The Portland daily press., 1900-11-01
THE NEXT APpORTIoNMENT
Relative Gains -ofthe states-Maine,s
Much Below the Average.
Washington Correspondent oe Boston
TRANSCRIPT


Transoript)
In planning reapportionmsnt, 1t is
only the population of the forty five states
that is OF concern. These forty five
states had ten years ago GO, 1l6. 81 people,
as against "A, 6s7, 9O7 today. Utah was, to
be sure, not a stats then, but for conven-
ience OF comparison 1t has been included
in both totals This comparison shows a
gain Tor that part OF the country partioi-
pating in the apportionment of 20 Oh per
cent, or practically speaking of 90 per
cent. Those states which have increased
faster than 20 per cent may be expected
to gain in strength in Congress and In
the electoral college, while those which
have Increased more slowly than that
Will lose relatively, even though by an.
enlargement of the House they may be
allowed numerically to hold their own.
Here are the statas In the order of their
increase, by percentages; Idaho 90 per
cent, but It's present total will not give
1t an additional representative; Montana
"a per cent, but its total is unlikely to
give IL second representative; North
Dakota 20 per cent; Wyoming 53 per cent
(still below the limit OF a second repre-
ssntatiye), Texas 81 psr cent; Florida So
per cent; Oregon 81 per cent; Colorado 81
per cent, and New Jersey 80 per cent.
This group of states, except Utah, will
be likely to gain by the next apportion.
ment. Washington % per cent. West
Virginia 20 per cent, Massachusetts 70
per sent, Rhode Island 20 per cent, Wis
eonsln 23 par cent, Illinois % psr cent,
California 28Iper cent, South Dakota %
par cent, New York 81 per cent, and
Pennsylvania. Mississippi, Michigan,
Georgia. Alabama ana Conneoticut about
20 per cent. These states are obviously
increasing as fast or faster than the
country's average
They can lose nothing and a good
chance to gain in representation depends
upon the amount or their percentage
above the average, the size of the state
and the size OF the new House. The
states below the country 81 average are as
foilowsi Arkansas 16 per cent, Delaware
~ per cent, Indiana Is per cent, Iowa II
per cent, Kansas per cent, Kentucky l6
per cent, Maine per cent, Maryland IA
per cent, Missouri 10 par cent, Nebraska
per cent, New Hampshire 0 per cent,
cent, Sout Carolina 10 per cent, Ten
nessee IA per cent, Vermont 3 per cent
and Virginia u per cent,
Nevada is the only state that shows
loss. But the slow growth of Kansas and
Nebraska even after all allowance Is
Ah1uo IOf tue suppO5ou pauuln8 OF the
cities In the last census, will come to the
country in the nature OF surprise.
These are the states which grew most
rapidly decade or two ago. The present
figures show that this tide of growth has
spent Its force. They have this time
fallen behind Vermont in their rate of
progress. The growth OF Texas is note
wothy Ten years ago 1t had slightly
smaller population than Massachusetts,
while now IL surpasses her and takes q
place next to Missouri in order of size.
10 Is exceeded by Missouri 30 little as TO
Indicate that 1t will not be long In sur
passing her. Illinois's lead over Ohio is
much more marked than ten years ago,
The growth OF Minnesota Is also very
large.