The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-03-16
rms Arronriorsmst ~ anrHmnsr,
ArIvea
i~t,ae,a from the spesch ~ Hon, Oiin
wcilb0rn, Delivered In the iiouss OF Hep
tsaentativea. February 10, 1881

Mn SFgAKRR-The third paragraph o
the second section Of the first article OF The
constitution provides that u
Representatives and direct taxes shall be
npportioned among the several states which
may be included within this union, accord
ing 60 their respective numbers.
And further, that 1.-The actual enumera
ton shall be made within three years aitel
the first meeting Of the congress Of the
United States, and within every subse
qucut term Of ten years.
The end contemplated by these TWO pro,
visions, q decennial redistribution OF that
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 are
thr,c:
First, the fixing of the total number Of
representatives with sole reference TO an
efficient exercise of the functions which be-
long to the house, and due preservation
of the representative principle upon which
it is founded.
Second, the ascertainment ofthe ratio OF
representatives to population
Third, the distribution of the number OF
representatives thus fixed on the ratio thus
ascertained among the states.
These processes succeed each other IN the
order named by continuous logical rela,
| ton. and any change i'll the order Will
!
| quences. ,
II has been maintained that the first
thing TO be done in an apportionment Is 10
| fix the ratio of representatives to popula-
ton, i. G. the.number of inhabitants entitled
TO one representative, then divide the who
population of the United States by this ra-
! ito 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 1t
ought to be fact determined independent
| Nv of all calculations based on numbers.
| The considerations which should determine
| the size OF the house are, reasonable adapt
ability to the functions it is designed to
perform, and due preservation of the rep
resentatiye principle upon which it is
founded. These considerations are more
likely to control when the number ofrepre-
sentatiyes is fixed in the outset.
Now referring to these tables, take the
number of representatives reported by the
committce-320. The total number otrepre-
sentatives on an even division is 50Z; the
number to be made up is eighteen.
Both methods give the same result as
to 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-gans two additional representatives
for each fraction, while California, Florida
and Rhode Island are denied one represent
tatiye each, although having large trac-
tons BY the new method tie aggregate
of unrepresented fractions is 24O,B9 larger
than by the old method. Kindred results
are shown in all 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-
ditional representatives to the states whose
fractions are largest, there will remain the
smallest aggregate of unrepresented frac
lions, and, as have already shown, this i,
the nearest possible approach to mathe,
method is based upon the plain, simple |
rule of three. AS was stated pertinenlly |
by my colleague [Mr. Millsl a few days ago, |
if there be truth i'll mathematical rules, |
then the old method is correct. The pro-
portion which it iormulates is simply this |
the whole representative population OF the |
United States is to the total number of rep |
resentatives as the population of each state |
is to its share in the representative power.
1t will be observed in applying this pro- |
portion TO the population OF the several states
that the first and second terms are fixed; I,
the process, therefore, can be abridged by |
dividing the first by the second, and then |
applying it as a divisor to the third. To
illustrate this old method, take the num-
Der proposed by the gentleman from New
York, Mr.. Cox, 307. The proportion then
ton of the United States, is to 3O7 as $685.
81, the population of New York. is to New
York's share in the representative power |
of the government. That proportion works
out as the exact mathematical share
for New York 31.53 representatives.
Now the old method gives to
New York 81; the new method
}R Why should she have 80? She ought
to have 90, because Is additional represen-
Latives are to be made up, and her fraction |
Is sixteenth in point of size, and besides ~
in this case, as is usually true under the old
method. is the nearest whole number to
which New York is entitled. Now is not
he constitution fully satisfied when she
yets her 80 membersP Is not the constitu-
ion violated when you go further and give
ier thirty-third member? Fol-, what is
The thirty-third member given her? Not
or numbers; numbers do not entitle her to
luite 80. Not in order to apportion accord
ng TO numbers as nearly as is attainable,
or 80 is the nearest attainable number to
eractness. Why, then, III
Justice, give her this thirty-third member?
I here is no reason for II.
TAg second objection TO this new method
s that its inevitable effect is unjustly to
lggrandize the political power Of the larger
isates at the expense of the smaller states.
The tables TO which i have already referred
how this result beyond all dispute. Here
We find that Illinois, taking the report of
he majority OF the committee, for frac-
ion Of i46 600 is given two additional rep
while California, with frac-
ion Of o., 269, is denied one. New York
llso gets two additional representatives for
fraction of $4,000, while Rhode Island,
With fraction of 10, 2I6, is denied one.
gets two additional repre-
entatives for a fraction Of III, 1876, while
florida is'denied one with fraction OF lt5,-
".
But take the number suggested by the
gentleman from New York. 307, and | de-
ire 20 compare the states Of New \ ork and
rhode Island. New York, with a FRACTION
4 g7.4S2, gets two additional representa-
ives, while Rhode Island, with larger
raction OF ,712, is denied one. That is to
ay, that New York gets two additional
when in population she
acks 90 .337 Of having enough Tor one. Or,
o state il in other words, she gets the
hirty-third representative, when in num-
lers she lacks q, 337 Of having a single con
tituent for HIM 20 represent.
Now. Mr.. Speaker, how can any method
glich works such shocking results be vim
heated lsha reward 10 New York be-
ause she has the largest representation Of /
ny state in the union, and punishment
non Rhode Island for having the smallest
Whence c1meth this retnhutiye justice
.ot from the constitution. It's rules works ,
more righteous result. Then where the
] know not. sir, unless i be /
aa H.a.HN HIH !
ItaU De- given, ard be shall have more /
bundancf. but wh1soever hath not from
inn miserable wretch "shall be taken
ven that De- hath fLaughterl
The rirlts'of al the states 10 their respec-
i've share u representation ere the same.