Los Angeles herald., 1910-09-20
CENSUS CHANGES
HOUSE FORMATION
Congress Will Have Large Task
in Making Reapportion-
ment of Members
INFLUENCE ON PARTY POWER
SIoWness of Growth in Smaller
Eastern States Presents a
Problem for Leaders
INFLUENCE ON PARTY POWER

session of congress will be called on to
grapple will be to determine when the
next apportionment of members Of the
house of representatives under the re-
cent census shall be made.
While 1t is not actually required by
the constitution, that instrument re-
uuires that a reapportionment shall
follow each decennial enumeration of
the people, and accordingly a redistrl-
button of seats in the house member
ship has taken place hitherto soon
after the conclusion of each census.
Up to 1890 the reapportionment was
uniformly postponed until the first ses-
sion of the congress succeeding the
enumeration, but after the eleventh
census q change was made and the ap-
portionment bills for the eleventh and
twelfth census were brought in and
passed in each case during the short
session of the current congress imme-
diately following the census. It will
rest with the approaching session TO
determine whether it shall follow the
old or the new precedent. Politics may
determine the choice.
Before the time for the meeting of
congress the result of the November
elections will have become known. II
the Democrats should come into con-
troll of the house for the Sixtythird
congress they would naturally resist
any effort to have the change made by
the present Republican congress, while
the Republicans would be as anxious to
have the service performed while they
were in control of legislation in both
houses.
ADVANTAGES FOR PARTIES
Apportionment in itself can be used
for party advantage only through the
manipulation of population fractions in
IL ,Ea hn a u
plan Of fixing upon a definite number of
members as the first step in the dis
tribution is followed many states will
be found to have a considerable num-
of citizens over the number necessary
to give them the number of members
assigned them. The size of the house
once determined, the representation of
each state is arrived at by dividing the
aggregate population of the country
by the total membership of the house
and then dividing the population of
any given state by the quotient thus
obtained. Almost inevitably there en-
sues upon each of such divisions re-
mainder, large or small Aside from
arbitrarily fixing the representation on
the voting rather than the actual popu-
lation this remainder, or fraction, af-
fords the only base of manipulation of
the apportionment of members.
II used to the extreme it might be
an important factor, as no fewer than
twenty-three representatives now hold
their seats on fractions. That they
should do so is strictly in accordance
with the law which provides that
any deficiency occurring on an even
division shall be supplied from the
states having the largest remainders
of the division. This rule was strict
ly followed in the last apportionment
in all allotments except those made
to Maine and Nebraska. In both these
states congress exercised somewhat ar
bitrary power by giving each a repre-
sentative on a fraction less than the
fractions of other states which re-
ceived nothing because of their own
fragments. This action was taken to
prevent the loss of representation by
any state.
SOME LEADERS FEAR INCREASE
If that policy should be accepted
in the approaching apportionment it
could upset the plans of some of the
house leaders who are most anxious
to avoid any appreciable increase in
the size of the house. The census eX-
perts already understand that when
the figures are made public some of
the smaller eastern states will be
found to have failed to keep pace in
growth with some of their larger neigh
bors and with many of the western
states. If, therefore, they are to be
protected against loss of representa-
tion in the house it will probably be
necessary to hold the ratio down to
something like the present basis or to
discriminate in favor of the smaller
states.
A loss of membership would be by
no means a new experience to many
Of the states. In the first apportion-
ment, made after the census of 1890,
when the house numbered, all told,
only los members, Virginia was given
nineteen, or almost one-fifth of the
entire membership, and in 1900 that
number was increased to twentythree.
Then there was a gradual falling away
until 1870, when there were only nine
members from that state. Since then
there has been gain of one.
Barring the first apportionment, Con-
necticut began with seven members
and now has five. Maryland has been
reduced from eight to six, AMI New
Hampshire from four to two. Vermont,
which In 1910 had six members now
has two, while Maine, with eight in
1880, has been reduced to four. Massa
chusetts has the same number with
which she started in 1890 In 1900 the
number was increased to seventeen,
but by the next apportionment it had
fallen TO JnlfLeeH, anu IHe OflSlndl llS-
ure of fourteen was not regained
until 1900.
EARLY CONGRESS FIGURES
After Virginia and Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, with thirteen members,
had the largest representation in the
house in 1870. New York and North
Carolina followed with ten each. The
latter state never rose above thirteen,
but the former has gone as high as
forty, which figure was attained un-
der the apportionment of 1880, and is
the largest representation any state
ever has had. After 1880 the New
York representation fell to thirty-one
in 1860. Since then it has been rising
gradually until now it is thirty seven.
Pennsylvania's present number OF
thirty-two is the largest ever enjoyed
by that state. From the first census
to the present Rhode Island, with her
two capitals and double name, has
been uniformly represented by two
congressman. Delaware had two mem
bers during the decade of 1810-1S20,
but otherwise has had but one in the
house at any time
The first apportionment made by the
constitution itself provided for one
member to every 10000 inhabitants. AT
it's first session the house contained