The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-08
Vote TO Be TAKEN TODAY
The Debate on Reapportionment 10
Close This Afternoon.
Five Hours of Discussion in the
House Yesterday-The Crumpacker
Bill Opposed by MIR. Pearson-The
BurIeiGh and Hopkins PROPOSE
lions Receive Some Strong support.


discussion of the subject of reapportion'
ment OF the representation in the House
of the several States. A vote will DC
reached this afternoon.
When the journal had been read and
before resumption OF debate upon the sub
ject of reapportionment, Mr.. Hopkins, Of
Illinois, complained that In the Record
Saturdays colloquy between him and
Mr.. Littfeld, Of Maine. had been edited
by the latter so as to place him CMr
Hopkins) in false position He charged
that the statement by Mr. LittlefeId tina,
he had never yet defended a criminal
but was after one now" had been stricken
out and his (Mr. HopkinsD reply to it re-
tanned. which made him appear ridiculous.
Mr.. LittlefeId said he had taken the
liberty because the gentleman from Iii
nois had, on Friday. eliminated from the
Record charge that the State of Maine
was robbing other States in the matter
of reapportionment.
If it suited the taste of the gentleman
from Illinois, he CMr. Littlefeldl would
agree that Mr. Hopkins answer should he
stricken out. But the distinguished gen
course he sees proper"
Mr.. Hopkins-The gentleman from
Maine cannot shift the responsibility up
on me.
We'll, il the gentleman from Illinois
desires that his answer shall not stand
l shall not object to this" replied Mr..
Littlefeld.
This was somewhat irritating to Mr..
Hopkins and Mr.. Richardson aud others
sought to adjust the dispute, and it looked
for few moments as though another out
break between Mr.. Littlefeld and Mr..
Hopkins might ocur. But in the end Mr.
Littlefeld yielded and moved that Mr..
Hopkins reply might be expungsd from
the Record" This was ordered.
Mr.. Hopkins called up the majority Re-
apportionment bill and an agreement was
reached that general debate shall be
closed today at 5 o'clock, and that the
bill shall then be considered under the
five minute rule and for amendment, and
that vote shall be taken before adjourn
ment
Supported by Mr.. Kitchin.
Mr.. Kitchin was the first speaker, sup
porting the Hopkins bill, but opposing the
committee amendment, which seeks to
give to Congress certain authority over
the States In the formation of the election
districts. He would vote, he said, against
that amendment Mr. Kitchin then pro-
ceeded to the attack of the Crumpacker
bill, alleging that President Lincoln had
disapproved all propositions looking to
the enfranchisement of the negro. because
President Lincoln knew, as all fair-minded
men knew, that the negro race is inferior
TO the white.
Mr.. Kitchin took the position that an
educational qualification such as existed
in North Carolina, Connecticut, Massa-
chusetts, Utah, and Wyoming is not de-
NAL OF the right of suffrage, but simply
a qualification Of the right. The Crum-
packer bill, he said, was bitterly parti-
san. In 1898 the average number of votes
cast in each district in Massachusetts,
was $4,000, in Maine IS 600 in Rhode ISL
and 1900, and in North Carolina 5000
And yet under the Crumpacker hi the
representation of Massachusetts VOTE be
increased and the representation of forth
Carolina decreased.
He drew the line between denial
and qualification. To prescribe an i'm
possible condition was a denial, but TO
prescribe condition, such as that a man
shall read and write. is a condition which
any man may bring himself to fulfill and
is therefore only a qualification. Mr.
Kitchin attacked the speech Of Mr.. Lin
ney delivered on the floor OF the House
on Saturday, saying that # was filled with
partisan venom and misrepresentation
The white spirit in North Carolina was
the same as the white spirit in Illinois and
Pennsylvania where negroes had recently
been lynched.
The Example of Massachusetts.
Mr.. Kitchen in part said: 'Mr. Speak
er, if you believe that the conduct Of
Massachusetts, and North Carolina falls
under the operation of the fourth section
of the Fourteenth Amendment. how should
you proceed? The only possible way for
fair man to reach the proper result
would be to find cut in the first instance.
matter which these gentlemen on the
other side have not fully considered
whether any mans vote is denied; second
whether the Fourteenth Amendment in
that respect was not completely merged
into the Fifteenth Amendment, and then
finally. If he concludes against US on
those propositions, il would be his duty
to find out exactly how many people OF
North Carolina could vote under our
laws when they became effective and how
many would be legally refused the right
to vote. The gentleman will tell you
when he considers these questions, that
there Will not be thousand white men in
the State Of North Carolina who will fail
e.
will tell you that there will not be so per
cent of the colored population who will
be prevented from voting, If they so de-
sire. He will find that the reduction in
any event could only be in the proportion
of about fifteen to one hundred Of the
male population. But instead of these Just
figures, the gentleman from Indiana pre-
sents bill which reduces the representa-
tion Of North Carolina to five members,
cutting OF four of her nine. while at the
same time he puts the representation of
up to fourteen, and yet
everyone who can qualify under the law
of Massachusetts, can qualify under the
North Carolina amendment"
Mr.. Lacey's Argument.
Mr.. Lacey supported the committee bill
arguing that any increase in the member
ship OF the House would make the body
more unwieldy than now and would tend
to produce legislation by the few. AS to
those States which would lose in mem
bership by the bill he said they had repre-
in one House or the other en-
tirely out Of proportion to their poyula- |
ton. Maine was represented by twelve
Of It's citizens. including those who had |
to other States from which they |
had been returned to Congress. Twenty |
Six Virginians were found IN the two
houses, while she was entitled TO Bat /
twelve, and so or.
Under present conditions. II the time OF |
the House during the short session should
be divided equally between the members,
allowing the working day TO be of five
hours, it would give Just one hour TO each
man. He said the House is already .un-
vieldy, cumbersome. and burdensome."
IL