The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-07-25
TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
Information Bureau
FREDERIC J. HAsKIN, Director.
Washington, d. G.
THE SIZE OF THE House.

made TO get this business 'out OF the
way during the closing of the last ssS-
sion, but the senate refused to pass the
measure which had been adopted by
the house.
The fight on this legislation has SO
many angles that the census commit
sponsibility of formulating the meas
ure, is having a hard time of it. There
has been a great deal OF sentiment
manifested against the apportionment
of representatives so that any state
would lose any of the seats it now
holds in the house of Representatives.
Then there is brought forward the
argument that the present size of the
house, 435 members, makes efficient
legislative work harder than if there
were approximately 800 representa-
tives. asApf
another view, strongly supported.
would limit the number of members of
the house to ABS, and work out the
new apportionment on that basis
This was strongly opposed on the
ground that some states would lose
some OF their seats, on the basis of the
last decennial census, while there
would be corresponding gains in other
states
Members of the census committee of
the house realize that the work they
have before them ought to be out of
the way as soon as possible, as the
outlining of congressional districts
under the new apportionment must be
made by the various state legislatures.
The measure introduced in the
house last session by Chairman Sic
gel, the New York representative at
the head of the census committee,
provided for fixing the size of the
house for the next ten years, when a
new census will be taken, at 483 mem
pers. Government statisticians worked
out tables for the committee which
showed that this "a
lowest at which no state would lose
any of its house seats, while twenty
five states would gain one or more
members.
For a house membership of 4S3, as
proposed, repre- entatien from each
state would be one member of con-
gress for every 21s,9S6 people, and
for each major fraction of that num-
Der. For instance, a state with
population of $4,000 souls would
have two representatives in congress.
while state with population of
but $4,000 would have two also.
, The two representatives from the
larger state would account for 49,
972 of its people, and the rest of its
population would be but 102,02S
people, less than half of the 21S,986
persons used as a unit In the case
of the smaller state, however. one
representative would be sent to Wash
ington to represent 21S,986 of the
people OIL MS winch WOu1Q 10aNS
L119,014. As this number is a major
fraction of 218,986, another repre-
sentative would be allotted to the
state.
States That Would Gain.
Under the proposal that the mem
bership be increased to 4S3 California
would be the chief beneficiary, gain
ing five seats and increasing its rep
resentation to 16 members. Four
seats would be gained by Michigan,
New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Three seats would be gained by Illi-
New Jersey and North Carolina each
would gain two seats. The states
which would gain one seat are Ala&
| bama. Arkansas, Connecticut,,G Georgia,
Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia. Washington,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
When the report of the census COM
mittee was laid before the House dur
| ing the last session, the committee
strongly urged that Congress adopt
constitutional amendment to limit the
size of the House to not more than
| 500 members. Early action on this
| was urged in order that the state leg
| islatures could have the constitutional
| amendment before them for ratiffca-
| ton to the end that the amendment
might be part of the law of the land
I
gressional seats became necessary fol-
| lowing the 1880 cencus.
1t is generally conceded that the
House does not function as well with
a big membership as with small one.
However, the census committee quick
| ly discovered that to reduce the ap-
portionment would arouse a storm of
| protest from the states which would
be cut. Another fight has developed
over the efforts of some members to
cut the size of the congressional rep
| reSentation in states where, it was
| charged before the committee, the
right to vote was denied or abridged
! in the case of some qualified voters.
Denial or Arrangement of the voting
privilege under the fourteenth amend
| ment to the constitution, may be pun
ishable by that states having its rep
resentation in the House reduced in
the proportion which those citizens
denied the voting right bear to the
whole body of voters in the state. The
committee decided that 1t had not the
time at its disposal to go into this
question.
This applied particularly to the
southern states, many conflicting
statements having been submitted.
Presidential Elections Affected.
One of the strongest reasons why
the states fight so hard against re-
duction of their congressional repre-
SeAldIIou - ttLal A. Ao9 Al AAiA POI t6AA
bearing on future presidential cleo.
lions. The number of electoral votes
possessed by each state corresponds
to its representation in both branches
of congress Should the southern
states. or any of them, lose congress
sionaI seats, the stronghold of de-
mocracy would be weakened in pres
idential elections in the future, and
carrying the south would not weigh
as heavily in the balance as is now
the case.
The size of the house has increased
steadily since the birth OF the country
except in one instance. Originally il
consisted of IS members, one to each
10000 of population. In 1898, on the
basis of one member for each $4,000
people, the size of the house became
los. On the same basis, ten year,
later the house membership numbered
I42. The increase continued, with
the .,,,r,har Of renresentatiyes heinz