi- 

 ana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massa- 



chusetts. Oregon, Rhode Island, Smith Carolina, 

 South Makota. Texas Vermont, Virginia, and 

 Wisconsin. Using the major fractions as they 

 were found to exist, the additional 17 members 

 were secured and there was no major fraction 

 left, so that, approximately, complete justice was 

 done to all the States. 



" As I said a moment ago there were thoise 

 upon the committee who aatfaed to retain the 

 present number, but it was found that that could 

 not be used without contravening what seemed 

 to bo the universal sentiment of the House, be- 

 cause very many States would lose one from 

 their present representation. There would be 

 ten States that would lose one member each. 

 Letting this fact guide us, there was found to be 

 no other number that we could reasonably make 

 use of than 350, and no other ratio than 173.901. 



" Mr. Speaker, this bill, in my judgment, is an 

 eminently fair one, and I think it must commend 

 itself to all the members of this House as fair 

 and just. Recognizing the wish of the House 

 that there should be no diminution of member- 

 ship, the committee were forced, as I have said, 

 to the acceptance of the number 356. Gentle- 

 men will, of course, see that some number ulti- 

 mately must be used, and some ratio ultimately 

 must control the committee. Three hundred and 

 fifty-nine is a number that would let in three 

 additional Representatives. A good argument 

 can be made in favor of that number. It would 

 give the State of Arkansas, the State of Minne- 

 sota, and the State of New York one additional 

 member each. I made the motion in the com- 

 mittee that 359 be adopted, but it did not meet 

 the concurrence of the committee. 



"The difficulty in increasing to 359 will be 

 seen by an examination of the tables presented 

 in the report. It will be seen that by using the 

 ratio which would then be necessary, namely, 

 172,448; and going through with all the States 

 in that way, there would remain to some States 

 fractions unprovided for as large as the fractions 

 which now remain unprovided for to Arkansas, 

 Minnesota, and New York. And, if we were to 

 step forward 2. 3, 4, or any given number, we 

 would have a different ratio, and therefore a dif- 

 ferent condition of the remaining unprovided 

 for fractions. 



" So that, Mr. Speaker, there is a necessity for 

 stopping somewhere. No State is really legis- 

 lated against, because no State having a major 

 fraction is left out. If I recollect, Mr. Speaker 

 and I was a member of the House when the 

 apportionment bill based upon the ninth census 

 and also the bill based upon the tenth census 

 passed A major fraction absolutely controlled 

 in both of those cases. We are making no de- 

 parture, therefore, when we insist that the num- 

 ber 356 has been properly taken and may be 

 properly adhered to. If we depart from it we 

 shall find ourselves liable to do injustice to 

 anot her class of States, while no State is really 

 unjustly treated by the proposed apportion- 

 ment." 



Mr. Flower, of New York, attacked the appor- 

 tionment on the ground that the enumeration of 

 the population of New York city was incorrect : 



" Under this bill the State of New York will 

 have 34 Representatives in Congress, the same 

 number that it now has. It is my purpose to 



