The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-02-16
THE AppoRrroNmENr BILL.


the committee, will not pass. There
was a discussion in the house upon
this bill on the 9th, in which it APP
peared to be uncompromisinglv an
The objections urged /
against it are because ofthe computa-
ton upon which it is based, and the
discussion showed that they are
very general and not at all partisan. |
A Republican spe, ial gives a run OF
the debate as follows:
Prescott, who reported the bill,
opened the debate i'll its support, |
reading a lengthy speech, IN which |
he recalled the history of the several !
appOrtIonments made by congress,
to show that none of them give sat
isfaction, closing his argument in
favor OF giving increased represen-
tation to the state of New York on
the score of its wealth and the bonds
held and taxes paid by its citizens,
for which argument he was pitiless-
ly scored by the speakers who sue
ceeded him.
Robinson, who followed him, took
up the figures of representation
under the old method and the pro-
posed new one to show the inius-
tice of the latter. Taking the six
states whose representation is the
principal subject of dispute-Cali-
fornia. Florida and Rhode Island,
which lose one member each and
New York, Pennsylvania and Hi
nois, each of which gain one mem
ber-he showed that under the old
method California having six
members each would represent
144,6l5 persons; Florida's men,
bers would each represent 134, JAG;
Rhode Island, 2 members, 13S, 265;
New York, 80 members, 154,O26;
Pennsylvania, % members, 152, $3.50;
Illinois, 20 members, each member
would represent 172,03S persons.
Florida's member would represent
269, 493; Rhode Islands member
would represent 276,5Sl; New York's
"a members would each represent
167, 695, and Illinois II would each
represent 1866. This on scale
representation of one to every 1884,
285 persons. Under the old method
each member from California repre-
scented $3.50 less than the full num-
Der; from Florida, 1860; from
Rhode Island, 5000; from New
York, 40; from Pennsylvania, l, 1926,
and from Illinois, 1872; but under the
new method each Of California's
members represented 1868 more
than the full number; FlOrida's one
member represented 105,208 more,
and the Rhode Island members 1922
246 more, while each of the New
York members represented 4,7S9,
Pennsylvania $4,000, and Illinois
1920 less.
Mr.. Robinson, in summing up,
said the new method was probably
at fault, was unjust and would not
be adopted.
Mills, of Texas, made a ten min
utes' speech against the bill on po-
litical grounds. and Howe, of MiChi-
gan, followed, characteriZing the
bill based on the new method as an
outrage on common-sense. Cbace,
of New Hamp shire, said the ques-
lion of apportionment had been dis
cussed by the great minds of the ma
ton for ten decimal periods, but
none of them had discovered a
method of giving state one more
member than it is entitled to, il re-
naming for this clerk in the census
Office (Mr. SeatOn) TO find such a
method. lie made calculation to
show that by the process of strik-
ing proportion between the pOpu-
lation of the states and the total
population and thus finding what
proportion of the representation OF
800 each is entitled to, New York
should get 2,946; Pennsylvania, 81
759; Illinois, 19,949; Rhode Island,
1892; California, 1904; Florida,
1,746, and yet under the new
method New York Pennsylvania and
Illinois were each given two adj
ditional members for their fractions
and the fractions on the three other
states were unrepresented. lie
asked, ais there any justice in this!
is there any equity? Is there any
warrent i'll the constitution for it?''
By another calculation he showed
that nine states-Maryland, Mich.
gan, Missouri, Indiana, New York,
| cuusylHuultt, IilluOlS, OHlO anu
IOwa-with an average population
of %, 1884, 81, would have 160 of the
800 members, leaving an equal num-
Der TO be apportiOned among the
other states whose population aggre-
gate 1885, AGA, thus DISTINGUISHING
1,401, 595. Again he took the case OF
Illinois with a population of 3,077,-
81 having according to the new
method twenty-one members, while
Arkansas, California, Wisconsin,
Rhode Island and Florida with an
aggregate population of 3,528,7
were assigned total of twenty
members.
A further calculation went to il
lustrate the fact that in the eight
states of Michigan, Kentucky, Mas
sachusetts, Indiana, illinois, Ohio
Pennsylvania anO New York the
ratio of population to representa-
ton was not IN single case up to
the ratio fixed ia the bill, while out
of TWENTY-FIVE smaller states whose
individual population was below
], 100000 the ratio ranged from 1885,.
900 to 276, 200, in but one of them
below that fixed in the bill.