New-York tribune., 1882-02-08
THE QUESTION OF APPoRTIoNMENT.
IBY TELEGRAPH TO TIE rRrBUSFI

of the ScatOQ IclUOu Oh dppoTIOulUcul OH NultH IL
was based The sentiment which showed itself
against TIE new system due partly to a belief
that il is favorable to the large States than
the small ones which the inudicious demands of
Mr. Prescott, the chairman of the committee having
The bill in charge, for increased representation
for New-York did not tend to remove; partly. no
doubt to a feeling the part of many that the old
system is as equitable in the long as the new
rartly perhaps to the fact that the old system is
simple and easily understood while the new system
j. less so.
The old plan of apportiOnmcnt was
10 divide the total population of the
United States by the selected number of members
The quotient was the unit of representation. This
unit was then divided into the population of every
State. giving certain number of members for that
State and a fraction over of unrepresented voters.
The total number of members thus provided was,
OF course less than the whole number fixed upon
for the House of Representatives. The unassigned
members were then given to the States having the
large remanders in the order of size of those re-
manders, until the limit of the membership OF the
House was reached The SeatOn plan is not so easy
of explanation, nor of comprehension, if one may
Judge from the puzzled brows some of the Congress
men bend on Colonel SeatOn's long and elaborate
tables printed IN the report.
The total population of the United States Is
divided by the selected number of Representatives.
say 500 The result is 1925, the unit OF repre-
sentation Tho population of each State is divided
by this figure and members allotted accordingly
This leaves saw sixteen members unassigned Here
comes the new departure Instead of distributing
tbe unassigned members to the States having the
largest fractional remainderS the Seaton method
seeks to discover what States if an additional mem
Der was assigned TO each. would have unit of rep
resentation nearest TO that already fixed. To show
this Colonel Seaton has prepared a series OF tables
covering every appOrtiOnment of members from 27J
to $50 1t is not necessary to explain these and 1t
would not be easy do briefly. 1t is sufficient to
say on that turning TO of them it is found that if
Tennessee should be allotted members ITS unit of
representation would be l5i,235 or only fifty less
than the unit already established. This entities
Tennessee to one more member than it has already
received in the allotment. Next is Georgia, which,
lift should be allotted ten members. would have
I5421S as its unit of representation, a reduction
of only siXty-Seven. Another member is therefore,
given TO Georgia; and with the list until the
last member of the 800 has been apportoncd. This
is a twenty-first member for Illinois, making her
unit of representation 1866.
In the distribution of members, at least in the
McCoid bill. the new system brings out nearly the
same results as the old. One OF Colonel SeatOn's
tables shows in parallel columns the allotment of
each State by the old and new
plans Under the new, with 800
members, California Florida and Rhode
Island each lose one member upon the allot-
ment they would have under the old plan, and Hi
nois Ncw-York and Pennsylvania gain one each
over what they would have under the old plan.
Some of the Western members have laid their
plans to make capital against the McCoid biz and
the Seaton plan by charging that they are in favor
not only of the populous States. but, as conse-
Quence of what some of them call the tariff States,
the National bank States and so it is possible that
an attack like this on the bill might restore TO it
some of the strength it has lost The great growth
of the West is as visible in the figures of this bill
in the returns. New-England the great
manufacturing section, loses one member
Kansas doubles its reprcsentation-from to 6.
The seven great Western States Of Ohio, Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas
gain 13 out of the 27 new members; the Middle
States gain but g. The States between the Misss-
sippi River and the Territories running down from
Minnesota 60 Texas have now Il members out of
293; under the McCoid bill they would have G2 out
OF 800. The States between the Mississippi River
and the Pacific have % members
ont of 293 uuder the McCoid bill they would have
Gs out of 800. Under the of 1870 the chief
manufacturing States taken according to the value
OF their products were New-YOrk. Pennsylvania
Massachusetts, Ohio Missouri Illinois, Ncw-Jersey,
Connecticut. Michigan. Rhode Island and Indiana.
These States include the most populous
States in the Union All told, they gain
under the McCoid bill over their pres
ent representation only nine members and gain
over what they would have under the old system
ofapportionmcnt of only two members. On October
I. 1851, the New-England and Middle States held
$3.50 100000 of National bank capital the remain
ing States held S12s OO0, 900. Under the NcCoid
bill the New-England aud Middle States gain two
OF the additional members of Congress the remain
ing States have the other twenty-five There
seems to be no probability that any measure will be |
adopted keeping the size of the House near its
present figure. If the figure 500 is discarded,
number little above that seems more likely to be
chosen than one below it.
When the McCOd bill was brought up to-day
food of amendments and substitutes was offered
each providing for different total number of Repre-
tentatiyes, all the way from 307 TO 365. The de-
bate was opened by Mr.. Prescott, chairman of the |
Census Committee, who, Of course advocated the |
bill liking the numbcrof representatives hy the new
method al $40. large part of the speech wa de-
voted TO an historical review OF previous apporticn-
meDts, and such, was interesting. His attempt |
10 make the SeatOn method understood was not at
all successful, however; besides many members did |
not appear to care whether they understood it or |
not In his concluding remarks Mr.. Prescott eynccd !
great want Of tact in making certain comparisons to
Tie advantage Of New-York auG the disparagement |
OF some OF the smaller Statcs-cDmparis ms of a |
KIND to arouse prciudces which should be allowed |
10 remain passive If they would. For example, Mr.
prescott read statistics to show how many times
much money New-York has in Government bonds
ana hank stocks Florida, California or Rhode
Island has, and how many times as much revenue is
collected III Ncw-}Ork as there is in either Of the
states n'med Ofcourse, if he proved anything by
fpa l.V. s.,it