Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1869-07-28
Apportionment of Members Of Con-
greSS.
RULE or AproRrIoNMENr.

two reasons first, that no one proportion or
diyisor Of the representative population would
give the number and allotment Of representa-
tivcs proposed and second, that while the
Constitution had provided that the number of
representatives shall not exceed one for every
thirty thousand, (which he construed to mean
in any State as well as in the Union,) the
bill exceeded that rate in eight Of the States
Tho debate on that bill indicates that thirty
thousand was the ratio on which it was based,
and as by his first objection the President de-
clarcs that this ratio will not produce the
number fixed in the BILL we have inferred
that Congress allowed the eight members for
fractions and that gave ground for the second
objection On examination, we find that this
inference is correct The process, therefore,
was to fix the total number Of members by
dividing the representative population by thir-
ty thousand and then, in the allotment, af-
ter allowing to each State for every thirty
thousand, (leaving the fractions, and of course
allotting somewhat less than the total number
Of mcmbers,) a member was assigned to each
State having the largest fraction until the
number of the House was filed This was
done after the census had been taken. 80 the
representative population in the Union and
in the several States was known to Congress
The vetoed bill failed and another was passed
based on a ratio Of $4,000 This obviated
Washington's objections, besause the number
Of representatives could not exceed one for
every thirty thousand in either the Union or
any State. We note the fact however, that
this bill was framed precisely as was the first
with the simple change Of the ratio from thr-
ty to thirty-three thousand. The allotment
also was in the same mode, including allot-
ments for fractions and this mode prevailed
in every apportionment until the act Of 1850.
The custom preceding that act was, we repeat,
first to ascertain the representative popua-
ton, and then fix the number which should
be entitled to a member for examples, 49,
600 ON the census of 1890 and 1900. 35, 600
,o,o ,o ooo r. 1ooo -oo r. toon
Ior lolV' fV'oVV Ior Low f'i'VV lor l0'V'
and 70,GS0 for 1910 In this mode the num-
70 d, n $50,
Der OF the House was hXed, alter winch the
attainment was made to the States ALWAYS al.
lowing member Tor the largest fraction TO
complete the previously ascertained number.
that
Conoress to choose ratio that would leave
the smallest unrepresented fractions or ra-
tjo which wonld reduce the representntion in
,a,, ~,
no state, as ny the act oil ISL Inc latter
would unquestonably have been the simplest,
most satisfactory and best rule until the num-
III
po' VI '"o iio'90 s"'u'' nav 'e'0'ou '"o
highest point desirable ; while the first would
-. Ill. II Ill
"i""J' ~ 9" '"'V' "O"'N w" iN7'
always adhere to it, But Congress did not
,dboro 10; Tho cbor,o sto,ds ON tb, en-
'' N''''' - ''''''''' '' wv
cora undiSpu'eu' 'na' the aPportonment oil
looo was bargain between some oil the
states at the expense oil the rest In 1857
senator clayton said
Inc prncIpe o. the o.i SEM US IRON ~ tue
be persisted in, always will giye,) the larger
Ha't tS .e nnvaaSass IN iePreS e Dy THROW
sentative is allowed, on the smaller meIqbers Or
the gnntIeman from North Caroino Mr. Man,
gum,) admitted this, but told as that it was iney-
trnmns viii oI1ay vs. win the tricts renlied
then, that if now the principal States
an S Sne oSern s ~ mn n"a mia od 5a nn
50 much the subject of complaint with us that
mos tho go baJ We s u nlf, t so ~o ee " %
trumps,"
And again--We use his ltahc
~ has Ilot geeH ae"led' that such apportlon
orsome Of the larger States to secure to themselye
the greatest possible share OF political power II
an arbitrary ratio, bearing no proportion to III,
number OF members IN the llouse 1t cannot D
cd, should this rule continue IN operation.
Still again, to illustrate this view, Mr.
CLAYTON demonstrated that, under the thei
pending House bill five of the large States
all adjoining had representative population
232,943 less than the other nineteen State.
and yet to these five States the bill assignee
l21 members, and only 1l9 to the ninetee
States.
When the same bill was pending in tn
House, John Quincy Adams stated that 6y
gentlemen of the committee that reported tn
bill had given to each of their States a repr,
sentative for from AS O54 to 4q937. while
: six other States the constituency required ro
, from 5O,73O to 5613l - Vermont bavin
' the largest constituency, and New Hampsbi,
the next. Mr.. Polk replied that the bin be-
equalized fractions in the Northern. Easter
/, and Western sections of the country Tins p
=, vealing the fact that the committee had souol
= to equaize representatives 6et,seea the ne
Qraplical sections of The couutry. 10 the no,
e eot of the constitutional requirement III,
5 " they shall be apportio,,ed among The serer,
r States"
J. We have thus exhibited the unsatisGeto,