Perth Amboy evening news., 1921-07-22

TGSenIallN6 at lie ucdu VI IN ScLouo
provided for fixing the size of the House for
the next ten years, when a new census Will be
taken, at 4SS members. government statistlclans
worked out tables for the committee which
showed that this number was the lowest at
which no state would lose any of its House
seats, while twenty-five states would gam oHe
or more members.
For a House membership of 483, as proposed,
representation for each state would De one
member of congress for every 218,986 people,
and for each major fraction Of that number.
For instance, a state with a populatian OF 54o,-
600 souls would have two representatives In
congress, while a state with a population OF but
1923, 900 would have two also. The two repre-
sentativesf from the larger state would ACCOUNT
population would be but 102,02S people, less than
half of the 21S.9S6 persons used as a unit. In
the case of the smaller state however, one rep
resentative would be sent to Washington to
represent. 21S,9S6 OF the people OF his state.
which would leave 11O,O14. AS this number
is a major fraction of 21S,986, another repre-
sentative would be allowed to the state.
States That Would Gain.
Under the proposal that the membership be
increased to 4S3 California would be the CHIEF
beneficiary, gaining five seats and increasing
it's representation to sixteen members. four
seats would be gained by Michigan, New York,
Ohio and Pennsylvania. Three seats would be
gained by Illinois and Texas, and Massachusetts,,
New Jersey and North Carolina each would gam
two seats. The states which would gain one
seat are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut
Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexleo'
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and WIS
consin.
When the report OIL the census COUlIHllleC was
laid before the House during the last session
the committee strongly urged that congress
adopt a constitutional amendment to limit the
size of the House to not more than o0O mem
bers. Early action on this was urged in order
that the state legislatures could have the con-
stitutional amendment before them for %ratifica-
ton to the end that the amendment might be
part of the law of the land before a new appor-
tionment of congressional seats became neces-
sary, following the 1920 census.
It is generally conceded that the House does
not function as well with a big membership as
with a small one. However. the census com.
mittee quickly discovered that to reduce the
apportionment would arouse a storm OF protest
from the states which would be cut. Another
fight has developed over the efforts of some
to cut the size of the congressional!
representation in states where, 1t was charseu
before the committee. the right to vote was
voters. Denial or a~bridgement of the voting
privilege, under the fourteenth amendment TO
the constitution. may be punlshapie ny ina
states having it's representation in the House
reduced in the proportion which those cltlZens
denied the voting. right bear to the whole nody
of voters in the state. The committee decided
that it had not the time at it's disposal to go
into his question. -
This applied particularly to the SOUTHERN
states, many conflicting statements having been
Presidential Elections Affected.
One of the strongest reasons why the states
fight SO hard against reduction OF their con-
gressional representation is that It has an I'M
portant bearing on future presidential electlons.
The number OF electoral votes possessed by eacn
state corresponds to it's representation in both
branches of congress-. Should the southern
states, or any of them, lose congressional seats;
the strongh old Of Democracy would be weakened
in presidential elections in the future ana
carrying the south would not weigh as heavily
in the balance as is now the case. u
The Nze Of the House has increased steadily
since the birth of the country, except. in one
instance. Originally il consisted or siaty-nYe
members, one to each 10000 of population. IN
1898, on the basis of one member for each
5000 people, the size of the House became
los. On the sam basis. ten years later the
IJo,co herShin numbered l4Z. Inc II
crease continued, with the nnmper OF repre-
sentatives being checked only by increasing
In 1913, however, congress reduced the SIZE OF
the House, the, only time recorded In history;
The ratio of people was increased from 4.'oT
representatives from 242 to 232. In 1883, aIter
the tenth census, congressional representation
was based on one for each ISL oil persons, ana
this increased the size of the House from 293
to 1872. Ten years later it became 357, ten
years after this. 391, and after the thirteenth
census the House grew to its present size or
435 members, on a basis of one member to
every 21f,S77 persons.
Sentiment for limiting the House at least to
it's present size is fairly strong. This would be
accomplished If the ratio of people for con-
gressional districts was fixed at ~242,415, or any
major fraction of that number OF people. Inc
difficulty is that while the total membership
would remain the same, eight states would gain
members and eleven would lose. The total gain
and loss would be twelve seats. California gain
ing three, Michigan and Ohio two each, while
Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas
and Washington each would gain a seat.
Offsetting this gain. Missouri would lose two
seats, while one seat would be lost in Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana Maine,
Mississippi, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Ver-
mont.
The members who urge that there be no
increase declare that there is no duty that 483
members can ~compl which AIS cannot do
as we'll, that the House will be more unwieldy
and cumbersome than ever, If increased IN size,
and that increasing the membership to 4S3 will
result in additional salaries, clerk hire, mileage,
ct c%etera, amounting to more than a million
dollars annually. Six members of the census
committee took this view at the last session.
and brought in a minority report to tina erect.