Evening star., 1922-11-19
TALK OF A NEW CENSUS
FOR REINFORCEMENT
Many legislators Not Satisfied to
Take 1920 Enumeration as
Membership Basis.

tndt tHey StdyeQ away tenQeu 10
draw others associated with them
away from the rural communities.
The political phase Of this problem
was shown in the opposition Of the
members Of Congress from the south,
who did not want reapportionment
because they feared It would result
/ in reduction Of their representation in
the House. When reapportionment
comes up there is always a scrap be-
cause. while 1t is generally recognized
that for efficient work the member
ship should be held down, there are
always those who oppose a reduction
of the representation of their own
state through slump in population.
Gains and LOSSES.
Under the bill recommitted by the
present Congress, which called for
an increase of twenty-five members,
California would get four new mem
bers: Michigan and Ohio. three
each: New Jersey. New York. Penn
sylvania and Texas. two each. and
Arkansas. Connecticut. Georgia. I'LL
nois. Massachusetts,. New Mexico.
North Carolina. Oklahoma and Wash
ington, one each. The states of
Maine and Missouri would lose one
each. This would mean ratio of 2ss.-
SS2 in population for each representa-
tive.
The minority report stressed that
this would mean an increased cost of
$500, 900 on account Of the additional
members.
Leaders in Congress and Of public
thought say it is hardly fair to make
the reapportionment on the census
taken under the abnormal conditions
prevailing In 1920.
The census bureau says that there
would be time to take a new enumer-
alton in time to have the redistricting
done before the presidential cam
paign. This census should be taken
in the spring OF 1923.
Now, the census can be taken in two
ways-CD de facto. counting the
population just where they happen to
be on a fixed date, which would re-
quire a large number of enumerators
all at one time. or t2) the de jura
method, which takes the census ac-
cording to the usual place of resi-
dence. 1t is generally believed that
the de jura way would be correct.
Methods OF Enumeration.
Heretofore it has been the practice
of the census bureau to appoint
supervisors throughout the country
! and for the supervisors to appoint
enumerators. The enumerators would
send their reports 20 the supervisors
and the supervisors would send them
| in to Washington. where the Wash
ington Office would count up the popu-
lation and make it public by the
various localities.
William NJ. Steuart, director OF the
bureau of the census, believes that
this Is not an up-to-date method. He
favors the appointing Of the super
visors and enumerators as heretofore.
but would have the count made in the
office of each supervisor as rapidly as
the reports come in from the enumer-
ators. This would not only spur the
supervisors on to complete the work
rapidly, but would emphasize the re-
sponsibility to get accurate data, be-
cause the result would be subjected
Immediately to the criticism Of the
people who are interested in the popu-
lation of each minor civil division.
The majority of the census commit
tee. in making its report, stated that
there has been no reduction in the
membership Of the House since the
act Of 1843."
Handicap on Emciency.
The minority report said: I'VE be-
lieve that the efficiency of the House
will not be increased by add
ing to it's membership. but such
action will result in that body be-
coming more unwieldy and cumber-
some than it is at the present time.
Increased membership means greater
delay in the transaction of the pub
lie business"
The minority report still further
points out that ait was not until 1850
that the practice of -apportionment SO
that no state would lose any of it's
representatives became an apparent
policy of Congress. Prior to that time
it was common to reduce the number
of representatives in various states.
Should the reapportionment be
made according to the 1920 census.
and the House held to its present size
-435 members-the gain or loss of
representation by states would be as
follows:
Gain-California. 3: Michigan. .:
Ohio, 2; Connecticut. 1; New Jersey.
/; North Carolina. /; Texas, 1. and
Washington. 1.
Loss-Missouri, 2: Indiana, 1; Iowa.
/: Kansas. 1: Kentucky. 1: Louisiana.
/; Maine, 1; Mississippi, 1; Nebraska.
/; Rhode Island, /. and Vermont. /.