« AnteriorContinuar »
APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES.
APRIL 25, 1911.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union and ordered to be printed.
Mr. HOUSTON, from the Committee on the Census, submitted the
[To accompany H. R. 2983.)
The Committee on the Census, to which was referred H. R. 2983, H. R. 27, and H. R. 3996, providing for the apportionment of Representatives among the several States, as provided by the Constitution of the United States, respectfully reports that they have considered said bills for the apportionment of Members in Congress under the Thirteenth Decennial Census, and they report back H. R. 2983 with a favorable recommendation.
This bill provides that after the 3d day of March, 1913, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 433 Members, to be assigned to the States as follows: Alabama.... 10 | Nebraska....
Nevada. California.. 11 New Hampshire.
43 Delaware.. 1 North Carolina.
3 Georgia. 12 Ohio...
8 Illinois. 27 Oregon.
3 Indiana. 13 Pennsylvania.
36 Iowa. 11 Rhode Island.
7 Kentucky. 11 Solith Dakota.
3 Louisiana. 8 Tennessee..
18 Maryland. 6 Utah...
2 Ma-cachi.setts. 16 Vermont.
2 Michigan. 13 Virginia.
10 Minnesota. 10 Washington.
5 Mississippi. 8 West Virginia.
11 Montana... 2 | Wyoming...
1 The bill also provides that if the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico shall become States in the Union before the apportionment of Representatives under the next census they shall have one Representative each, and if one of these Territories shall become a State it shall have one Representative, which Representative or Representatives shall be in addition to the number 433.
సురలు లుకులు నీలంసం
Under this apportionment 21 States will retain their present number of Representatives, as follows: Arkansas... 7 Nebraska.....
6 Connecticut. 5 Nevada...
2 Indiana.. 13 North Carolina.
10 Iowa... 11 South Carolina..
7 Kansas. 8 Tennessee.
10 Kentucky 11 Vermont.
2 Maine... 4 Virginia..
10 Maryland. 6 Wisconsin..
11 Mississippi.. 8 Wyoming
16 The States in which there are changes in the number of Representatives are as follows: Alabama gains..
6 California gains. 3 North Dakota gains.
1 Colorado gains. 1 Ohio gains.
1 Florida gains. 1 Oklahoma gains.
3 Georgia gains.
1 Oregon gains.. Idaho gains. 1 Pennsylvania gains.
4 Illinois gains.
2 | Rhode Island gains. Louisiana gains.
1 South Dakota gains. Massachusetts gains
2 Utah gains. Michigan gains.
West Virginia gains. Minnesota gains. 1 Texas gains..
2 Montana gains. 1 Washington gains.
2 New Jersey gains.
2 Under this apportionment no State will lose a Member.
One of the controlling reasons in fixing the membership of the House at 433 is the fact that this number is the lowest number that will prevent any State from losing a Representative. The committee adopted a ratio of 211,877 for each Representative; the population of each State is then divided by that ratio and one Representative is assigned for each full ratio and one in addition for each major fraction thereof. The actual apportionment is based on the tables prepared by Prof. W.F. Willcox, of Cornell University, as explained in his fetter on page 7 of this report and the tables appended thereto. The allotment to each State of one Member for each full ratio of 211,877 and one for every major fraction thereof makes the total number of Representatives 433 without the loss of a Representative by any State.
By fixing the ratio of population to each Representative at 211,877 the average congressional district under this bill will contain 17,695 more inhabitants than the average district under the last apportionment act.
It will be understood that three States, namely, Delaware, Nevada, and Wyoming, have not a population amounting to the ratio, 211,877, but two of them, namely, Delaware and Wyoming, have a population amounting to more than a moiety or a major fraction of the ratio. The population of Nevada is less than a major fraction of the ratio, but that State gets a Member under the Constitution, which provides that every State shall have at least one Representative.' If the Territory of Arizona is admitted as a State it would come in under this same provision of the Constitution.
The method of allowing one Member for each full ratio and one for each major fraction thereof was adopted by the committee. This method is easy to understand, and is regarded by the committee as membership of the House among the several States as can be arrived at by other methods suggested. This method has been denominated the method of “major fractions, and is thus defined:
The method of major fractions selects a ratio, divides this ratio into the population of the several States, and assigns an additional Representative for each major fraction, disregarding every minor fraction.
Another method, known as the method of 1850, is as follows: The method of 1850 divides the total population of the United States by the number of Representatives to be apportioned, thereby obtaining the ratio or number of people per Representative. It divides this ratio into the population of the several States, ranks the fractions in the order of their size, and assigns as many Representatives for fractions as is necessary to complete the number of Representatives to be apportioned. It may or may not count all the major fractions, or it may count all the major fractions and also some minor fractions.
Another method that has been under consideration by the statisticians of the Bureau of the Census, which might be called the method of ratios, presents a very interesting method, and is claimed by its advocates to reach more nearly a uniform and equitable result than any other method.
These different methods will be more fully explained in a statement submitted by Dr. Joseph A. Hill, one of the chief statisticians of the Bureau of the Census, which is attached to this report as an exhibit for information on the methods of apportionment.
It may be observed that the method advocated by Dr. Hill produces the same result as the method of major fractions adopted by the committee when applied to the apportionment of 433 Representatives, the number agreed upon by the committee.
The bill provides an increase of 42 Members more than the present House. This increase of membership received the serious consideration of the committee and while it is realized that the size of the House should not be increased more than necessary, yet an increase to such a number as would prevent any State from losing a Member is felt to be justified under the conditions existing to-day:
Every apportionment that has been made since the foundation of our Government has increased the membership of the House, except one; that was the apportionment of 1843, made under the Sixth Census, which made a reduction of 17 Members. It will be observed that this reduction was made by the Senate. The House had increased the number, but the Senate changed the House bill so as to put the membership below the number of the then present membership of the House. The general rule has been that the question of fixing the number of Representatives has been determined by the judgment of the House; in fact, the only time the Senate amended the bill by reducing the membership was in the apportionment made in 1843.
It is important to keep the membership of the House as low as the growing and expanding interests of the country and the demand for full representation will allow. We must take into consideration the extended scope of legislation that necessarily arises in our growing and developing country. It is vitally important that the business of the House may be orderly and its work may be deliberative. It is already provided that the Hall in which the House meets shall be rearranged by providing for the seating of Members in a smaller space, so that they can better hear and understand the proceedings and we may fairly presume that under this new arrangement the House can conduct its business, with the increased membership, in a more orderly and less difficult manner than it can now with the present membership and the present arrangement of the House.
There is copied below an extract from Report No. 1911 to the third session of the Sixty-first Congress submitted by Mr. Crumpacker in reference to the representation of other civilized countries:
The popular branches of legislative bodies in leading countries of the civilized world are much larger in relation to population than is the Ilouse of Representatives in this country. Below is a table showing the size of the popular branches of the legislatures in the leading countries of Europe, together with the ratio of members to population. This table was taken from the Statesman's Yearbook for 1910, and it shows the census upon which the calculations were made:
It will be seen upon an examination of the table that in the densely populated countries of Europe, where representatives have less difficulty in familiarizing themselves with local, industrial, social, and political conditions, the ratio of population is much smaller than it is in the United States. The nearest approach to our ratio is that of Germany, which is 155,546. It is true that conditions are different in this country from what they are in European countries. In many of the countries named in the table submitted the legislative bodies make all of the laws, general and local, outside of the cities, but at the same time the policy in other countries is not without significance, particularly in view of the growing tendency in this country toward concentrating legislative power in Congress.
Below is given the membership and ratio under the different apportionments:
Membership and ratio under several apportionments.
Whole number of Representatives.
65 105 141 181 213 240 223 233 243 293 325 356
In connection with this report is printed a letter written by Prof. Willcox, of Cornell University, to Mr. Crumpacker, chairman of the Census Committee in the last Congress, describing the method of arriving at the ratio and apportioning the Representatives among the States, and there follows this letter a series of tables presenting different ratios and apportionments, which are also attached to this report.
One of the bills considered by your committee (H. R. 27) in section 3 thereof attempts to provide a method for apportionment of Representatives after the next or Fourteenth and each subsequent decennial census of the population. The number of Representatives in future apportionments is attempted to be substantially fixed by the .method therein outlined and the actual apportionment is to be made by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor and reported to Congress, whereupon it shall have the force and effect of law without further legislation by Congress.
The majority of your committee do not approve of such a provision and have not included the same in the bill as reported. It has been argued by those who favor such a provision that it would have a strong moral influence upon future Congresses and serve to eliminate future controversies as to the number of Representatives in future apportionments under each decennial census.
As against such a provision of law your committee submit that it would be only advisory and would not bind Congress in future apportionments. We submit that the Constitution intended not only to provide for a decennial census, but for an actual apportionment based upon such census. It is a contingency against the happening of which no legislation could wisely be framed. No Congress can be so well equipped to deal with the question of apportionment in the popular segislative branch as the one of which the Members are elected to serve in the Congress charged with the execution of this duty. Of necessity contemporary and varying conditions must control. The varying increase in the aggregate of population and the inequality of increase in the several States, together with other factors which can not be foreseen, must and will enter into the problem of each apportionment. As we can not forecast all these varying conditions, it follows that we can not legislate in advance to meet them. Whatever this Congress may think as to the number of Representatives after the Fourteenth Census, or any subsequent census, will not be binding upon the Congress at that time, and it is extremely doubtful if it would be wise to attempt to do so, even if we had the power. Intelligent, contemporaneous public sentiment will control each apportionment in the interest of popular government and wise legislation. The attempt which was made in 1850 to legislate in this manner was not literally complied with and the supposed exigency which existed at that time has no parallel in conditions to-day. "We think that the almost uniform course of legislation in the past regarding each decennial apportionment should be followed at this time.