The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1901-01-04
THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE,


lives. shan that size be fxed and tn
ratio Of representation be changed
Or shah the ratio be ixed and the hous
enlarged proportionatesy with III
growth o. the nations An the va7ou
plans Os appOrtiOnmens which hav'
been proposed take one or the othel
side Of this question or strive to effeci
compromise between them. One pro
poses 10 ksep the house at its present
number. That would require the re.
duction Of representation OF some
states ie order that that Of Others
might be hcreased. ana it would con
siderably Increase the size OF congress
districts. Others propose 10 keep the
districts az about their present size and
to increase the membership Of the house
sufficiently 10 provide representation.
at atont the present ratio. Of the tn
creased population Of the country.
There is doubtless much to Be said ca
either side Of the case. and TIE nnal
decision viii be on grounds of sxpe-
aiency rather than those q prsceaens o.
abstract right.
The gensral tendency has hitherto
been to increase both the ratio q rsp-
reseniation and the sine q ths bouse.
In I7Ss the ratio was sa.ess and the
number q Representatives S. On reap
pOrsionment in l7sa. under the frst cen
sus. the same ratio was adopted ana
the number OF Representatives Was in
creased to los. Ten years later the ratio
rose to ssosO and the number Of rspre-
sentatives TO it1 That was On the
basis Of the census Of a cen
tury ago. Thereafter the ratio
rose constantly though not uni
fOrmly TO its present figure Of 17s.ssI.
The number Of representatives also in
creased. until II vas 2l0 in 1859: ten
years later II vas reduced "a sss. si,n,,l-
taneOusly with great Increase q ratio:
and then il rose again pretty uniformly
TO 55s in iSss. which has since been in
creased by the admission Of Utah TO
81. II the present ratio be retained
the number Of representatives. under
The new apportionment win be about
100 II the house be kept at its present
,ize the ratio win be raised to a5ou
.l4.00.
The example Of other nations having
legislatures is on the
whole in favor cf small ratios and
arge houses. In Great Britain and
ireland there are e70 members, ard the
ratio is only some $1,000 That Is to say.
The Unitei Kingdom. with little more
han half our population, has nearly
twice as numerous a house. and each
Of its members represents a few more
than third as many as each Of ours.
France has 5si deputies. each represent
ing population Of about 5000. Ger
many comes much the nearest to our
standard. with ss7 deputies. each rep
about 1s1, 900 persons; but even
Germany las a larger house and
smaller ratio than We II from for
:ign countries We turn TO our own
'tates and their legislatures for ex-
IMPLIES, the same rule holds good though
Is application greatly varies. New
FORK has a ratio Of 5000. connecti-
'ut has a representative for each $500
'ersons, Pennsylvania one for each 81
90. New Jersey one for each 1900.
IND so on. 1t is to be observed. how
ver, that in these states the numbers Of
legislative representatives are fixed by
Constitutional enactment. and are not
AIRED with each reapportionment.
Undoubtedly it is desirable for rep
essntation in state legislatures to be
'ased on much smaller ratio than in
ongress 1t would be absurd to send
Washington such an army Of rep
as the nation would have
n the Connecticut basis. or even that
( New York. It is doubtful even II |
IS desirable to swell our congress to
he numerical size Of those Of Europe.
he British parliament needs 10 be
bosen on a smaller ratio, and thus
be nearer to the people" than our
ongress. because it largely fulfIls the
Of congress and state legisla-
Tres in one. The same may be said
: the French and German houses. The
1perience Of the two countries has been
iat larger houses are apt 10 be un-
ieidiy and Ineffective. II not riotous.
uch consideration will doubtless be en-
'rtained al Washington. It win be
semed best slightly to increase the
umber Of representative; but the ra-