Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1882-02-17

ratio. At the very outset, therefore, the Sea
ton plan violates the principle of equality,
which it was devised to preserve. The dis
parity, indeed, between the population of the
Congressional districts which had the largest
and those which had the smallest population
under the old plan is very much less than it
is under the new one. On Thursday Of last
week Hon. J. NJ. Tyler of this district de-
livered speech in the House on the sppor-
tionment question in which, while opposing
the Seston bill ON the ground that it works
great injustice to the smaller states, he show
ed that he had made most careful and
thorough study of the whole subject of ap-
portionment
After abiding, IN opening, to the difficulty
of so adjusting the apportionment as to do
exact justice to all the states, and after pre-
sentipg table OF figures showing the remark
able growth of the nation from 1890, when
105 members represented 1000, 900 people, to
the present time when 293 members repre-
sent so, 600, 900 people, Mr.. Tyler said;
Speaking for my own state l should be
gratfied if it were practicable to determine a
basis of representation that would save her
present number of representatives, but arith-
metic teaches that this can not be done unless
Congress should adopt the ratio of one repre-
sentative TO 1876, 2j9 population, which would
give the House 365 members and even then
Vermont would get its third representative
only by virtue of fraction of SO, 600. That
ratio would not differ largely from the pres
ent one. and this House would then be small
er by 165 members than is the Chamber of
Deputies in France, and smaller by 2S7 mem
| rs than the British House Of Commons
"a bill has been introduced which provides
for 365 members and the gentleman from
South Carolina favors a much larger number
than that, and votes will doubtless be taken
on these respective propositions. But have
mistaken the judgment of the country and of
the House if largely increased number
should meet with much favor in any quarter.
Vermont is not TO be reproached because she
has not made greater increase in the ten
years. She has added to the population and
prosperity of other states if not to her own.
Attracted by broader and more fertile fields
many of her people have gone to the West,
where they have greatly aided in developing
the resources, building up the industries and
shaping the social and political society of that
vast section of our country. We can point to
many leading men in the West who first saw
the light among the Green Mountains, and l
am happy to note the fact that, aside from
the delegation from my state, eleven gentle
men who occupy seats on this floor were born
in Vermont.
1t may be urged, in favor of the bill to
increase the number to 365, that If the mem
bership of the House were increased in the
ratio of increase of population of the United
States in the last ten years, there would be
added SIS MEMBERS instead of ~, as the bill
and amendment propose But, in my judg.
ant tT,pN IN, tl,a har Nf raVNra
sentatives can not keep pace with the increase
of representative population without the
House becoming SO large as to be entirely in
effective as a working body, though the time
| is not far distant when members must either
have constituencies of 200, 600 or the House
must approach the numerical size of the cor
responding Houses of France and Grea
Britain.
After remarking upon the fact that the mum
Der of members of which the House of Com
mons is composed, and the method of repre-
sentation prevailing in Great Britain, affordi
no guide for us, Mr.. Tyler proceeded to tn,
following statement or explanation of the
plan of apporrionment under the old methot
and under the proposed new one;
The bill that has been reported to the Hous,
| by the committee on the census, of which
have the honor to be member, increases thu
apportonment of members to 800. If thu
entire representative population of the United
States (49, 1863, $3.50 was to be equally divided
by that number, it would give population o
| 154, 285 to each representative. The difficult,
arises when, having adopted the ratio of ont
member to 154, 2S5 people, we attempt t
measure the population of each state by tn
| rule thus obtained. For example, the popu
lation of the state of New York divided b,
1914 2S5 gives a quotient of 32, and a Fraction
of 145, 751 remains which lacks only g. SO
of emitting that state to another representa-
tive. The population of each state divide'
in the same manner gives quotients amount
ing to only 302, which il IS less than the 32
representatives required, leaving fraction
varying in size from ,317 as in West Virginia
to 1853, 1914, as in Tennessee; which fraction
aggregate, in all the states, 2, III, 270.
Following the method adopted under tn
census of 1870, resort would be had to the /
states having the largest fractions, whicl
would give the following states each one add
tional representative on the fractions Sc
against their names.
(The states named by Mr. Tyler are Mis-
souri,, Georgia, Illinois, New York, Nebraska
Indiana, Virginia, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania
Florida, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, California
Massachusetts, aud Iowa-with fractions vary
| ing from 100, iJf IN tue case OF MISSOURI uOWl
to 81, 765 for Iowa.
Delaware and Nevada are entitled to repre-
sentation under the constitution, though thei
population is less than the ratio. In this way
including the two states last named, 2, 13l, ~
of the aggregated fractions are absorbed
leaving GAG, LA as a resduary number.
OF course no one will understand that
fractional district is created IN any state o.
account of its fraction, or that the fraction o
residue of population is unrepresented. Flo
instance, the state of Massachusetts, has
representatives, and on account of its larg
fraction, on an apportionment of 3l9 woul
be allowed another. Practically, then, tn
state would be divided into - districts, a
nearly equal in population as convenient
And when any state has residue after divi
sion, for which it does not obtain another rep
resentative the entire population would b
divided among the districts.
Mr.. Speaker, l regret not to be able to cor
cur with my committee in its adoption of tn
"new method" as it is called. The oil
method, which has heretofore been adopted
does not always do exact justice. For il
stance, when we resort to the eighteen State
that have the largest fractions to make u
the deficit, we are compelled to pass by tn
nineteenth, although its fraction Nigh
chance to be almost as large as the eighteenth
But the line must be drawn somewhere, and
on the whole, believe it more equally an
equitably apportions the representative
among the people of the states than any OIL
or method that can be devised The oil
method have explained. The new metho
proceeds in like manner TO divide the entr
representative population of the Unite