81			APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.		      82
________________________________________________________________________________

		       	       The Apportionment Bill,
			             ----------
			               SPEECH
				         OF
				HON. WILLIAM G. SHARP,
				      OF OHIO,
			`  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. SHARP said:
	Mr. SPEAKER: There are a few more important subjects to be considered in 
these closing days of the Sixty-first Congress than that of the apportionment of 
the House of Representatives for the ensuing 10 years.  If only the fact that we 
were legislating for that period, long as it may seem, was involved, that in 
itself would be of sufficient importance; but from some of the reasons assigned 
by speakers in favor of a considerably larger representation a precedent may 
become involved which would be much more important and more far-reaching than a 
mere fact of legislating for so many years in the future.  While a candid 
consideration of this subject should involve only a difference of judgment-for I 
must admit that, as a matter of fact, there is no criterion of right and wrong 
in the abstract to be considered- the real question remains as to what is the 
most efficient size, numerically considered, of the House of Representatives for 
the best carrying on its functions.
	Interesting as such a study might be, it is not my purpose to review to 
any length the discussion upon this question when it first came up for 
consideration in the Federal convention of 1787, yet from the arguments of those 
learned men indulgent in at that time I am persuaded that the same motives 
governed then and the same reasons therefore were in existence as confront the 
Members of this House to-day.
	There was, above all, a certain kind of State pride involved which 
asserted itself in the desire to see that no advantage was gained by one some 
other State.  Indeed, one of the most specious arguments advanced by the 
gentleman in charge of the bill, Mr.CRUMPACKER, is that by apportionment which 
he recommends no single State will lose its present number of Representatives in 
Congress, and this fact furnishes at least a rather unusual coincidence for the 
expression of the belief that the reported accompanying this bill that “a 
membership of 433 for the next decade will come nearer meeting the requirement 
of the country, viewed from all aspects, than a larger or smaller membership.”  
I wish, in this connection, to commend the gentleman for his manifest fairness 
in stating the situation, and after having necessarily spent many laborious 
hours in consideration of this important subject.
	Again referring to the report just quoted, I find on page4, in reference 
to the size of the House, the following:
	The problem of determining the membership of eh House, so us to make it 
a real representative body on the one hand and not make it so large and unwieldy 
as to seriously impair its capacity for the performance of its function on the 
other hand, is quite a serious one, and one upon which there is very wide 
latitude of opinion. Many thoughtful people believe the present membership 
of the House is too large, and that any substantial increase would result in an 
increase of the difficulties in securing intelligent and deliberate action in 
relation to legislation.
	Mr. Speaker, let me say frankly that I am one of those who share in this 
view of the matter.  To my mind, the method of apportionment as to the decennial 
period provided for is probably as satisfactory as could be devised. The 
experience, judged by the test of time, I believe has proven this to be true. 
The basis also of a numerical qualification instead of one of property appears 
to me as far and wise; but as to the size of the House I believe that time has 
now come for a halt in increasing its membership.  Even as far back as 1843-70 
years ago-this phase of the subject was most seriously considered, and the 
debates thereon in both the House and Senate are very interesting at this time.  
There were, indeed, giants those days in both assemblies, and after mature 
consideration of this whole subject of apportionment. Congress not only refused 
to increase the membership of the House, but actually decreased it: and not for 
30 years thereafter was it substantially increased in numbers.  Indeed, it is 
exactly 50 years since the early plan of adding to the number of Representatives 
was resumed, and from 1863 until the present time there has been a moderate 
increase in the number of its Members.
	Mr. Speaker, I ask in all seriousness if it is not a good time, at the 
end of this half century of the policy of adding to our numbers, to again take a 
retrospective view and temporarily, at least covering the next 10 years, follow 
the precedent establishment of 1843 and keep the number of Representatives 
practically where it is at the present time.  While I am not unmindful of the 
force of the reasons given by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. CRUMPACKER] as to 
the need of due consideration in providing for a close representation of the 
people, and also to the fact that the work of the Representatives has been and 
doubtless will be increased, owing to the multifarious developments in the 
business affairs of our country, as well as increased population, yet I am 
unwilling to concede that a membership any larger than the present is 
necessary-or, for that matter, desirable-to efficiently represent that people of 
the country.  IN opposing such an increase in the size of our membership I am 
actuated principally by two reasons: First, from, the fact that if we 
necessarily add considerably more to the running expenses of the Government, 
already very large.  The addition alone of the salaries of 42 Members and their 
secretaries, while no small sum itself , by no means covers all the cost 
involved, and while this sum may not reach the estimate made by some of a 
million dollars per annum, yet it is fair to assume that it will be large.  But 
above even the question of economy is that of efficiency of service.  Upon this 
phase of the question le me briefly quote from the learned Madison who, In the 
Federalist, more than a century ago pointed out the dangers of an unwieldy and 
oversized House of Representatives.  Surely his reasons are as good to-day as 
they were then. Indeed, no one can read of the deliberations of the founders of 
our Constitution upon so many problems which they must solve correctly if they 
would provide a liberal, yet safe, Government that would survive the test of 
time without coming to the belief that in finally determining what provisions 
to adopt and what to discard there were guided by an all-wise and beneficent 
Providence.
	Madison says:
	One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject, 
as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention.  It is that in all 
legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be the fewer 
will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings.  In the first place, 
the more numerous any assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the 
greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason. * * *  The people 
can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their Representatives 
beyond a certain limit they strengthen the barrier against the government  of a 
few.  Experience will forever admonish them that, on the contrary, after 
securing a sufficient number for the purposes of safety, of local – information, 
and of diffiusive sympathy with the whole society, they will counteract their 
own views by every addition to their Representatives.  The countenance of the 
Government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be 
more oligarchic.  The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the 
more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed. 
	It is a constant complaint heard on every side that, owing to the 
present size of the House, we can not have that deliberation which is demanded 
for the careful consideration of the more important matters brought before it, 
and I think that this complaint is just, though from the very nature of the case 
it would be unfair to lay the blame alone to the rules now governing this body, 
however great the need of their revision may be.
	A comparison, Mr. Speaker, has rather ingeniously been made of the size 
of the House of Representatives and the ration of apportionment with that in 
vogue in other countries, and while I am aware that much is made of the fact the 
size of such ratio in the House of Representatives is considerably under that of 
many other countries, yet it is, nevertheless, true that but very few of them 
actually have a larger number of representatives than we have.  Is not this 
really the criterion if the relative merits of a larger or smaller body are to 
be determined?  As a matter of fact, most of those countries have a much less 
population than ours, and for that reason, I suppose, the ratio of 
representation is smaller.  There is no reason to believe that with legislative 
bodies much smaller in numbers than now exist in those same countries they would 
not be just as efficient.
	In conclusion, let me observe that the motive which not only in making 
up this apportionment, but I understand in the on or two preceding decades, 
whereby the size of the House is increased to such a number as will permit no 
State to lose its present representation in Congress, is not without its 
dangers.  Indeed, will not the reasons be just as strong for pursuing the same 
plan in future decades? And surely it does not require a prophet to foresee that 
a like course pursued in fixing the size of the House at the end of the next 
decade will round it out to approximately 500 Members.
With the constantly increasing tendency of our people to flock to the cities, 
thee will of necessity be some States that will not keep up in the procession in 
its proportionate gain in population.  Some Eldorado of the far West, rich in 
promise to the settler, will call him from the East; and the sunny clime of the 
South, with its fertile fields, will attract migration from the North, while the 
attractions and the opportunities of the great cities will continue to draw from 
the farms.  With this over-shifting population, to say nothing of the great 
increase of immigration which has already come to greatly congest our cities, is 
it wise to refuse to recognize such conditions, and insist that no particular 
State shall lose in numbers what it has already gained in its representation in 
Congress?
Fore these reasons, Mr. Speaker, though I regret that I have to differ with a 
large majority of my own party, I am impelled to cast my vote against this bill.