The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-07-25
TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
Information Bureau
FREDERIC J. HAsKIN. Director.
washington, d. @.
THE SIZE or TIE HOUSE.

pires the house, withethe concurrence
of the senate, must pass a law de-
/ termining what its own size is to be
for the next ten years. An effort was
made to get this business out of the
way during the closing of the last ses-
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
tee of the house, charged with the re-
ssponsibility of formulating the meas
ure, is having q 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. da4rT,
another view, strongly supported,
would limit the number of members of
the house to AIS, 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
new census will be taken, at 483 MEM
pers Government statisticians worked
hout 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 gain one or more
| members.
| For house membership Of 4s3, as
proposed, representation from each
state would be one member of con-
gress for every 21s,986 people, and
for each major fraction of that num-
population of $40, 900 souls would
have two representatives in congress,
while q state with a 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 102,028
people. less than half of the 218,9S6
persons used as unit. In the case
| of the smaller state, however, one
representative would be sent to Wash
| ington to represent 21S,9S6 of the
people of his state, which would leave
110,014. AS this number is a major
fraction of 216,9S6, another repre-
sentative would be allotted to the
state.
States That Would Gain.
Under the proposal that the mem
/ horSh{T1 he cd n rY1ia
would be the chief beneficiary, gain
1 ing five seats and increasing its rep
resentation to Is Members Four
seats would be gained by Michigan.
/ Three, seats would be gained by 1llf-
nois and Texas, and Massachusetts,
New Jersey and North Carolina each
would gain two seats. The states
which would gain one seat are Ala
bama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia,
Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico.
Oklahoma, oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia, washington,
West Virginia. and Wisconsin.
when the report of the census COM
nittee was laid before the House dur
ling the last session, the committee
strongly urged that Congress adopt a
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
1
amendment before them for ratifica-
ton to the end that the amendment
might be part of the law of the land
before a new apportionment of con-
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 a small one.
However, the census committee quick
ly discovered that to- reduce the APP
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 COMMITTEES, the
right to vote was denied or abridged
in the case of some qualified voters.
Denial or abridgeznent 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 it had not the
; time at its disposal to go into this
1 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-
, sentation is that it has an important
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
sional 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 nov
the case.
The size OF the house has increased
steadily since the birth of the country
except in one instance. Originally i
. consisted of IS members, one to each
5000 of population. In 1898, on tht
basis of one member for each 23O0(