The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1882-02-11
ssent 40 e96: pennsylyanias twenty

resent 149. s96; Pennsylvania twenty
nine would each represent lat. 6S5; and
Illinois twenty lone would each represent
fzo, 5e5. Thus on acale Of representa-
ton of one to every ia, 2S5 persons under
the old method, each member from Cali
fornia represents 9 1870 less than the full
number, Florida Is, 500, from Rhode Island,
/, 40, from New York 40. from Pennsyl
vania /, S25, and from Illinois 392. But
under the new method each of California;
members represents .e58 more than the
full number Florida's one member rep
resents los, EOS more. and Rhode Islands
member 122, 248 more, while each of the
New York members represents 4,7S9.
Pennsylvania {, 900, and Illinois ~, 200
less.
This, of course, would be far from fair,
for under it 14o,565 persons in Illinois
would have the same representation in
Congress that 376, 531 would in Rhode Is
land, and while it could be said on the
other hand that Rhode Island with its
small population has the same representa-
ton in the Senate as Illinois with its
larger one, the constitution Of the United
States has that in contemplation and it is
not feature of the present argument.
The new method, az the plan adopted by
the committe is called, was invented by
Mr. Seaton, clerk in the census Office.
He made calculation to show that by the
process of striking proportion between
the population of the states and the total
population, and thus finding what proper
ton of the representation of $50 each is en-
titled to, New York should get 80, 946,
Pennsylvania 27,759, Illinois 10, 94s,
Rhode Island 1792, California 5. 1904, Flor
ida 1. 746; and yet under the new method
New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois were
each given two additional members fol-
their fractions represented above by .94e,
.759 and .949, and the fractions, .791, .6o4
and TAG in the three other states were left
unrepresented.
Mr.. Chaee, of Rhode Island, in discus
sing the subject said the question of APP
portionment had been discussed by the
great minds of the union for ten decimal
periods, but none Of them had ever
discovered method of giving state one
member more than it is entitled to. 1t
remained fer clerk in the census office to
ind such a method. He asked us there
any justice in this? Is there any equity?
Is there any warrant in the constitution
for it? By another calculation he showed
that under the new method nine states
Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Indiana,
New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio
and Iows-with an aggregate population
Of %, 9S4, S71, would have 100 of the $50
members, leaving an equal number to be
apportioned among the other states whose
population aggregated rs ,Ss6, 400, thus
DISTINGUISHING ] ,401, sos. Again, he took
the case of Illinois, with population OF
5, OFT, 81, having according to the new
method twenty one members, while Ar
kansas, California, Wisconsin, Rhode Is
Iand and Florida with an aggregate popu-
lation of 3.52S, 722, were assigned q total
Of twenty members.
A further calculation went to illustrate
the fact that in the eight states OF Michi-
gan, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Indiana,
Illinois, Ohio.s Pennsylvania and New
York the ratio of population to representa-
ion was not single case up to the ratio
liked in the bill, while out of twenty two
mailer states whose Individual population
vas below 1. 400, 900 the ratio ranged from
I55, 900 to 27e, 600, in but one CT them be-
ow that fixed in the bill