The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1900-12-21

Washington, December 20.-The re-
rort OF the minority of the House GEN.
sus committee on the Hopkins reappor-
tion ment bill was submitted to the
House today. 1t Is signed by Messrs.
Burleigh, Russell, Heatwols. Crumpack-
or and Griffith. Mr. Wilson proposes as
substitute for the Hopkins measure =
bill fixing the total number OF represen-
tatiyes at SIC instead Of S57 as In the
Hopkins bill. Referring TO the Hopkins
apportionTent the minority report says:
1.-THE anomalous character of this pro-
posed apportionment, as Its obvious in.
justice, Is clearly demonstrated by the
fact that 1t Is necessarily based. in part.
| upon majority fractions, and yet
Colorado with majority fraction OF 1871.
| 1853, Florida, with q majority fraction Of
ITO, S07, and North dakota with a ma
iority fraction of les, SIS do not receive
a representative based upon such MAORI
" fraction, while every other State with
majority fraction received a represen-
tative for such majority fraction.
| "We believe that every state should be
treated alike with reference to its ma
| jor1ty fraction, as no valid reason has
| been or can be assigned for the discrimi-
nation between them.
1--WE also believe that in the new ap-
/ DC rsionment no state should lose a reprs-
! &c NATIVE. We therefore recomm end a
House consisting or 1856 members.
."In reaching this number we have
adopted the method used by the commit
tee and have followed the precedent es-
! tablishad by the House In 1872 when the
/ House added to the whole number OF
representatives a representative eacn from
/ the states of New Hampshire and lori
da, bv reason of the fact that they each
had almost majority fraction after the
whole number OF representatives had been
apportioned,
I'VE take the computation based up
on SS4 representatives upon a ratio OF
one representative for every lSi 1874 of the
population. Nebraska, with a majority
| traction Of $1,000, and Virginia with a
majority fraction OF l06.o46 each lost
representative and got no representative
for the ma jority fraction in either case.
| ''These are the only states having ma
jority fractions that fail to get reprs-
sentative therefor. This seems to us an
| injustice.
''Therefore, following the precedent in
the case OF New Hampshire and Florida
In 1877, we assign to each OF the states
| one representative for each majority
| fraction, thus adding two to the whole
| mum Der, making In all, under our pro-
posed bin, $50 representatives.
Under this the gain is as follows; Ar
kansas, California, Colorado, Conneoti-
cut, Florida, Louisiana. Massachusetts,,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,
North dakota, Washington, West Viz
ginia and Wisconsin gain one represen-
| tative each. Minnesota, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania gain two; Illinois, New
York and Texas gain three.
The independents report OF MIR. Crum-
packer is a lengthy document, which goes
exclusively into the Infringement OF
the right OF Suffrage In the southern
States. In the beginning he quotes the
I4ih amendment to the Constitution,
providing chat when the right TO vote 10
abridged, except for participation in re-
belliOn or other crime, the representation |
shall he reduced In such states In pro- |
portion TO such abridgement.
Congress In this matter" MIR. Crum- |
packer says, must take cogniz8nce OF |
current history and or facts disclosed by |
official REQ rds. There Is not "a member |
OF either House of Congress who does not |
know to moral certainty that by direct |
operation OF the law tins states of L0u1si- |
ana. Mississippi North Carolina ana |
South Carolina have disfranchised sufiic- |
lent number of citizens to deprive each |
of them OF several representatives they |
would otherwise bs entitled to, 10 say |
nothing OF the largely increased sup |
preston of votes caused by unfair par
tisan administration OF the laws. The
question is, will CONGRESS make an APP
portionment OF representatives according
to the plain require nents OF the Con-
stitution, or will IL ignore these require
msnts and act according to its arbitrary
Will?''
Mir. Crumpacker says In conclusion:
1.-The measure / propose carries no
resentment toward any state north or
south. 1t is not designed for punishment,
but 1t simply aims TO place representation
in the House upon It's constitutional
basis and no state can justly COMPLAIN II
| 1t be accorded its full rights. No COM
| nronlise can ba made with wrong -