The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1890-12-20

. StdlG WlbIt Iii lhSiC CocO VI POP"e"
ton amounting to 1916, while the
Republican states have grown
enormously. Nebraska's increase
for example, is 1880 per cent;
M;nnesota's $3.50; Illinois even
grows apparently "a per cent.
Michigan and Wisconsin % and
Kansas 43.
1t is not surprising that the poll
ticians who are responsible for the
census should seek to further in
crease their advantage in the act
which will divide the new House
of Representatives among the
states. Upon the basis of the Gen.
sus the Republicans must have a
net gain in the House, but in every
bill that is prepared its author has
sought to add to advantages al.
ready accruing from the peculiari-
ties of Mr. Porter's enumeration
The Frank Bill, which is the la
test outcome of the effort to make
as many Republican congressman
and as few Democrat Congressman
as possible, does not materially
differ from the DunnelI Bill which
was introduced at the last session
The Frank Bill provides for 35t
members while Mr.. Dunnell fixed
the number at 1924, taking 10000
inhabitants as his basis. The
change from 324 to 356 is seemingly
made because of the slump in the
totals of population, as announced
by the Census Bureau, between the
adjournment of Congress and its
meeting on the first Monday of this
month. There is no change, how
ever, in the principle of the two
bills.
After dividing the population of
the states by 100000 there were re-
mainders over, and to certain of
these remainders additional Con-
gressmen were given until the req
uisite number, 354, was made up.
1t was in the distribution of these
additional Representatives that
the partisan unfairness was mani
tested. Texas, for example, had II
members apportioned to it, and
there were then 1920 people un-
represented. No additional MEM
ber was given for these people.
Texas is Democratic State. Illi-
nois received an additional men,
ber for 1886 people, Minnesota
one for 4O,017, Nebraska one for
56,793; West Virginia had re-
mainder over of 40,44S people, for
which no additional Representative
was given. Contrast this with the
case of Minnesota, and the iniquity
of the Dunnell measure and, by
consequence, of the Frank Bill
will be apparent. Pennsylvania,
with a remainder of 2S,574, was
to have an additional member.
But the following Democratic
States, each with larger remain
der, were to have none: Florida,
3O,436; Georgia, 1896; Louisiana,
36,s2s; T'xas, 1920; Virginia,
2s,917; West Virginia, 40,44s.
In this bill there were required
in Democratic States nearly $4,000
inhabitants above the quotient de-
rived by the division of the popu-
lation by 10000 in order to war
rant an additional Congressman.
In the Republican States 100000
were sufficient.
The Republican party has not
only undertaken to cheat majori-
ty of the people of the Representa-
tives due them through the consti-
tutional enumeration, but it is now
engaged in a most bold-faced way
in concocting measure that will
keep down the representation of
Democratic States and in giving
an undue representation to Repub-
lican States.
BY some strange manipulation,
the comprehension of which re-
quires the exercise of an art be-
yond mathematics, Republican
leaders figure out remainders that
differ from the results of simple di-
vision. But even these indicate
partisan discrimination. According
to the figures of the Boston Journal,
for example, Republican Michigan
is entitled to an additional Repre-
sentative for 7l,150, while Demo-
cratic Louisiana with 70,550 and
Democratic Virginia with 80,093
are denied.
The Democratic party in this
matter owes duty to the majority
of the voters, which is nothing
more nor less than to protect them
| from disfranchisementf for the ben