80			APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
________________________________________________________________________________

		       	       The Apportionment Bill,
			             ----------
			               SPEECH
				         OF
		              HON. JOSEPH R. KNOWLAND,
			           OF CALIFORINA,
		           IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVS,
		             Thursday, February 9, 1911,

On the Bill (H.R. 30566) for the reapportionment of Representatives in the 
Congress among the several States under the Thirteenth Decennial Census
	Mr. KNOWLAND said:
	Mr. SPEAKER:  It will be generally conceded, I think , that no voice 
would have been raised to-day in advocacy of a plan to increase by 42 the 
membership of the House of Representatives has the Thirteenth Decennial Census 
failed to show that the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Main, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and 
Wisconsin would lose congressional seats should the ratio of division be fixed 
so as to maintain the present House membership of 391.  Of the 16 members of 
the Committee on the Census 10 are from States that would lose representation 
should the present membership be maintained.
	I am strongly opposed on broad grounds to increase the size of the 
present House.  We all realize that it is now so large and unwieldy as to 
seriously interfere with the proper consideration of public business and the 
addition of 42 Members, as proposed by the Census Committee, will but 
accentuate the called, if we would preserve the dignity and reputation of the 
National House of Representatives.  If we are to add each decade a sufficient 
number of Representatives to protect those sounds whose population is dwindling 
we will cause the House to become so unwieldy as to prevent it from performing 
its constitutional functions.  Has the hour not arrived that calls for the 
display of a broad statesmanship that will eliminate entirely from 
consideration the selfish interests of any State?
	While an attempt is made in the pending bill to prevent future increases 
of membership such as the committee now proposes, it is not improbable that 
following the next decennial census the same selfish considerations will 
control, and that apportionments which this bill attempts to leave to the 
recommendation of future Secretaries of Commerce and Labor will, beginning in 
1921, be taken out of the hands of that official and made by Congress in order 
to prevent Statesfrom losing seats in this body.  I fall to see the consistency 
of recommending a policy for the arguments in favor of which appeal with 
practically equal force in determining the membership of the House under the 
present census.
	It is cited that the membership of many other great parliamentary bodies 
of the world is larger than that of the present American House of 
Representatives. It is true that the German Reichstag has a membership of 396, 
the Spanish Congress a membership of 406, the Russian Duma a membership of 442, 
the Italian Chamber of Deputies 503, the Austrian House of Commons 516, the 
French Chamber of Deputies 594, and the British House of Commons 670.  It must 
be borne in mind, however, that in the House of Commons 40 membership constitute 
a quorum for the transaction of general business and 20 for the consideration of 
private bills.  Seats are only provided, as has already been stated, for about 
one-quarter of the membership.  What is true of the House of Commons is likewise
 true of some of the other large legislative bodies.  We can not transact 
business in this House unless we have present a majority of all Members; or if 
in Committee of the Whole House, 100 Members.
	The cost of adding 42 members is certainly worthy of some consideration.
  The salaries would amount annually to $315,000; mileage (estimated), $35,000; 
clerk hire, $36,000; stationery account, $5,250; franking privilege (estimated), 
$25,000; a total of $668,250.  Now, to this must be added other expenses, 
including the addition of a new story to the House Office Building at an 
enormous cost.  Practically all the space in that building is now occupied, and 
to take care of 42 new Members would necessitate its enlargement.  With the 
ratio for division 232840 of population for each congressional district, the 
figure at which the present House membership will be retained, no Member will 
represent too large a constituency.  Many of us now represent larger districts, 
my own now containing a population of 305,364.  Many other Members successfully 
represent even larger districts.
	In fixing the ration for division at 232,840, no State in the Union will 
be treated unjustly.  They are all accorded equal representation in proportion 
to population.  Actuated by a desire that this House remain a deliberative body, 
I shall not vote to increase its present membership.