New-York tribune., 1901-01-05
RFAPPORTIONMENT FIGHT.
THE TEMPEST IN THE HOUSE SUB
SIDES.
oIMsTED RESOLUTION REFERRED TO CEN.
sUs COMMITTEE-No REDUCTION OF
SOUTHERN REPRESENTATION BY
THE PRESENT CONGRESS-
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE. I

sOOAIaL-fN-N DIFFERENTIATION BY
THE PRESENT CONGRESS-
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIBuSEI
Washington, Jan. 4-The parliamentary tenn
nest raised yesterday in the House by the intro
duction Of the olmsted resolution requiring the
Census Committee to look into the various
schemes or disfranchisement now in operation in
southern States blew over to-day when. without
division, the resolution offered by the member
from Pennsylvania was referred to the Census
Committee. Parliamentary etiquette and sound
policy were thus equally satisfied. for by the
courtesies recognized in the House the commit
tee on which an investigation of such Importance
y 10 be thrust naturally expects to be allowed to
draw the authorizing resolution after its own
fashion, while, the debate to-day clearly
showed, apportionment bill could possibly be
passed by this Congress If the two houses should
be compelled to wait for the information de-
usnded in Mr.. olmsted's resolution. 1t is prob
able that the Census Committee will accede to
the general demand on the Republican side that
an inquiry into the disfranchisement schemes in
vogue in the South be undertaken. But any
legislation q may recommend involving reduc-
lions in representation for violation of the Four
teenth Amendment will have to be left for
other session and another Congress.
PLANS OF APPoRTIONMENT.
The olmsted resolution disposed Of. Mr.. Hop
kins had no difficulty in getting up the Reap
portionment bill recently reported by the Census
Committee. The debate this measure prom
ses 20 run for several days, vigorous OPP
position has developed TO the plan OF keeping
the membership of the House unchanged at
S57 BY this plan seven States gain eight seats
and eight others lose seat apiece. Under the
rival plan, advocated by minority of the
Census Committee. the membership of the House
is increased by %, TO 3s6. No State loses IN
representation. and the additional twenty-nine
seats are divided among twenty States which
have made the greatest relative gains in popu-
Iation in the last decade. The Hopkins plan is
advocated on the ground that a House of 351
members win be more easily controlled and
guided by the party leaders who happen to be
invested with responsibility than a House of
$50 According TO the unofficial arguments of
the majority of the Census Committee, gradual
increase Of numbers will result in further
dispersion Of power and will still further en-
phasize the discrepancy in political and personal
influence now felt to exist between members of
the House and members of the Senate. II is
also argued by supporters of the smaller num-
Der that TO increase the size Of the House
would compel the removal Of members desks
end other undesirable changes in the House
chamber.
The advocates Of larger House contend that
the moderate increase Of twenty-nine proposed
in the Burleigh bill is entirely justified by the
growth Of the decade, and that under existing
rules and methods the lower branch would con-
tinue TO conduct business as efficiently ever,
even were IL enlarged 70 four hundred or five
hundred members. The minority members Of the
Census Committee also argue that smaller con-
stituencies tend TO bring Representatives into
more direct and responsible touch with the peo-
pie. So far as partisan or political advantage
goes, the one scheme is as equitable the
other. But. under the Burleigh BILL the larger
and more rapidly growing States in the Union
would reap a clearer and more decided advan-
tage both in the House itself and the Electoral
College. 1t is hard indeed to see why States
like Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, New York, ILL.,
nois. Massachusetts and Minnesota should wish
10 surrender the added power TO whicl. they are
entitled under the smaller ratio, why States
like Ohio Indiana and Kentucky should be will
ing, for the sake Of saving desk in the
House chamber, TO yield portion Of the repre-
sentation which they now enjoy Under the
Hopkins bill these States would lose a men,
ber each: Indiana, Kansas. Kentucky. Maine,
Nebraska, Ohio. South Carolina and Virginia.
Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, New-Yorh New
Jersey and West Virginia would gain one
ber each and Texas would gain two members
BY the terms Of the Burleigh bill no State would
lose a seat These States would gain a seat
apiece: Arkansas, California, Colorado Con-
necucut. ElOTlQa, LOUISIANA. MASSACHUSETTS, MIS-
sissippi. Missouri, North Carolina, North Da-
kOta Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
Minnesota, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania would
gain two seats each, and Illinois. New-York and
Texas three each.
DEBATE ON OLNsTED RESOLUTION.
There spirited struggle over the olmsted
resolution before il was finally referred to the
Census Committee. where the opposition desired
Il TO go originally Some Of the Republican
leaders were not I'm sympathy with the resolu-
uon Mr. Olmsted tried 10 get Mr.. Hopkins TO
agree that the committee would consider the
resolution within week. but the chairman of
the Census Committee declined to make any
pledge 70 that effect
The debate on the resolution was marked by
exceeding frankness. Some Of the Southern
members declared that the attempt TO enfran-
ehise the negro had been lamentable failure,
and the action Of certain States in eliminating
the blacks factors at the polls, they said,
was in the interest Of civilization and progress.
Mr. McDermott, Of New-Jersey, asserted that
every State in the Union either added TO or
sEbtracte6 from the constitutional requirements
Of voters. and challenged any member TO show
one that did not After the resolution had been
disposed of. the Reapportionment bill was de-
bated by MT hopkins OF Illinois. and Mr.. Sha-
time for the final vote failed. although the gem
eral impression is that the debate will close early
next week.