The New York herald., 1920-12-26
REAPpORTIONMENT
PUZZLES CONGRESS
Members Are in Doubt About
Advisability of New Ratio
Based on 1920 Census.
HOW PLANS WOULD WORK
483 Lowest Figure at Which
No State Would Lose q
Representative.

Special Despatch to The New YoRK HERALD.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 25.--Efforts on the
part OF the pork barrel crowd in Congress
to establish the necessity for an increase
in the remuneration allowed to members
Of the House, and at the same time to
boost tho membership by at least forty
eight. are meeting with the serious and
determined opposition of the conserva-
tive and practical element OF the House.
Although a recent Republican caucus
considered the suggestion of increasing
the House membership to 4S3, because
that is the lowest figure at which no
State would lose any representation In
the new ratio Congress must fix. But
it may be said now that the ultimate
figure to which the membership will be
increased In the new apportionment Will
be much less than that. 1t can be stated
with equal emphasis that nothing will be
done in the way of increasing the sala-
ries of members.
The present membership OF 435 is
based on a ratio of one Representative
for every oil 900 population and Is based
on the 1910 census The 1920 census
shows that with the same membership
the ratio would be one Representative
would mean n loss of two Representa-
tives from Missouri and one each from
Indiana. Iowa, Kansas. Louisiana. Maine.
Mississippi, Nebraska, Rhode Island and
Vermont. because the increase In popu-
lation in these States has not kept pace
with the rest of the country.
In order that there should be no loss
of representation in any State, the ratio
under the last census would have to be
one representative for every 21S,979 OF
population, which would make total
membership of 483, or an increase Of 49,.
On that basis New York would have AZ,
instead of 43 members. Pennsylvania 40
instead of SO, Illinois so instead of 27,
Ohio 26 instead of "a and so on.
British Commons Is Bigger.
Those who are in favor of increas-
ing the membership to 4S3 on general
principles point to the British House OF
Commons, with its membership of 7O7,
as proof that an increased membership
would not mean that the lower branch
of the Congress would become unwieldy
Representative Simeon d. Fess Of
Ohio, chairman of the Republican Con-
sressional Committee, discussing the
new apportionment to-day. said:
There is no merit in n comparison
between Congress and the House of
Commons. The large legislative bodies
in Europe, for the most part. do not In
terfere with legislation and cost the peo-
pie nothing. 1t is diffeent In the United
States Every increase of representa-
ton here means an added expense upon
the taxpayer, and that increase Is a
permanent one. In England appropria-
tions are voted to reimburse certain
members. particularly of the labor
group. whose service in the Commons
would otherwise have to be made at a
sacrifice, but the amount involved is
relatively small"
There is an element in Congress actu-
ally in favor of reducing the representa-
tion, and while this will not be done
those who hold 60 that point OF view
are engaged in careful missionary work,
systematically committing as many
members as possible to a small increase.
The membership most likely to be con-
sidered is 450. an increase. of fifteen.
This would be one Representative for
every 234,751 of population. THE New
YORK HERALD ir able to state that a
constitutional amendment fixing the
future membership of the House at this
figure is being considered for submission
in order to avoid the problem of MAX
ing a new apportionrnent that presents
Itself after each census A resolution
10 amend the constitution probably Will
be introduced as soon as the new APP
portionment bill Is put through.
1t is desirable that the new basis of
apportionment be decided upon during
the present session In order that many
of the State legislatures that will be in
session next year may redistrict their
States on the basis of the new unit. II
the new basis is not fixed until well on
in the special session many of the States
whose legislatures do not meet every
year will not have been redistrlcted in
time for the next Congress election.