The Rock Island Argus and daily union. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1920-1923, 1921-07-20

washington, D. c., July ID
Sometime before the present con-
gress expires the house, with the
concurrence of the senate, must
pass a law determining what its
own size is to be for the next IL
years. An effort was made to get
this business out of the way during
the closing days of the last session.
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
committee of the house charged
with the responsibility OF formu-
latine the measure, is having a
hard time of it. There has been a
great deal of sentiment manifested
against the apportionment or rep
resentatives 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, ABS members, makes
efficient legislative work harder
than if there were approximately
800 representatives.
Another view, strongly support
ed, would limit the number of mem
bers of the house to 435, 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 correspond
ing gains in other states.
Members of the census commit
tee 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 con-
greSsional districts under the new
apportionment must be made by the
various state legislatures.
The measure introduced in the
house last session by Chairman
Siegel, the New York, representa-
tive at the head of the census com
mittee provided for fixing the size
of the house for the next 10 years,
when a new census will be taken,
at 483 members. Government sta
tisticans 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 25 states would gain
one or more members
For a house membership of 483,
as proposed, representation from
each state would be one member Of
congress for every 218,9S6 people,
and for each major fraction of that
number. For instance, a state with
a population of $4,000 souls would
have two representatives in con-
gress, while a state with a pOpula-
ton Of but 329, 900 would have two
also. The two Representatives from
the larger state would account for
1871 of its people, and the rest
of its population would be but 1922
OBS people, less than half of the
21S,9S6 persons used as a unit. In
the case of the smaller state, how
ever, one representative would be
sent to Washington to represent
21S,986 of the people of his state,
which would have 110,014. AS this
number is a major fraction of 218,-
CSC, another representative would
be allotted to the state.
State That Would Gain.
Under the proposal that the mem
bership be increased to 483 Cali
fornia would be the chief benefic-
larry, gaining five seats and increas-
ing it's representation to 16 mem
bers. 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 gain
two seats. The states which would
gain one seat are Alabama, Arkan-
sas. Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland,
Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, Washington, West Vir-
GINA and Wisconsin.
When the report of the census
committee was laid before the house
during the last session, the COM
mittee 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 legislatures could
have the constitutional amendment
before them for ratification to the
end that the amendment might be
part of the law of the land before a
new apportionment of congress