Arizona republican., 1917-08-24
DRAFT BASIS OF GOVERNMENT
 QUESTIONED BY MIR. HAYDEN

Representative Carl Hayden is con- tinuing his attack upon the plan adopted by the government for fix ing the draft quota in the following letter addressed to the secretary of war inquiring by what authority an estimate of the population was made the basis for the quotas of the sev- eral states. The position of MT Hayden has been referred to lawyers both here and in Washington:
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 Washington, D. C.,
 August 15, 1917.
 The Honorable,
 The Secretary of War,
 Washington. D. C.
 My Dear MT. Secretary:
 1 shall be greatly obliged if you will advise me by what authority of law an estimate of the popula- tion based upon the registration of men between the ages of 21 and 30 years was used, instead of the population as ascertained by the last census. to determine the quotas of the several states for the first call for men made pursuant to the selec- tive draft act? Section of the Act of May IS, 1917, provides that 'the population shall be the basis for determining such quotas, and there is no mention in this Section of an estimate of the population. It is true that in Section 4. provision is made for estimating the population of cities of 30,000 or over, but the very fact that estimates are specifi- cally authorized in another part of the Act would indicate that the omis- sion of the word estimated" in Sec tion was intentional
 Webster defines population" as the whole number of people, or inhabi- tants of a country. The Constitution provides that there shall be an "ac- tual enumeration of the whole num- Der of persons in each state every ten years. Under this authority con- gress has directed that a decennial census of the population shall be taken by the director of the census. Since no other method is provided by law for ascertaining the popula- tion" it cannot be denied that, when congress directed that the popula- : tion' shall be used as basis to determine the quotas of the several states. direct reference was made to the actual enumeration of 1910 and not to later estimate.
 The Constitution provides that rep resentatives in congress and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective numbers, counting (not estimating) the whole number of persons in each state. Every reason that would justify an estimate of the population, seven years after a census, for fixing the draft quotas would apply with equal force to urge the use of the esti- mated population, rather than an ac- tual count, at any time between the census periods for apportioning the number of representatives or levyine a direct tax. The authors of the Constitution very properly decided that it was unwise to follow ar estimate in matters of such grave Importance because any approxi- nation of the population was bound to lead to injustice and consequent dissatisfaction, as has happened 1T the present instance.
 Apparently the word population has never been given a judicial in depreciation by any federal court ot record. It has, however, been judi cially interpreted by the supreme court of New Jersey. In construine an Act classifying cities according to population, it was held On re As sessment for Construction of Sewer 54 N. I. L. 1856. 23 Att. SID that population" could not be determined by the court through the introduc- tion of evidence in the ordinary way but that it must be determined by some official census or enumeration In this case the population of a city was S,326 by the state census of 1895 and 13,029 by the United States cen. sus of 1890, but the court held tha the city could not be legally re. garded as a city of over 12,000 unti after April IT, 1891, when the officia bulletin of the census of 1890 WAS