The Portland daily press., 1870-01-08
DAILY PRESS
Saturday Morning, January 8, 1870.
Washington Letter.
PORI'IAND

Washington Letter.
From our Regular Correspondent
WASHINGTON, D. c., Jan. 8, 1869
THE NEXT APPoRTIoNMENT.
| To the Editor Of the Press:
As soon as Congress re-assembles the de-
bate on the next apportiontment will begin.
There are two bills pending, one presented
by Mr.. Allison of Iowa, and the other by Mr..
Judd of Chicago. These propositions are
similar in form, and both arrange the next
House on the basis of membership of three
hundred. The number of representatives and
the period at which the apportionment shall
be made, are the chief points at issue in the
discussion. The friends of these measures
say that the west is now unjustly deprived of
its rights; owing to the great and rapid in
crease of population therein. They want the
Secretary OF the Interior, if do not misun-
derstand their plan, to take the enumeration
just as soon as tabulated by States and as a
total, and make the apportionment on the
basis of three hundred Representatives. To
wait until the entire census is completed, is,
the western men say, to deprive them and the
South of their rightful representation for at
least two years, ard probably more. The
present H1use numbers 243 members Tor
would If the south was all presently 1t was
made on the enumeration of 1860, and gives
one Representative to about 12S,0O0 persons.
The West will, believe, be found united in
supporting the increased representation and
the early apportionment. Certainly the lat
ter will have the undivided vote of South and
West. it surprises me somewhat to find that
the eastern members especially are inclined
to oppose both these propositions. Mr.. Hale,
of your State, has prepared speech in oppo-
sition, and it is understood that other New
England members follow in the views. 1t IS
perfectly certain that with our population at
100000, and not more than 25O members
in the House, the New England States will
find themselves considerably reduced in the
number of their Representatives. That
will give one Representative for every
100000, while the western proposition of 800,
will give 1888 1-3 persons for each Repre-
sentative. Certainly that ought not to be
considered too small basis, But it seems a
mistake to base this matter of apportionment
on the number of members. A wiser
and safer plan it appears to me is to
determine how many persons ought
reasonably to be entitled to representative.
1t ought not to be difficult to judge what
number would make a population sufficiently
homogeneous. A number being decided upon,
say 10000, for the next apportionment, let
the House grow Herewith, be its number
more or less. Any fraction exceeding ore-half
100000 for instance, might also be entitled
to representative in arranging the number
for State. Then at any time if a State prov
ed its having an additional popu alton, entit-
ling it to one more representative, Congress
would authorize the same. Then the rule fol
the admission of new States, would, so far as
population is concerned, be definitely settled
If at any future enumeration it should be
found that the House was growing unwieldy
the basis of representation might be increased
Sidney Clarke of Kansas, is understood to be
the ratio of representation for each State
| since the government was founded, the basis
| Of apportionment, and the increase or decrease
In each State. He also takes the votes cast
for members of the 41st Congress, and pre-
sents somewhat striking contrasts. In Rhode
Island. for instance. the vote in Mr.. Jenckes
district was little more than $4,000; whil,
that in Mr.. Dixon's was less than $500
| the vote of the State not being 10000 in all
| In West Virginia one district cast less thar
| 1000 votes. In Massachusetts there Are two
| or three districts that do not cast NOR,
than $4,000 TO 10000 votes. In your STATE
the average is higher. West of the ALE
| shanies on to the Pacific. with but there
exceptions (those being Oregon, Nevada and
Nebraska) the votes of each district range
from about $1,000 up to nearly A.
600. For instance, Ger. Schenck's district
(Ohio) cast $4,000 votes; Nblack's of Indi-
| ana, 43,413; BuT's of ILL.,, 39,S17; Culloms
about 10000; Judd's (Chicago) over 10000.
The 9TH District, Michigan, 34,S35. The 1st
District in Minnesota, 34,7s7; The 4th Illinois
4O,5SS. Kansas cast $4,000 votes, and
the 1st District, California, nearly A.
WV ~ - Cdoy " diIduSc ISL
Western States in which more votes will have
been cast for President than five or six of the
older States, taking Pennsylvania as the larg-
est and grouping about New Jersey and sew
eral Of the New England States. 1t will be
seen also that the latter States will have ten
to fifteen more members in the House. Now
unless it is deemed desirable to bring on a
discussion upon the right of States to equal
Senatorial representation, it will be very much
better for the Atlantic States to give way in
the matter of early apportionment and in
crease in numbers.
1t seems as if the New England States
should be glad of the opportunity to support
an increase in the members, as otherwise it is
inevitable that their representation will be de-
creased In all probability, Maine and Con-
necticut will be the only ones that will main
tain their present number. Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire
are likely to lose one each, if the present
number be adhered to. Thoughtful Western
men do not desire to see this. They would
rather have more New England men than
less, if it could be done without injustice to
their section. 1t is not supposable that one
man can represent Rhode Island, for instance,
as well as two.
JUDGE HOAR'S NOMINATION.
We have not got.to the end of this matter,
and the desire to get the Attorney General
out Of that Office, where his views of the lin
itations of Senatorial influence and the rights
of the Executive so directly control, may f.
nallyl land him on the Supreme Bench. Judge
Hoar has been unfortunate or otherwise, ac-
cording to the way he or his friends regard it,
to Draw the first fire in the contest coming be-
tween Executive and Senate. 1t is without
doubt true that the chief objection to Mr..
Hoar among Senators Is the fact that he re-
sisted strenuously their attempts to control
the patronage of the Administration. He
holds the theory that the Executive is vested
with the power and duty of nominating. He
is held responsible through impeachment; !;
Senators are not. The present system is Gre
ating Senatorial oligarchy. Mr.. Hoar, in
the language of the "bhoys," "went for" this
thing. 1t was probably Quixotic, especially
when he gave his opponents such an excellent
opportunity to turn him out, or at least try.
have heard the following as an ilustra-
tion Of Senatorial motives. There are two
gentlemen representing Northwestern State,