The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-03-11
raE ArroRrroNMeNr OF REPRESENTS
ATIvES


the bill making an apportionment OF repre-
sentatives in congress, Mr.. Wellborn said
Mr.. SpEAKER-The third paragraph
the second section of the first article oil th
constitution provides that
Representatives and direct taxes shall b
apportioned among the several states whicl
NAV be included within this union, accord
ing to their respective numbers.
And further, that 1.-THE actual enumera
ton shall be made within three years afte
the first meeting of the congress of tn
United States, and within every subse
quent term Of ten years.
The end contemplated by these two pro
visions, n decennal redistribution of tina
part of the political power of the govern
ment exercised and voiced by this house
ought to be the result of three processes.
Named in logical sequence, they arr
these:
First, the fixing of the total number o
representatives with sole reference to M
efficient exercise Of the functions which be
long to the house, and due preservation
Of the representative principle upon which
1t is founded.
Second, the ascertainment ofthe ratio o
representatives to population.
Third, the distribution of the number Of
: representatives InuS lAtu oii tilc IHtlu tlus
ascertained among the states.
These processes succeed each other In the
order named by q continuous logical rela-
ton, and any change in the order will
break the series and tend to vicious conse
quences.
1t has been maintained that the first
thing TO be done in an apportionment is to
fix the ratio of representatives to popula-
ton, i. G. the.number of inhabitants entitled
to one representative, then divide the who G
population of the United States by this ra-
tic and let the quotient be the total number
of representatives The objection to this
plan is that it makes the size of the house a
pure mathematical result, when it
ought to be u fact determined independent
iy Of all calculations based on numbers.
The considerations which should determine
the size OF the house are, reasonable adapt.
ability to the functions II Is designed to
perform, and due preservation of the rep
resentative principle upon which it is
founded. These considerations are more
likely to control when the number ofrepre-
sentatives is fixed in the outset.
Now referring TO these tables, take the
number Of representatives reported by the
committee--320. The total number ofrepre-
sentatives on an even division is 1902; the
number to be made up is eighteen.
Both methods give the same result as
70 fifteen members; they vary as to
the three remaining members, and there
fore affect six states. Each OF those large
states-Illinois New York and Pennsylva-
nia,-gains two additional representatives
for each fraction, while California, Florida
ana Rhode Island are denied one represen-
tative each, although having large trac-
tons. BY the new method the aggregate
Of unrepresented fractions is 2i0969 larger
than by the old method. Kindred results
are shown In oil these tables. There is no
total number Of representatives which can
be selected in which this same result will
not be manifested; that is that additional
representatives are allotted to large states
for small fractions, while additional repre-
sentatives are withheld from small states
that have larger fractions.
Now, the old method Is the correct
method for the reason that by allotting ad-
diti0nal representatives to the states whose
fractions are largest, there will remain the
smallest aggregate of unrepresented frac-
tons, and, as have already shown, this Is
Me nearest possible approach to mathe-
NAUTICAL exactncss. Bnt again, this old
method Is based upon the plain, simple
rule of three. As was stated pertinently
by my colleague Mr.. Millsl few days ago,
II there be truth in mathematical rules,
then the old method is correct. The pro-
portion which 1t iormulates is simply this.
the whole representative population of the
United States Is to the total number of rep
resentatiyes as the population Of each state
is to its share IN the representative power.
II will be observed In applying this pro-
portion to tho population Of the several states
that the first and second terms are fixed;
the process, therefore, can be abridged by
dividing the first by the second, and then
applying II as divisor to the third. To
illustrate this old method, take the nun.
Der proposed by the gentleman from New
York, Mr.. Cox, 307. The proportion then
reads 40, 81 $40, which is the whole popula.
tlon Of the United States, Is TO 307 as sos, :.
1l the population Of New York, is to New
FORKS share in the representative power
ofthe government. That proportion works
out rs the exact mathematical share
for New York 3l.63 representatives
New York s so 81 % tSe new gives @cthd ,G
gives her SO. Why ought she not to have
J2i Why should she have IS? She ought
TO have 81, because Is additional represen
'tatiyes are to BIO made up, and her fraction
II sixteenth in point of size and besides 3.
in this case, as Is usually true under the ole
method. il tho nearest whole number /,
which New York is entitled. Now is no
the constitution fully satisfied when sh,
gets her 32 members? Is not the constitu
ton violated when you go further and civ,
her q thirty-third member? For what /
the thirty-third member given herr No
for numbers; numbers do not entitlc her /,
quite S2. Not In order TO apportion accord
ing TO numbers rs nearly as Is attainablc
tor ~ is tine nearest attainable number /,
mathematical exactness. Why, then. /,
the name of common spnac and cnp,n,o a,
Justice, give her this thirty.third member
II here Is no reason for IL.
The second objection to this new metho,
is that its Inevitable effect Is unjustly /,
aggrandize the political power of the large
states NJ the expense of the smaller states
The tables to which have already refcrret
show this result beyond all dispute, Her
We find that Illinois, taking the report a
the majority OF the committee for n frnr
uon OF lA6OV Is given two additional ron
rescntatives, while California, with a fras
ton OF W,ap, Is denied one. New Yor
also gets two additional representatives IA
Traction OF $4,000, while Rhode IslanG
With fraction of 10, 2i6, Is denied on,
fonnsvlvania gets two additional renr,
santatives for u fraction of III. i0S wiki
2O8. s ""N''o"o VI ITO
But take the number suggested hv ~,
gentleman from New York; 3OJ. md IL
sire 70 compare the states of New York NV
Rhode Island. New York, with n fraciln
o. W.iss, gets two additional represent
tiyes, while Rhode Island with n larr,
ractionot ilo,Il2, Is denied one. That Is