The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1923-02-01
FIRST DISTRICT
SECOND LARGEST
Congressman Cooper Rep
resents 26S,334 People
in Lower House.
FIFTH IS LARGEST


this year in order to equalize the
population in each it can do so with
the assurance that the districts thus
formed can stand until after the 1880
census, it was believed here today.
When congress does get down to
passing a re-apportionment bill the
house membership will be left at
ABS as at present and the Wisconsin
membership at eleven, as at present.
The biggest district in Wisconsin
so. far as population is concerned at
this time is the Fifth, now repre-
scented by Congressman William H.
Stafford, which has 276,5O3 popula-
ton. The smallest is the Sixth,
represented by Congressman Flori
an Lampert, which has 214,206.
Population of Districts
The population of the other dis
tricts are:
First, represented by Congressman
Henry Allen Cooper, of Racine,
268,334; Second, represented by
Congressman Edward Voight, of
Sheboygan, 217,193; Third, repre-
scented by Congressman J. M Nelson,
of Madison, 288,145; Fourth, repre-
sented by Congressman John G..
Kleczka, of Milwaukee, 262 ,946;
Seventh, represented by Congress-
man ]. D. Beck. Of Viroqua, 214,206;
Eight, represented by Congressman
Edward Everts Browne, of Waupaca
218,438; Ninth, represented by Con-
gresham David G. Classon, of Ocon-
to, 248,554; Tenth, represented by
Congressman James A. Frear, of Hud-
son, 228,875; Eleventh, represented
by Congressman Adolphus P. Nelson,
of Grantsburg, $4,000.
With the results of the 1920 CEN
sus long since known and with the
president election coming on, con-
gress must soon again concern itself
about the re-apportionment of repre-
sentatives in conformity with the en-
umeration in conformity as provided
for in the constitution. In view of
this members, especially from those
states which will either gain or lose
representation through the re-appor-
tionment, are studying report made
by the advisory committee to the
director of census regarding the
methods of aportionment.
Two Methods Available.
Two methods are advocated: First,
by Prof. w. F. Wilcox, of Cornell
university, in 1910 and used in the
re-apportionment of 1911, and second
the method of equal proportions"
devised by Prof. E. V. Huntington,
of Harvard university, in December,
1920, and brought to the attention Of
congress through a letter to Chair
man Siegel, of the house committee
on the census. To the method of
major fractions" there may be added
method devised by Prof. F. W..
Owens. also of Cornell University, in
February, 1921, and named by him
the method of least errors" Prof.
Owens method, it happens, although
Independently conceived and resting
on somewhat different premises,
leads to precisely the same apportion-
ment as the method of major frac-
tons" The advisory committee says
that it may be taken, therefore, as
adding strength to the claims of
that method Moreover, the advisory
committee finds that Prof. Hunting
toms method of equal proportions"
is virtually modified form of the
method Of alternate ratios" devel-
oped by DIR. j. A. Hill, of the bureau
of the census, and recommended by
DR.. E. Dana Durand, then director OF
the census, for adoption in 1911"
In discussing the method of major
yfractions," the advisory committee
took into account the suggestions of
Prof. Owens, as well as those of Prof.
Wilcox, and joined DR.. HIPS sugges-
tions with those of Prof. Huntington
in consideration of the method of
equal proportions"
Conclusions Reached.
The conclusions reached are:
That the method of equal proper
tions" leads to an apportionment in
which the ratios between the repre-
sentation and the population of the
several states are as nearly alike as
is possible. 1t thus complies with the
conditions imposed by literal inter-
probation of the requirements of the
constitution.
That the method of major frac-
tions" has back of it the weight of
precendent. Logically, however, it
can be supported only by holding
that the Constitution requires, not
that the ratios between the repre-
sentation and the population of the
several states shall be equal, as near
ly as possible, but that the repre-
sentation accorded to individuals or
to equal groups of individuals in the
population Chat is, their s'shares"
in their respective representatives.
shall be as nearly uniform as posi-
BILE, irrespective of their places of
residence.
That is not clear that the special
Interpretation of the Constitution,
which alone is consistent with the
use of the method of major frac-
TONS" is to be preferred to other
possible special interpretations which
lead to other methods of opporti0n-
ment.
The advisory committee includes,
therefore, that the method of equal
proportions" consistent as it is with
the literal meaning of the words of
the Constitution, is logically superior
to the method of major fractions"
In reaching it's Conclusions the COM
mittee sought the counsel of Prof.
Irving Fisher, of Yale university.
=! In summarizing its findings the