Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-07-01
THE NEXT CENSUS.

THE NEXT CENSUS.
ReapportioninG the Representntives-An
EccentrIcify Of Mathematics : Some
States VIII Gain and Some Will Lose
Congressmen-No Use for Chinese.
rccRREsPoNpENcE OF THE DIsPATcH.l
WASHINGTON, June s0-One of the most
curious features of the census of 1890 and one
of the most interesting will be the reapportion-
ment Of the representation in the House of
Representatives from the different States in
accordance with the population of each. This
reapportionment will not 60 into effect until
March 8, 1893, but the matter will undoubtedly
be brought before the next Congress. The
taking of the census will likely be completed
in December, 1890. and soon after the returns
Of population are made to Congress by Super
intendent Porter, bills for reapportionment
will be introduced and referred to the Com
mittee on Census An effort will undoubtedly
be made to have the reapportionment made by
the Congress then in session, for many of the
features are purely arbitrary, and the Repub-
lican party, which will then be in power, may
profit by the rearrangement
The present membership of the House Of
Representatives is 325. This is in an accord.
ance with the law Of February %, 1882, con-
census.I This will be increased to $50 in the
next Congress by the admittance of the four
new States, one of which Is entitled to two
Representatives. The law Of 1882 provided that
whenever new State should be admitted to
the Union, the Representative or Representa-
tives assigned to it should be in addition to the
number 32o. The basis of representation nowis
original basis of representation provided by the
Constitution should be followed now we would
have more than ], 500 members of the House.
urA f1xAk h~lxx
trollable. From 1883 to 1892 the basis of rep
resentation was that provided by the Constitu-
tion-30,000 population for each Representa-
5ye was that any
be entitled to one Representative. But
for this provision of the Constitution still in
force. several of the States would be repre-
sented only in the upper branch of Congress.
Increasing the Basis of Represeutarion.
From 1872 to 1903 the basis of representation
was a population Of $1,000 based on the first
census, which was taken in 1880 During the
nextperiod of ten years the basis remained the
same. In 1913 it was raised to 81, 900; under the
next census to 10000; then to 1900, to 70,6SO to
93423, to l 3Sl, to l3l, AS and finally in 1888 to
1919 The way the conclusions are arrived
at is by the introduction in the House of Rep
resentatives of a bill providing for a certain
representation from each State and by the dis
cussion and passage of that bill or some substi-
ture for it. Several questions are considered
in connection with this. Usually table is pre-
pared showing to what representation each of
OF the States would be entitled by an
lation If the total representation should
not be increased, and showing further
what each States representation would
be If certain increases in the total membership
of the House should be made. At the last
census the official return of the whole popqa-
ton Of the United States was 5O.l52366. De-
the District of Columbia (683.N1) left the
Representative population Al, 1856, 595 At the
time that the question of reapportionment was
taken up, the total membership of the House
was 293 A calculation was then made on this
plan: The final number of members from 293 to
32o (Which the maximum membership con-
ratio of representation to the whole Represent
atfve population. This ratio was applied
successively to the population of each State.
This process yielded in the aggregate number
originally taken. The difference was made up
by assigning to the states having the largest
fractions additional Representatives
Mathematical and Political Problem.
When the House of Representatives came to
consider this question a curious eccentricity of
mathematics developed. On the census of
1880 by the increase of 293 to 294 Massachusetts,
gained one Representatives; by the increase to
295 Louisiana gained one; by the increase to 296
Pennsylvania gained one: by the increase to 297
Maryland gained one; by the increase to 29S
New York gained one. and by the increase to
299 Alabama gained one. But by the increase
to 800 the development Of this mathematical
paradox occurred: At 800 Alabama lost the
Representative she gained at 299, and Texas
and Illinois gained one each, but at 30l Ala
bama regained the Representative she had lost.
The case of Alabama attracted SO much atten-
tion at the time the reapportionmentw was under
discussion that Representative Cox asked Gen.
eral Walker, the Superintendent of Census, to
explain it in detail General Walker wrote
long letter, which was submitted to Congress,
analyzing the operation by which this was
made possible. The House was not compelled,
however, to meet the difficulty, for it was de-
termlned after much debate to increase the
total membership to 32o
Under the reapportionment that is to be
made there will certainly be some losses in
representation by the Eastern States. This is
unavoidable under the system which changes
the basis of representation every ten years. If,
as said, the basis of representation should re-
main the same. there would be a natural in
crease in the size Of the delegation from each
State to correspond with the increase in popu-
lation. But this basis changes every ten years.
Those States which do not keep pace with
their sisters in the matter of population must
states some Of their representatives. The
largest House before 1858 was under the census
of 1880. Massachusetts, then had 20 members
Under the census Of 1870 she had only 1;she
now has Il New York had 40 members; how
she has "a. Virginia had at one time %; now
she has 10. New Hampshire once had 6; under
D,
New Hampshire was one of three States to
suffer losses under the apportionment of 1852
Maine lost one and Vermont one. Under the |
reapportionment which Will take place under
the census about to be taken there will likely
be several losses, and it is probable that the
representation of New York will be reduced
from "a to 81.
The Chinese Don't Count.
The arbitrary feature of the apportionment
some years ago when California would
have been entitled under the system which
the largest fraction, to an additional
That fraction was about co.
600, but the House of Representatives took
into consideration the fact that California had
q Chinese population of nearly 5000 lacking
the right of suffrage. and this consideration op-
Grated to deprive Cal fornia of her additional
A question which will likely |
be raised in the discussion of the reapportion-
Wens In the next ,SSpgress Is -, one ina, General
ment was under consideration. General Walk |
er claimed that the Alabama paradox was con- |
elusive proof that the process employed in OBJ |
tanning the allotment of Representatives was |
and that it did not in fact ''appor- |
tion Representatives among the several States |
to their respective numbers" He |
ions had been madeshould not be used in dis |
the additional Representatives but |
rather the quotienis resulting from dividing |
numbers of Representatives. BY this system |
he claimed the population of the districts |
formed in the State TO which additional Repre- |
sentatlves allotted would fall as little below
the average number for the United States as |
possible; in other words, that the districts uti-
mately formed from the States so Increased |
would approximate as closely as possible in |
population to that of district formed by divid-
ing the total population of the United States |
exactly by the proposed total number of Rep |
This suggestion was rejected by |
the Forty-seventh Congress, which passed the |
last apportionment act O'BRIEN Balm.