The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-06-08
RO!:!|X'!!!!A1 s ss*Sss
~ ABSClurEY PURE
Makes the food more delicious and wholesome
posueaco nswyo

ural consequence of growth. And of
all arguments against prescribing the
number of Representatives this is the
greatest. Limitation here is like dam
ming the rush of water. The propriety
of such conservation of forces would
doubtless be slow in recommending it
self to the Judgment of the people. They
are partial to an outlet. 1t eases the
pressure. The expansion of the house
does this 1t is the only representative
index of accommodating wealth and num-
bers, and power. In no other depart
ment OF Government do we see this.
That accounts for the reluctance to fix
the membership of the House, notwith-
standing it is even now too large for
the most skillful management.
In this extension of representation the
people get the idea of the preservation
of original power which is theirs. And
so infatuating is it that it is likely
that nothing short of the incapacity and
the absolute obstruction of too many
heads in legislation could dislodge it,
They may not generally take cogni-
zance of the growing Importance of the
House, but they have an eye to it's ex-
tension. These two facts, however are
so closely related that it seems impos-
sble to consider one and miss the full
import of the other; for whether the
House of Representative is enlarged or
limited, it's power increases with the
age of the nation. Nothing but COM
plete maturity or decline can stop that
1t is one Of the great truths in Ameri-
can history, because of it's universal
character. All perpetually augmenting
forces gradually bear more heavily up
on the center, and SO it is with the
political forces that concentrate in the
House Here is a marvellous lesson in
republican government. The monarchy
makes no such elucidation as does the
republic. There the drift of energy and
intellect is toward the head, but here
the whole mass is empowered. And
what is the demonstration of century?
Clearly it is that the larger we grow
the weaker we become, both individu-
ally and in the aggregate. So repub-
lies are not perfectly distinct. They
are in name and form, but they neces-
sarily partake of the one common Or
ganiZation of men.
The Presidency is of course. bound
to strengthen with the enlargement of
population. The ratio there is always
so many millions to one. The influence
of the Cabinet, or of Cabinet additions
cuts no figure at all. And the relation
of the Senate to the whole is calculated
simply on the basis of two to Il State.
And the immense population of to-
day gives the Senate q standing it
never had before. If il has fallen
somewhat from its high mark of intel
lectuality, that is another thing. its
chief interest is as a representative
body. In that sense, with no material
offset by way of additions, it has grown
great with the advancement Of the
country. The Incorporation of the last
territory fixes the Senate ratio as firmly
as that of the Presidency. From this
we get an idea of concentrated power
with no means of counteraction of d.
minution. And that is why the expan-
sive principle of the House is popular
and appeals so strongly to the people.
Yet viewed in the broad sense that
groups all the governmental branches
it is seen that the power of the House.
in harmony with that of the Senate and
the executive, is cumulative, and like
that, too, in time, it will become cir
cumscribed. The unwieldiness of the
House and the fixing of the number of
Representatives, as has for some years
been proposed, will do this The cues
ton, then, is whether the Commons of
England, with its large membership of
O4O, shall be an example, or whether
the law of limitation shall be applied
In either case the House of Represen-
tatives gradually becomes more gil
gantic, but limit it, and the only outlet
or way of escape of all our concentrat-
ing forces is substantially sealed up.
On the other hand, if the influence of
the ratio prevails the House gathers
strength uninterruptedly, but less
rapidly. The objection then to Jeffer-
sonIan, or Democratic, theory, is that
it isn't true. It is fictitious. with none
OF the healthy elements and attributes
that belong to natural things. Jeffer-
son was good statesman in his own
way, and for the day of his activity his
ideas were first rate. But they are not
good for all time. 1t is doubtful if JEFF
ferson or any Of his contemporaries
excepting possibly Hamilton, had an
adequate conception of the great
weight of power that population and
wealth would eventually throw upon
the representative branches of govern
ment. Indeed, in this matter Jefferson
seems to have been a sophist rather
than statesman. The people did not
notice that they delegated their author
ity in proportion to their increase of
numbers, their industrial production
and their commerce, and he was not
the man to point it out to them. He
was rather inclined to wheedle them
with the proposition that autocracy
was theirs. So it is in a measure, but
in a continuously decreasing relation.
The weight of a widening circumfer-
ence compacts the center. OF this JEFF
ferson saw but a faint demonstration,
for the growth of representation in his
day was small compared to that of
recent years.
From the beginning of the Govern
ment up to the time of his death, IN
1926, only 10000 had been added to the
ratio of the House. It grew almost this
much within the next decade, and
since then, except in 1870, has increas-
ed decennially by more than 10000
Such big leaps as these in population
and such pressure as they entailed
upon the House Jefferson knew nothing
of by experience. The wonderful pro-
gression in representation that con-
fronts us it was not his privilege to
see. His doctrine did not anticipate
pies make in applying it without ans
distinction.
One logical deduction of the doctrine
is to enlarge the membership of the
house, providing in this way a means