New-York tribune., 1882-02-10
THE APPORTIONMENT QUESTION
[DY TELEGRAPH TO THE tribune


WAsHINGToN Feb. 9.-There is hardly any room
10 doubt that if Mr.. Cox, of New-York makes the
motion of which he gave notice to-day-to recon-
init the Apportionment bill to the Committee on
Census with instructions 20 report bill Ill accord
ance with the old method of appOrtiOnment-lt will
he carried by a large majority. On one matter a
large majority of the members appear to be agreed
that they will have none of this new method,
which appears to have been doomed from the mo-
ment Mr. Prescott concluded his injudiciOds speech
in favor of it, Ii is possible that if Mr. Prescott ha
made such an argument in favor of the new method,
as Mi. McCoid made to-day, the House might hav
been persuaded to adopt it, but Mr.. McCod
sDeech able as il certainly was, came too late to
save his bill and the committee from defeat.
Mr. Colerick, the Indiana member of mournful
manner detained the House again to-day for nearly
an hour with his doleful oratory. and incidentally
advocated House TO consist OF $40 members he
was not interrupted.
Mr.. Davidson, of Florida-a State, which, under
the McCoid bill loses one of her two Representa-
tiycs-opposed tic measure He said that. within
the last ten years, the population Of Florida has In
creased more than "A per cent-a ratio larger than
that of any other State east of the Mississippi
River and the McCOd bill proposes TO reduce her
representation 90 per cent To show what he de
clared to be the injustice of the proposed BILL Mr.
Davidson said that it proposed to give TO Illinois,
with about II times as large population Flor
ida. q times as many Representatives,; TO Pennsyl-
yana, with about l6 times as large reputation, ~
times as many members; and to New-York, with
ropulation about times great, 34 times as many
members.
Mr. Cox. of New-York, made forcble argument
against the bill and presented strong array OF
comparative statistics to elucdae what he declared
ho min ap6M Mr. asserted
70 prove that under the McCoid bill all the States
having less than seven Representatives now Will
receive less than Justice while the eight largest
States will receive more than they are entitled TO-.
When MI Cox closed by announcing that he would,
at the proper time. move to reCOmmt the bill with
instructions, many members exclaimed: 1--WE are
ready TO vote now :" ""VOte! vo.eW and as these de-
mands came from both sides of the House they
strongly indicated the fate of the bill.
Mr.. Burrows, of Michigan, delivered a
carefully prepared speech, in which lie made some
telling points against the bill. Among the Unequal
ities of the measure he showed that. while the div
ison of the population of Iowa by the unit of repre-
sentaton showed that State to be entltled to 1902
members aud the division 0l the popuiatlon OF
Wisconsin showed that State to be entitled to So
members II was proposed to give Iowa eleven mem
bpre an addition Of one for the tfty-twO One-hun-
tredths and to give Wisconsin only eight members.
Under the McCOd bll the number OF people TO the
representative i'll California Is 1I2,93S. Applying
this division 10 the population OF New-1ork, Mr.
Burrows found taat she would be entitled TO only
twcnty-ninc members instead OF thrty-fOur as pro-
vided III the McCOid bill, or as Mr. burrows
put IT, by this new mcthed Ncw-1OTk gains an ad-
vantage over the State of California equal 10 the
reDrpscnta ion of the latter State under the
McCod bill. Mir Burrows advocated an amend
inent fixing the total number OF Representatives at
321 10 be apportiOned according to the oid method
The indications are that the House VIII Tx the
number at 81 or 321, and apportion them accord
ing TO the old method.