New Britain herald., 1927-12-14
DANGERS OF WRONG REINFORCEMENT

i4'' Id NiIl-7 VI tA N' A4'. 's7 N'' .' '' years is mandatory; and it is popu- lar. Cities await the results with that huge interest which is concomi- tant of the population race. T. is at such q time that We discover how far wrong the preliminary estimates have bcon--or how far right.
 But q reapportionment of con- grcssional representatives based on a new census is not so exciting. The only people interested in it are the politicians and they are not aroused toaction. The last apportionment of representation in the House was made in 1911. on the basis of tho 1910 census. The ratio was one representative to each 2l1.S77 Of the population, excluding Indians not taxed.
 Since that time the population Of the United States has increased 80 per cent, according to the census bureaus most recent estimates. II the rate of growth throughout the nation were the same each member of the House now would represent 272,7OS constituents. But the growth of the country has not been uniform, so that the present representation likewise is not uniform.
 Instead of each representative in Connecticut, for instance, represent ing o1l,S17 of the population-as the 1911 apportiOnment called for each representative in Connecticut at present represents S27,300 people.
 Vermont and Maine, however, two states that are largely rural in character, are better represented to- day than formerly, each representa- tive in Vermont speaking for 176,e15 citizens, and each in Maine for 19S, 95o.
 States which would lose one or more representatives under an up to-date apportionmcnt of the popu- Iation are as follows; Vermont, Maine, North Dakota, Missouri, Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Ken lucky Nebraska, Louisiana, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia Alabama, Mas eachusetts and New York.
 States which would gain one or more congressmcn are: Arizona, California, Montana, Michigan, Flor ida. Connecticut, New Jersey, Wash mgton. Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Ore gon and North Carolina.
 Politicians in Connecticut arc try ing to do some g"rrymandcrinE while they are at it. The scheme to eliminate the fifth district as at present constituted merely because ii is the chief potential Democratic district in the state, is 10 be heartily condemned. This plan would make a sixth district out of New Britain. Merdon, Southington, Bristol, Farm inslon and Waterbury, thus distil- ling the Democratic vote in Water- bury with the Republican votes in the other towns mentioned. The new fifth district would be mostly in Iitchncld county and would be safely Republican, as the politi- 1 clans say if.
 1 According to the proportion ot Democrats in the state the districts should be arranged so as to permit their being represented in congress 1 to the extent of at least two con- @ressmcn. The state machin" hae done it's best to keep them from be- ing represented at all, and has suc- coded to the extent that only oCca- sionally can the strongly Democratic city of Waterbury swing q Demo- cratic representative into Congress. ! The right kind of rvapportion- mcnt would be more democratic than that. II would be the antithcsis of grrrymmdcriuE. There is nc sound reason why the Democrats of the state should go entirely un- represented merely because the politicians have it in their power tc eerrymander the districts. Keappor- tionment is necessary, but gerry mandering is not.
 The districts Of Connecticut al present present curious mixture oi uneven populations, The first district ] contains @$G,u27 people; the second @&2,Ig2: the third g77,u7o; the fourth 320.93G. the firth 22i i2G.
 some surprise might be expressed 1 that New York and Massachusetts might lose "ouc or more repre- scntatiyes in the event of q rcappor- tionurnt, considering that these . two states have grown considerably Tho official figures have il that on a basis of present population these