The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1921-05-14
FROM THE PUBLIC
TO THE
EDITOR

No one will deny that the present House mem-
bershp is large enough. Many believe that 1t is
too large constituted, despite the fact
that other hrst-class powers have larger men,
berships in their lower national legislative
houses. The English Parliament numbers more
than 500. and other nations have a larger mem
bership in their national assemblies than the
American House. But II is generally felt that
the present House of Representatives.. with 435
members. which includes the delegates and COM
missioners from the foreign possessions of the
United states. is now as large as ii should be.
That this opinion is general was shown by the
fact that the Segal bill increasing the House
membership from 435 to 4s3 members was beaten
by a viva vote, not even a roll call being
necessary to defeat the measure. II was shown
by adoption of the Barbour amendment. which
left the House at its present membership Of 435.
with vote of 267 to 20. This vote undoubtedly
reflected the opinion of the constituents of the
members who voted for IL. and showed that the
country at large believes the present House
membership Is big enough. During the debate on
the Siegel bill efforts were even made by an
amendment to reduce the size of the House to 3o7
members This was defeated. as was an amend
ment to increase the size of the House to 400
members.
The House has so large a membership
that any one member has become a mere cog in
a vast legislative machine which takes little
count of the individual House member unless
the member be chairman of a committee, OF is
member of the Republican steering committee that
runs the business of the House The House men,
bership. in the opinion OF many. could be safely
reduced to about 800 members without the in
terests OF the people OF the country suffering
in the slightest Some Congressman who voted
to retain the present membership are even now
OF the opinion. md sorry that the House member
ship was not reduced--if they could have stay
ed in Congress under such a reduction.
On the other hand many believe that the SEN
ate could be Il size with great adva ns
small a number to really look out for all the
interests of state in the national legislature.
Then, too, IL often happens that one Senator Is
sick or absent, and when this occurs the other
Senator has thrust on him the whole legislative
burden which was shared by his colleague
Another argument for an increase is found In
iation, equally represented in the Senate.
Little states like Idaho. New Mexico, Delaware,
Wyoming, Nevada New Hampshire Utah and
Vermont, all with less than half million in
habitants tsmaller than the District OF Column
states like New York and Pennsylvania. with i'm
mense populations and which States are In fact
real empires in wealth and size. This, to many,
does not seem like an equitable distribution Of
the legislative powe. In the Senate some taere
should be arranged the same basis as the
House neutrality-suspicious. alone.
An arrangement of this kind probably would
give great and popuious States like Indiana and
Ohio a number OF Senator'S and little States
like Rhode Island one Senator. The little States
would fight such an arrangement tooth and nail.
but who could say that such an arrangement
would not be fair to every State, II 1t is fair to
all states in the House representation
Reapportonment OF the Senate representation
could not be accomplished except by a constitu-
tional amendment, for the Constitution sets out
plainly that each State shall have two Senators
in Congress-no more and no less II would be
tremendous job to get three -fourths Of the
States to ratify an amendment OF that kind be-
cause the little States that would lose one SEN
ator would refuse to ratify. This however. could
be circumvented by leaving two Senators 20 the
little states, and increasing in proportion 10
population the number of Senators in the larger
states II IL believed that such amendment
might have a chance Of being ratified Certainly
Is seems to many that II the Senate were larger,
u would be more useful to the country. One
thing is certain, with a larger Senate the tndi-