Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-02-04
House of Representatires.


to adjourn. Agreed to. Adjourned.
House of Representatives..
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3.-A resolution was Of
fered and referred providing that every day
after the morning hour one hour be set aside
during which members may ask for unani-
nous consent for consideration and passage Of
bills.
The Indian appropriation bill was reported
with the Senate amendments, the committee
recommending concurrence in some and nom
currence in others. Among the amendments
nonconcurredin is that striking out the abol.
ishing the Indian commission, Report agreed
to. The apportionment bill was then taken
up. Mr.. Cox offered an amendment fixing the
number of Representatives at 307. Ordered
printed and considered pending.
Mr.. Sherwin, member of the census COM
mitteee, took the floor on the bill. There was
no reason that apportionment should not be
made this session since all data were in upon
which to make the calculation.
proposed he showed that at sol, the number
| first suggested by Mr.. Cox, the Democratic
States would gain eight Republicans and lose
| two, net gain six; the Republican States would
gain ten and lose eight, net gain two. At the
| number selected by the majority of the CON-
mittee, 81, the Democratic States would gain
twelve and lose none; the Republican States
| would gain ten and lose four, net gain six. At
$40, the number recommended by the minor
| ity, the Democrats and Republicans would
each gain thirteen. He argued in support of
the latter bill, contending that mathemati-
| calIy, as well as politically, it melted exact
justice to every portion of the country.
Mr.. New inquired if $40 would not leave
larger unrepresented population than 3Ol, S01
or 311
Mr.. Sherman replied it left slightly larger
| number of people unrepresented than did one
of the other numbers, he forgot which,
Mr. Crowley opposed an increase In his
judgment that State should be denied repre-
sentation in just the proportion in which it
denied the right to vote. Massachusetts, and
Connecticut had imposed an educational
qualification which deprived many of that
right Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire,
and Virginia had added qualification
and the allegation had been made that in six
teen Southern States voters have been dis
franchised by violence and intimidation. He
opposed the bill of the majority on the
ground it did provide for a continuance of
the district system. and argued that to
change that system wouldn't be good states
Mr.. Ray denied his State proposed prop
erty qualification.
Mr.. Thompson, of Kentucky, replied to
a criticism of Crowley on the majority bill,
asserting that the district system was provided
for in separate law, and there was no need
of re-enactment in the present bill. As to the
number of members which the House
was more to fear from reduction than
an increase. Had he to choose he would pre-
fer an increase to four and five hundred to a
reduction of single one. Large bodies were
less cOrruptible and Representatives of the
West and South would favor an increase of
Representatives until the House could with
stand any attack which capitalists of the East
could make against them. He then proceeded
to compare the various apportionment bills
and argued in favor of the minority bill as be-
ing the best and fairest to every State and sec
ton.
Mr.. Hoar thought the apportionment bill
founded on the last vote of the people would
meet the requirements of the constitution bet
ter than one based upon the census. The
whole number of votes cast in the thirty-eight
States was G, 1891 900. The average number of
votes cast for Congressman was 81 1882. If
representation was fixed at 311, as proposed
by the majority bill, the average
would be 1885. He then pro-
ceeded to compare the number
of members which were accorded the Southern
States by the bill with those to which they
were fairly entitled. Massachusetts was ac-
corded seven members, whereas, on the basis
of the vote, she was only entitled to four.
Alabama was allowed eight, whereas it was
only entitled to six. 1t got under this bill
Congressman for every Is, 600 votes, or $1,000
less than the average required to elect Con-
gresham. Georgia was allowed ten repre-
seatatives though entitled to only five.
Mr.. Hammond, of Georgia, said the logic of
the gentleman's remarks was that apporton-
ment ought to based on the figures of the
last election, and not on members, as required
by the constitution. Considering that |
to be true would it not lee the best
way for the Republican party to subceed
In Georgia. to refuse 10 vote at all and thus
greatly reduce the representation from that
State.
Mr.. Hoar---It comes so nearly to that ALREADY
it doesn't make much difference. Continuing
his comparison he instanced Louisiana as
being allowed six Republicans, though only |
entitled to three, Texas ten, though entitled to
but eight, aud Virginia ten, though entitled to
but seven. Now take the Northern States. !
The bill gave New York thirty-two members, |
but if the vote was taken for basis of calcu- |
lation New York would be entitled to thirty |
seven If New York were given member for |
a vote which would elect member |
from Georgia she would have |
seventy-one members on the floor |
of the House. IF Ohio was given members |
on the voting basis, she would be entitled q,
u. If Ohio were allowed member for the !
same number of voters which would elect one
from Louisiana she would be represented in |
the next House by 45 members sufficient
to satisfy the claims of her unobtrusiye,
politicians, uaughter.) Indiana