United States of .Atp.erica

<tilngrtssional-1Rcrord PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 77th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

SENATE TuESDAY, OcTOBER 21, 1941

<Legislative day of Thursday, October 16, 1941)

The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess.

The Chaplain, Rev. Z~Barn~y T. Phil­lips, D. D. , offered the following prayer:

0 Saviour of the world, by whose in­finite compassion, by whose love passing human telling we have been wooed and won: Take Thou our lives, poor, weak and insufficient though they be, and let Thy life flow through them till we realize Thy holy purpose.

Look Thou with tenderness on all those whom we love; unto all who sorrow bring release from pain, and may we share with all who need· the vast treasure of contentment Thou hast bestowed on us today. In our manifold temptations Thou alone art ever nigh, a shadow from the heat of life; in our prosperity and ease 'tis but Thy spirit that can .wean us from our pride and keep us low; and so we ask that Thou · wilt take us to Thy fold, dear, tender Shepherd, Thine own for aye, to be. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. BARKLEY, and by unanimous consent. the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of the calen­dar day of Monday, October 20, 1941, was dispensed with, and the Journal was ap­proved.

CALL OF THE ROLL

Mr. ELLENDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Ada~ Connally Aiken Danaher Andrews Davis Bailey Doxey Ball Ellender Bankhead Gillette Barbour Glass Barkley Green Bilbo Guffey Brewster Gurney Bridges Hatch Brooks Herring Brown Hill Bunker Hounan Burton Hughes Butler Johnson, Calif. Capper . Kilgore Car'\way La Follette Chavez Langer Clark, Idaho Lee Clark, Mo. McFarland

LXXXVII--510

McKeUar McNary Maloney Mead Murdock Murray Norris Nye O'Daniel O'Mahoney Peace Pepper Radcliffe . Rosier Russell Schwartz Shipstead Smathers Spencer Taft Thomas, Idaho

Thomas, Okla. Vandenberg Thomas, Utah Van Nuys Truman Wallgren Tunnell Walsh

Wheeler White Wiley

Mr. HILL. I announce that the Sena­tor from Washington [Mr. BoNE] and the Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER] are absent from the Senate because of illness.

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. BANKHEAD], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. BuLow], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CHANDLER], the Senator from California [Mr. DOWNEY], the Sen­ator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JoHNSON], the Senator from Dlinois [Mr. LucAs], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCAR­RANl, the ·Senator from LoUisiana [Mr. OVERTON 1, the Senator trom North Car­olina [Mr. REYNOLDS], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH], the Senator from Tennessee lMr. Sl'EWARTJ, and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS] are necessarily absent from the Senate.

Mr. McNARY. I announce that the Senator fron. Vermont [Mr. AusTIN], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. REED], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. WILLIS], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LoDGE] are necessarily absent.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Seventy­four Senators have answered to their . names. A quorum is present.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated:

WILLARD R. CENTERWALL

A letter from the Acting Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation for the relief of Willard R. Cen­terwall, formerly superintendent and special disbursing agent at the Tongue River Indian Agency (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

EASEMENT IN LANDS OF VETERANS' ADMINIS­TRATION FACILITY, TOGUS, MAINE

A letter from the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, transmitting a draft of proposed leg­islation authorizing the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to grant an easement in certain lands of the Veterans' Administration facility, Togus, Maine, to the State of Maine, for rQad-widening purposes (with an accom­panying paper) ; to the Committee on Finance.

PETITIONS

Petitions, etc .. , were presented and re­ferred as indicated:

By Mr. WILEY: A resolution adopted by Local No. 191, Me­

morial Park Workers, U. C. A. P. A. W. A., of

Milwaukee, Wis., favoring amendment of the Social Security Act so as to include there­under workers in church cemeteries and other institutions who arP. not now included; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. CAPPER: A petition, numerously signed, of sundry

citizens of Galena, Kans., praying for the enactment of the bill (S. 860) to provide for the common defense in relation to the sale of alcoholic liquors to the members of the land and naval forces of the United States and to provide for the suppression of vice in the vicinity of military camps and naval estab­lishments; to the table.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma from the Com­mittee on Agriculture and Forestry:

H. R. 5726. A bill to amend Public Law No. 74 of the Seventy-seventh Congress; relating to wheat-marketing quotas under the Agri­cultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended; without amendment (Rept. No. 718).

By Mr. HATCH: . From the Committee on the Judiciary: H. R. 2596. A bill to repeal the prohibition

against the filling of a vacancy in the office of district judge fc;>r the district of Massa­chusetts; without amendment (Rept. No. 719).

From the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: ~

S. 1762. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to release the claim of the United States to certain land within Coconino County, Ariz.; with an amendment (Rept . No. 720).

BILLS INTRODUCED

Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous COJ .. sent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. BARKLEY: S. 2000. A bill to amend the act confer­

ring jurisdiction upon the United States Dis­trict Court for the Western District of Ken­tucky to render judgment upon the claim of the late Theodore R. Troendle; to the Com­mittee on Claims.

By Mr. BUTLER: S. 2001. A bill for the relief of Arthur C.

No~cutt; to the Committee on Claims. By Mr. WALLGREN:

S. 2002. A bill for the relief of Donald Wil­lh:im Burt; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. RUSSELL: S. 2003. A bill for the relief of Luther Her­

bert Tench and Mrs. Mildred Farmer Tench; to the Committee on Claims.

S. 2004. A bill granting a pension to Sally Turner; to the Committee on Pensions.

WHEAT-MARKETING QUOTAS­AMENDMENT

Mr. TAFT submitted an .amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill <H. R. 5726) to amend Public Law No. 74 of the Seventy-seventh Congress,

- :y,l - -:- "-'8075

0{~ I )

8076 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE OCTOBER 21

rela~ing to wheat-marketing quotas un­der the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. ADDRESS BY SEi.dATOR HILL ON THE

DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY

[Mr. ELLENDER asked ar.d obtained leave to have printed in the RECORD a radio address on the 'subject The Defense of Our Country, delivered by Senator HILL on October 20, 1941, which appears in the Appendix .]

ADDRESB BY ~ENATOR BREWSTER TO YOUNG REPUBLICANS OF PENNSYL­VANIA

[Mr. BREW::lTER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RECORD an address de­livered by him before the annual ccnvention of the Young Republicans of Pennsylvania, at Harrisburg, Pa., on October 17, 1941, which !lppears in the Appendix. ]

ADDRESS BY MRS. CLAUDE PEPPER AT .JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

[Mr. HILL asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RECORD an address delivered by Mrs. Claude Pepper, at · Jacksonville, Fla., on December 27, 1941, at the luncheon cele­brating National Democratic Women's Day, which appears in the Appendix.]

ADDRESS BY WILLIAM GREEN AT AMER­ICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR CONVEN­TION

[Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained kave to have printed in the REcoRD the address de­livered by William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, at the conven­tion of the federation in Seattle, Wash., which appears in the Appe"ldix.]

WHERE WILL IT STOP?-EDITORIAL FROM FORT WORTH PRESS

[Mr. O'DANIEL asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RECORD an editorial from the Fort Worth Press of October 16, 1941, en­titled "Where Will It Stop?" which appears in the Appendix.]

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the b!ll <H. R. 2665 > to provide for ap­portioning Representatives in Congress among the several States by the equal­proportions method.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, to re­turn to the issue before the Senate-the reapportionment bill-! am aware of the fact, through membership on the sub­committee and the committee which re­ported out this bill, that there is con­siderable sen~iment in the Senate in favor of the bill because it has passed the House of Representatives, not in the form in which it is presented here but e·ssentially with the same objective iri view.

I wish to say that almost every reform on apportionment in the history of legis­lation has been made in the Senate of the United States and has not been made in the House. The reason is obvious. In the House there is an intense personal interest in the subject, because it affects the Members of the House. It cannot directly affect · any of the Senators. Therefore, I think the argument thr t we should do this thing because the House wants it to be done is an evasion of our responsibilities. Under the Constitution

the job is ours, as well as the job of the Members of the House of Representa­tives; and by reading the history of ap­portionment legislation in the United States it will be found that our respon­sibility is heavy and our predecessors have instituted the major improvements.

I desire first to point out that the ap- · portionment which changes the number of Representatives in the various States from their present status is now the law e the land. The State of Arkansas has been officially advised by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, under constitutional and statutory direction that it is to elect 6 Representatives in the next election. The State of Califor­liia has also been so advised that it may elect 23 instead of 20.

The State of Florida has been officially advised that it may elect 6 Representa­tives instead of 5; the State of Illinois 26 instead of 27; the State of Indiana 11 instead of 12; the State of Iowa 8 in­stead of 9; the State of Kansas 6 instead of 7; the State of Massachusetts 14 in­stead of 15; the State of Michigan 18 instead of 17; the State of Nebraska 4 instead of 5; the State of Ohio 23 instead of 24; the State of Oregon 4 instead of 3; the State of Pennsylvania 33 instead of 34; the State of Tennessee 10 instead . of 9. Each one of those States has been advised by the Clerk of the House of Rep­resentatives as to the number it shall elect during the decennium from 1942 on. That is the law of the land today.

We have now before us two issues one of which no Senator has undertaken to explain. The issues are: First, shall we adopt a new method known as equal proportions in the place of a method known as major fractions? · Second, if Wl do adopt that change, shall it be effective for the decennium from now until the next census, in 1950, or shall it apply only in and after 1950? Those are the two issues before us.

It is my intention to move an amend­ment by which section 2 shall be stricken from the bill. The effect of that will be to make the so-called equal-proportions method, if it is preferred by the Congress, effective in 1950, but not in 1940, for the reason that it is not good legislation to determine representation after the · mathematical facts upon which that rep­resentation is based are known. It is better to avoid controversy between the States, avoid controversy between Rep­resentatives in the House of Representa­tives, by laying down the rule before the facts are known. All students of the subject agree that as a matter of policy that is the proper way to legislate, and that is the way, in effect, in which we did legislate in 1929.

Mr. President, I shall try to explain briefly the difference between these two methods. I first say that the effect is as follows: If "equal proportions," the Caraway bill, is adopted by the Senl\te and the House-and it will have to go back to the House-the result will be that the existing apportionment of 18 to Mich­igan and 6 to Arkansas will be over­turned, and Michigan will lose a Rep­resentative it now has under the law, and Arkansas will gain a Representative it does not have under existing law. To be

perfectly fair, I will state that is the situation which existed before the de­cennium from 1932 up to the present time. Arkansas now has representmg it in the House of Representatives 7 Mem­bers, and Michigan has 17, but under the 1929 law. which is now effective, Michi­gan will elect 18 at the next election and Arkansas 6.

The method of apportionment can only be explained if we lay aside the many complications which enter into the math­ematical calculation by reason of the constitutional provision which eliminates a common divisor by providing that each State in the Union, regardless of popula­tion, be given 1 Representative. Nevada, with a population of less than a hundred thousand, when roughly 300,000 is about the average throughout the United States, must, under the Constitution, have 1 Representative, and likewise with half a dozen or so other States which have populations below the population of the average congressional distnct throughout the United States, excluding the District of Columbia.

Because of that complication we can­not take a certain division based upon the number of Representatives in the House-435-divtued into the total popu­lation of the United States, exclusive of the District of Columbia, some 131,-000,000 people, which roughly gives slightly over 300,000. It cannot be done that way, because many States which have less than the 300,000 must, under the Constitution, have one Representa­tive. But we can clarify' the situation by using an approximate divisor, say 300,000.

Each State larger than 300,000 after the application of this divisor to its population quotient, has a remainder. That remainder, under the early prac­tice, was disposed of in this manner: Each State which had a major fraction­that is, more than one-half of the di­visor-had an extra Representative. For example, in a State with a population of a million one hundred thousand, . let us assume a divisor, 300,000. That State would have 3 Representatives-300,000 divided into 1,100,000-and there would theoretically be 200,000 unrepresented; 200.000 being greater than one-half of 300,000, that State had an extra Repre­sentative. That method, in simple lan­guage, is the method of major fractions. Under major fractions, whichever State has the largest population numerically, after dividing the population of the State by· the divisor, 300,000 in the present instance, gets an additional Represent­ative.

That, in simple language, stripped of many complications due to these 48 Rep­resentatives whom we have to assign to the States; for example, 1 to .;he State of Vermont and 1 to the big little State of New York-leaving that complication out of the situation, which is the way the mathematicians must figure it-we come to approximately 300,000 for each congressional district in the United States based upon the 1940 census.

Under equal proportions that State which has the largest number left over after the application of the divisor 300,-: 000 gets the next Representative. But, unfortunately, it cannot work that way.

1941 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD'-SENATE 8077. It could if we increased or decreased the size of the House of Representatives each time, to make it come out so that every State having 51 percent should have an­other Representative. But that would not be good policy. I think the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BURTON] stated yester­day that under the Constitution the lim­itation on the size of the House of Rep­resentatives was from 48 to something like 4,400. Of course, that limitation is altogether too broad, and we limit it by statute. The House and the Senate have come to the conclusion that the size of the House membership should not be in­creased, and I do not wish to attempt to disturb that situation, although this en­tire controversy could be settled by in­creasing the number of Representatives by 1, from 435 to 436; but I think it is sound policy, and the Congress has laid it down as sound policy, that we should not increase the number of Representa­tives beyond 435. Therefore every State which has a major fraction-that is, one more than half of the size of a congres­sional district-cannot get a new Repre­sentative unless we increase the number; and we will 110t do that.

Therefore, Mr. President, there must be what the mathematicians call a pri­ority list. The States are numbered. State No.1 must get the first extra Rep­resentatives, State No. 2 must get the second, No. 3 the third, No. 4 the fourth. Of course, when we get beyond that it may be right and just that one State shall have two additional Representatives before another which is smaller gets one additional Congressman. So, this priority list is worked out. Both equal proportions and major fractions are identical in their calculation, in effect. down to this point.

Now, we come to the difference between the two. It has been stated on the floor of the Senate that the explanation of this difference is very difficult and that it is almost impossible to understand. I may be treading on dangerous ground, but I do not think those statements are accurate. I think it is easy to under­stand the fundamental difference be..; tween the two methods. If one applies his mind just tu the phrase "equal pro­portions" and to the phrase "major frac­tions," and has some understanding of the background, which necessarily is ob­tained by listening, as I did for some months, to testimony upon this subject, I think the explanation is not only fairly easy to make, but also to understand. I hope that in the space of a very few minutes I can make the distinction clear to the Senators who do me the honor to listen to me today.

I use the same illustration I did be­fore-a State of 1,100,000 population, each congressional district being of the average size of 300,000 people, we have 3 Representatives in that State and 200,000 people left over. Under the equal­proportions method that State would get the Representative. But you place along­side of that State another State with a population of 750,000. It has 2 Repre­sentatives, 1 for each 300,000 people, or a total of 600,000 people, and it has 150,­ooo people left over or theoretically un­represented. State A, the first State,

with a papulation of 1,100,000 people, has 3 Representatives, and has 200,000 people left over. State B, with a popula­tion of 750,000, has 2 Representatives, representing 300,000 people each, and has 150,000 people left over. Major frac­tions says in that case State A, because it has 200,000 people left over remain­ing unrepresented, gets the Representa­tive, and State B, having 150,000 people left over unrepresented, does not get the Representative. That is sometimes called

• the arithmetical method. It is the simple fact that 150,000 is less than 200,000.

But the Representatives of State B come along and say, "How about the proportion of this thing? How about the comparative size of these districts?" State B has 750,000 population. Divide that by 2 Representatives, and each Rep­resentative is representing 375,000 people. The districts are larger districts. Each Representative in that State is repre­senting 375,000 people, while State A, with 1,100,000 people, and 3 Representa­tives, has an average congressional dis­trict of 366,666 people and each is rep­resenting that many. In other words, the average size of the district in state A is smaller than the average size of the district in State B.

I think I should repeat that State A has 1,100,000 people and 3 Represent­atives. That is the situation as it looks when the census comes in. Each one of those Representatives on the average represents 366,666 people. Three times 366,666 is 1,100,000. While State B, having 750,000 population, and having a smaller remainder left over, on the basis of the divisor, 300,000, having 150,-000 left over, the other State having 200,000 left over, nevertheless has a larger population on the average in its districts. It has 375,000 people in each of 2 districts, while the other State has 366,000 people in each of its 3 districts.

Mr. President, in simple plain lan­guage, in what I think is a simple mathe­matical illustration, is seen the issue. The issue is simple. Is the Senate going to give this Representative to the State having the larger remainder, the largest major fraction of the divisor? Or is the Senate going to give the Representative to that State, or is it going to give it to the State which has the larger average district? That is, the equal-proportions method.

Mr. President, I am not going to stand . here on the floor and urge any Senator to take his choice between those two meth­ods. Experts on orie side, as the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BURTON] said yesterday, favor equal proportions. - They say that it is the newer method. It was not devised until, I think, 1921, by Professor Hunt­ington, of Harvard University. The other method, major fractions, has been the rule in effect, with exceptions, from 1830, when the problem first became acute, down to 1940. That method has been im­proved upon from time to time. Various paradoxes occurred, injustices were done, but so far as possible they were elim­inated. It has been the considered judg­ment of every Congress from 1830 down to 1930, that major fractions, the method which gives the extra Representative to the State having the largest unrepre-

sented remainder after the application of the divisor, is the best method. · Now the Sehator from .Arkansas [Mrs.

CARAWAY] proposes that we change that method and adopt a new one, which has never been the law of the United States.

I wish to say to my colleagues that if there is anyone who has done me the courtesy of listening who does not un­derstand this distinction between the two methods, I would be glad to have him question me, because I think the matter can be made clear. The only thing that is necessary to understand it is the application of the mind to the facts as they appear.

I wish to quote now from the leading authorities upon this subject very briefly. Professor Huntington, who is the advo­cate of equal proportions, which I will call the Caraway method, says:

Under the method of equal proportions a proposed transfer of a seat from one State to another State should be made only if the percentage difference between the congres­sional districts would be reduced by the transfer.

Professor Huntington says: Under the method of major fractions a pro­

posed transfer should be made only if the absolute difference-

That is the arithmetical difference, the difference by subtraction-. between the individual shares in the two States would be reduced by the transfer.

Professor Willcox says: One is the arithmetical difference, the other

is the geometric difference. Now that is a little bit more difficult to

understand, but I say that I think that definition of the difference, or statement of the difference, as well as those made by Professor · Huntington, are entirely accurate.

Professor Huntington goes on to say: If Congress decides that the absolute dif­

ference between the individual shares is the proper measure of inequality-

Because that is what we do determine; when we meet this problem we determine this question: Is State A unequally treated with relation to the next State in the priority list, State B?-then the method of major fractions is the method to be adopted; but 1f Congress decides that the absolute differ­ence between the congressional districts is the proper measure of inequality, then the methods of harmonic mean is the method to be adopted.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for an inquiry?

Mr. BROWN. Yes; I yield to the Sena­tor from Colorado.

Mr. ADAMS. As I read section 2 of the committee amendment, the method of equal proportions is not set out. But in that section there is a reference to a. statement transmitted to the Congress.

Mr. BROWN. I will say to the Senator that section 1 very definitely adopts equal proportions as the method to be used, and section 2, of course, applies section 1-I say retroactively-to the census of 1940. That is the main issue between them.

8078 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD-SENATE OCTOBER 21 · Mr. ADAMS. In the statement re­ferred to in section 2 is the detail of the equal-proportions method · set out, or is merely the result ascertained by the ap­plication of that method set out?

Mr; BROWN. The statute, I will say to the Senator from Colorado, lays down a rule of calculation which in scientific minds in the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of the Census, is well worked out and is definite and certain. We state in the law whether we adopt equal pro­portions or major fractions as the method of reaching the conclusion upon which the apportionment is made between the several States. We do not attempt to set forth the mathematical calculation, be­cause ther.e is no dispute between the scholars as to the application of any of the five methods.

I may say to the Senator from Colo­rado· there are· three other methods. I do not know whether I can recall them all. The methods are equal proportions ·and major fractions, which are the sub- · ject of debate ·here, and which, it is gen­erally stated, ar.e the superior methods; harmonic mean, the smallest qivisor; and the greatest divisor. Those are the five methods. I will say that . there is much 'expert opinion both ways. There is no question but. that the precedents in the United States are entirely with the major­fractions method for which I am con- , tending today . .

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? ·

Mr. BROWN. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. My attention was diverted while the Senator from Michi­gan was explaining the applicatiOlJ of the method which is. described in section 1 of the bill as the method of equal propor­tions. Will the Senator be kind enough to repeat his explanation· of that appli­cation?

Mr. BROWR Yes. In lines 13 and 14 the statutory language appears in the Caraway amendment.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. That is correct. We are asked now to legislate upon a term the definition of which is· not set forth in the bill itself.

Mr. BROWN. That is correct. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Therefore I am

asking the Senator to make that matter clear.

Mr. BROWN. Of course, I have tried to explain the difference, and I am sure the highly intelligent Senator from Wyo­ming now underst&.nds the difference be­tween equal proportions and major frac­tions. I will say that there is no dispute between .the experts in the Census Bureau in the Department of Commerce as to what will be done in the application of any method we adopt. If we say that the method shall be equal proportions, there will be no difficulty in the applica­tion of that principle to the census fig­ures of 1940. Professor Willcox, Profes­sor Huntington, and Dr. Dedrick, of the Census Bureau, all will agree as to the effect of such legislation.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. My understanding is that that phrase now is scientifically recognized as describing a particular method.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. But my .reason for rising and interrupting the Senator was because my attention was diverted while he was explaining the application of the method; and I wish he would repeat it, if he will be kind enough to do so.

Mr. BROWN. I will say to the Senator from Wyoming that, in order to show just how the method of equal proportions or the method of major fractions would apply, I should have to go over all I have said, to which I know the Senator has been listening. I will not go over all of • it, but I think I can recall it to the Sen­ator's mind.

Briefly, under any method we allot 48 Representatives to each of the 48 States, 1 to each State, under a constitutional mandate so to do. The next step is to adopt a priority list by whicl:) States are numbered from' 1 up to 48, showing when each State under any 1 of the 4 or 5 methods I have seen listed is entitled to the next Representative. · Certainly I think I can make the situation very clear to the Senator if we take the most obvious -illustration. If we had 49 · Representa­tives in the House of Representatives, no one would dispute the fact that New York would be entitled to the first extra Repre­sentative. Certainly Pennsylvania would be conceded the second, and Illinois the third. When we come down to the ques­tion of whether Ohio, the fourth State of the Union, would be entitled to the next Representative before New York. would get 3 ·Representatives, we run into the first complication, and it is necessary in a priority list to say that New York at some time will have 3 Representatives · before Michigan will have more than 1. Does the Senator follow me in that re­spect? That priority list is established. It is definitely known. It is worked out mathematically and accurately.

Then comes the question in this issue, · whether hereafter we shall use-and 'I will use the term-the · arithmetical ·method or· the geometric method in de­termining which State shall be given the next Representative t'n the priority list when there comes a dispute. Of course, many of these questions are settled with­out dispute. I may state here that equal proportions and major fractions are so

· close to being identical in their practical application and effect in this census that in 434 cases they are identical in their e:tiect. It is only when we come to the four hundred and thirty-fifth case, the dispute between my good friend from Arkansas and myself, that we find any di:tference in effect between equal propor­tions and major fractions.

So we follow the priority list down, and we apply these two methods, arid we find no difference between them until we come to Representative No. 435. I, of course, was opposed to any increase in the membership of the House of Repre­sentatives. It was seriously proposed over there that the membership be in­creased up to about 485; but, with what I regard as commendable forbearance on the part of Representatives there, they decided to stick to the 435 and not yield .to the temptation to open up the way for any individual State to gain a large , number of Representatives. The propo­sal was, in effect, that no State should

lose any Representatives, and that the Legislature should merely add to the list all the increases that have occurred by the application of the method adopted. They stuck to 435. If we did, however- speaking theoretically- have 436 Representatives, there would not be any difference between equal proportions and major fractions in their effect in this apportionment. Which are we going to do? Which is the better thing for the country?

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues in the Senate that it is my frank and, I believe, unbiased judgment that a sound argument can be made either way on this narrow issue; that it does not make much difference which of these ·~wo methods we adopt.

The one thing that major fractions has and equal proportions does not have is a history of 110 years or 120 years be­hind .it as the method which the Con­gress of the United States has adopted. There was never much disnute about method before. In 1920, when my State ef Michigan was entitled to 16 or 17 Rep­resentatives, .and , went . all .through the years from 1920 to 1932 . with 4 less than we were entitled .to, there was no dispute over method of application. be­cause practically all methods brought about the same result. But we suffered a loss of 4 seats in the House of Repre­sentatives during that decennium. Cali­fornia suffered likewise; I think Ohio suffered likewise, and so did several other States. it was. through the determined opposition of those States which were los­ing Representatives that no apportion­ment was made between 1920 and 1929 or 1930. So I say that the one conclu­siOii we can reach is that while experts disagree as to the fine-spun distinction between these two methods, the effect is to take from Michigan the Representa­tive which under the law it now has and which the Secretary of the Senate has advised the Governor of Michigan it is entitled to. The effect is to add to Ar­kansas a Representative which by the action of the Clerk of the House of Rep­resentatives, under the Constitution, he has already advised Arkansas, some 8 or 10 months ago, she does not have-in other words, that she must elect 6 Rep­resentatives in 1942, and Michigan must elect 18. This is an attempt to change existing law, and it is an attempt to change 120 years of history in the make­up of the apportionment of the member­ship of the House of Representatives between the different States.

Mr. President, I cannot refrain from mentioning now a subject which I know was a potent force in the House of Rep­resentatives and is a potent force in the Senate of the United States. That is the politics of this situation. In the House of Representatives one Republican voted for the apportionment bill. In the House, ·outside of the State of Michigan, which is directly affected, only three Democrats voted against the bill.

It was a strict party vote. What was the reason for that? The reason was that Arkansas is considered to be a sure Democratic State, because Arkansas is reasonably certain to send a Democratic Representative, a Democratic delegation,

1941 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 807!J and because Michigan is considered to be a doubtful State. I wish to inquire into that situation·and analyze it briefly from a party standpoint, and I want to appeal to the reasoning of my Democratic col­leagues in the Senate upon that subject.

I do not place Michigan above Arkan­sas in any sense of the word. Michigan is larger, but in every respect the peo­ple of Arkansas are entitled to every con­sideration to which the people of Mich­igan are entitled. I say to the senior Senator from Arkansas and the junior Senator from Arkansas and the several Members of the House of Representatives :from Arkansas. who are very much inter­ested in this' que~tion, that it was only a month ago that a most beautiful cere­mony took place in the State of Mich­igan, when thP battle flags carried by the soldiers of Arkansas and captured dur­ing the War between ~he States. from 1861 to 1865, were returned by my good friend the Governor of Michigan to the Governor of Arkansas. · It showed a fine attitude on the part of my State and a fine c:pirit on the part of the Governor of Arkansas. · I do not like to dispute with my good

friend the senior Senator from Arkansas over this question. I may say· that the difficulty could . resolve itself very well because of the peculiarities of the situa­tion in Arkansas. The junior Senator from Arkansas does not intend to run for the Senate; ·he has no desire to come back next year. There are seven Rep­-resentatives from the State · of Arkansas at the present tim.e. Six- of them . ~an come back to the House of Representa- · tives, and . Arkansas can send the other one to the Senate of the United States. Why would not_ that be a good solution

.of the problem? Without attempting, of course, to influence the people of-Arkan­sas, my good friend. Mr. TERRY, the senior

rRepresentative from that State, who came into the .House of Represent-a­tives in 1933. about the same time I did, ought to be sent to the United States Senate, in which event Arkansas would not "Jose any of her Representatives who now sit in the H0use, but one would be­come our colleague here.

So I say, Mr. President, that on this issue my good Democratic friends will make a serious mistake If they permit politics to be the> determining factor. Michigan went Democratic in 1932 by 130,000 votes; Michigan went Democratic in 1936 by over ·200,000 votes; Michigan Democrats elected their Governor and several of their State officers in 1940; and in a vote of ~.000,000 the Democratic Presidential candidate lost by only 6,900 votes. and there were far more votes, twice as many votes as tl:.at in the minor­ity parties: So the Presidential candi­date on the Republican ticket did not have 50 percent of the vote of my State of Michigan.

Michigan is, I concede, a less certain Democratic State than Arkansas, but are the Democrats of Michigan who have car­ried the flag there . am I, sired by a Democratic father and an ardent Demo­crat since the days of my early youth, to be told that my colleagues in the Senate wiH decide this question on the ground of politics. It is a harder struggle to

keep the Democratic Party on top in Michigan than it is in Arkansas. I can remember, my Democratic colleagues, when I was the only Democratic prose­cuting attorney in the 84 counties of Michigan. I can remember when Herbert Hoover carried the State by 800,000 ma­jority in 1928. Should we be slapped be­cause we in Michigan are not as strong proportionately in our democracy as the people of Arkansas? Should we change the rule governing the apportionment of Representatives which has prevailed for 120 years in order to prevent the loss ot a Democratic Representative in the State of Arkansas? I say that if my colleagues base their votes upon that proposition, in my judgment, they are doing my State a serious injury.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? . · Mr. BROWN. I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. BURTON. The Senator a mo­ment ago stated that there was very little difference between the 2 systems, and that it made no difference in any preced­ing year whether we had one or the other. I am sure the Senator wishes to have the matter shown accurately in the RECORD, and, without attempting to review the situation here, I should like to ask per­mission to place in the REcORD, following the remarks of the Senator wher he has· ·finished, the table which appears at page 64 of the book enti1.led "Congressional Apportionment" by Schmeckebier. This table illustrates the results of each of the 5 so-cal1ed modern methods if applied to the census of 1920. It shows that the equal-proportions method and the major~fractions method would have dif­fered in at least 4 cases; for example, b.Y the equal-proportions method Ver­mont would have had 2 instead of 1 Representative and New Mexico would have had. 2 instead of 1; whereas by the major-fractions method Virginia had 10 instead of 9; and North Carolina had 11 instead of 10. ·

Mr. BROWN. Does the Senator con­cede that the method of equal propor­tions did not come Jnto existence until 1921, which was after the census to which the Senator has referred?

Mr. BURTON. I am merely putting this in the RECORD . to show that the 2 methods are no.t substantially identical. As applied to the census of 19!GO, the dif­ference would affect at least 4 States; in 1930 the final result did pappen to be the same for all States; and in 1940 there is a difference, as you know, for 2 States. Therefore, it is not an extraordinary or unusual result that at this time the 2 methods produce differing results. It is natural that there be a difference in re­sults. because there is a fundamental dif­ference between the principles on which the computations are based. The ex­traordinary thing was that under the 1930 census both methods produced completely identical apportionments on the basis of 435 Representatives.

Also, may I ask that I be permitted to place in the RECORD at the same time the corresponding figures for 1930 and for 1940? Finally, in answer to the state­ment by the Senator that on the 1940 priority list it makes no difference until

we come to the States of Arkansas and Michigan and that, therefore. the meth­ods are identical until we reach 435 Repre­sentatives. I contend that the priority list shows that not to be the fact. · The 1940 priority lists, which I wish to put into the RECORD from pages 217 to 225 of the same book, show that under these 2 methods, if we stopped, for example, at 433 Repre­sentatives, Missouri would then have the last Representative under the equal­proportions method; but if we stopped at the same point of 433 Representatives under the major-fractions method, then New York instead of Missouri would hlVe the last Representative. So there is a difference between the results of the 2 method£:. that runs back down through their respective priority lists.

Mr. BROWN. I do not understand that in the same way the Senator does. I gathered from the testinwny of DI Ded­rick before the subcommittee of which the Senator and I were both members that up to the Michigan-Arkansas dis­pute there was no difference in the appJi.: cation of the two methods under the 1940 census figures. Am I accurate in that statement?

Mr. BURTON. I do not recall that statement, but it is true that it would not make any difference to any others than those 2 States if you stop your com­putation at 435 Members.

Mr. BROWN. Of course, my argument is based on the proposition that I stated in the beginning, that we did not either increase O:Q decrease the tota1 number of Representatives in the House of Repre­sentatives from 435.

Mr. BURTON. It is true that under a 435 membership, according to the 1940 census, it would make a difference in just these 2 States, but it is not true that the . 2 methods W01Jld produ~t the same result aU the way uP to 435. There are differ­ences within the methods, because the major-fraction£:. method favors the larger States, ·the harmonic-mean method favors the smaller States. and the equal­proportions method favors neither the smaller nor the larger. That is where the difference comes in.

Mr. BROWN. I disagree with the Senator entirely upon the proposition he just· stated as one method or the other favoring the smaller or larger States. That has been stated, but it has been denied by experts whom the Senator knows and who probably know more about the question than does the Senator from Ohio or the Sen a tor from Michigan. My contention-and I think that it has been set forth clearly-is that, based upon a membership of 435 Representa­tives, which is the number we must deal with if we are to stick to the precedent which the House established and which has been established for many years, the two methods differ in no instance what­soever until we come to the four hundred and thirty-fifth Member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. BURTON. That is wrong, be­cause they do differ, for example, at 433 and 434 Members. If we start with the premise that we are going to have 435 Members, then, it will make a di1;'fer­ence in only 2 States.

8080. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE OCTOBER ~1

Mr. BROWN. Yes; in Michigan and Arkansas. The Senator is saying exactly what I have contended all the way through, that with 435 Representatives there is rro difference in the application of the major fractions or the equal pro­portions methods to the first 434 Mem­bers, but on the four hundred and thirty­fifth there is a difference.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one moment further?

Mr. BROWN. Certainly. Mr. BURTON I should like to call

the Senator's attention to what is pub­lished in yesterday's RECORD, ·the state­men given to our subcommittee by Mr. Dedrick, the statistician of the Census Bureau, in wh;ch he points out that if a State's population is used as the de­nominator. and its representatives as the numerator, as is done in arguing for the major-fractions plan, we come out with a · result which favors Michigan, as has just been stated by the Senator, but if, on the other hand, we reverse the same process. and use the number of a State's Representatives as the numerator and its population as the denominator, we come out with a result that favors Arkansas. This would be using the method known as the harmonic mean. It is to avoid this meaningless difference between which figure is to be the numer­ator and which the denominator that a neutral system has been developed that is termed the "equal-proportions method." Mr Dedrick then shows in his tables as published in the REcORD that under this method it makes no dif­ference whether we divide the Repre­sentatives into the people or the people into the Representatives; we have the same result, because we deal in the rela­tive difference or percentage of difference rather than the absolute difference be­tween the representation allowed to the respective States.

It seems to me that is a rather im­portant factor . We should not make our argument turn on which way the divi­sion is made to get t11e result.

Mr. BROWN. We are now getting up into the realm of expert testimony, which I do not think will be of great interest to the Members of the Senate. The Senator will concede that Dr. Dedrick-the expert for the Bureau of Census in the Department of Com­merce--comes to the conclusion that if we calculate the matter on the basis of Representatives per million people, Mich­igan is underrepresented in comparison with Arkansas. If WP calculate it on the other basis that he used, the com­parison of average congressional dis­tricts, then Arkansas is underrepre­sented under the new apportionment in comparison with Michigan.

But I hope I have made that suffi­ciently clear to the Members of the Sen­ate. We come back to the original propo­sition, that the difference between the two methods is as follows: Giving m~ illustration again, the State with 1,100,-000 population, and 300,000 as the di­visor-the congressional districts-has a remainder (Jf 200,000 unrepresented citi­zens. The Etate with a population of 750,000 and the same divisor, 300,000,

will be given 2 Representatives, with a remainder of 150,000 persons. Under major fractions, 'WO.OOO being greater than 150,000, the extra Representative goes to the former State. The justifica­tion for the Caraway method is based on the proposition that each of the 2 Rep­resentatives in the 750,000 population represents 375,000 persons. and each of the 3 Representatives in the State of 1,100,000 population represents 366,000 persons. That is an illustration of the fundamental difference between the two propositions.

On the question of abstract justice, I say there is nothing to choose between the two methods. The method of major fractions has the sanctity. the authority of 120 years of history in the United States; and the attempt now to cnange it is based upon the fear that under it we shall lose a Democratic Representa­tive in the State of Michigan, anp that under the other method we shall not lose a Democratic Representative in the State · of Arkansas.

Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BROWN. I yield to my colleague. Mr. VANDENBERG. The effort is

constantly made to prejudice this con­templation on the theory that the method of major fractions is prejudicial to the smaller States. For whatever it is worth, I dwsire to call attention to the calcula­tion made by Dr. Willcox, who certainly is one of the top-ranking high experts on this subject in the United States.

Mr. BROWN. Let me interpose to say that he · is the expert whose opinions have been accepted by the Congress for the past three decennial periods.

Mr. VANDENBERG. The Senator is entirely correct. I may further add that the Automatic Reapportionment Act of 1929 never would have been passed ex­cept for the technical leadership which Dr. Willcox contributed.

Mrs. CARAWAY . Mr. President, I should like to say that Dr. Willcox said that he thought we ought to have the smallest-divisor plan now, rather than any of the plans that have been men­tioned.

Mr. BROWN. Let me interpose there-! beg my colleague's pardon-to say that all . experts agree that the last word upon mathematical theory upon this question has not yet been said.

Mrs. CARAWAY. I realize that. Mr. BROWN. And it is very likely

that some other and further method will be devised in the future to compli­cate the minds of Senators and Repre­sentatives.

Mr. VANDENBERG. If we are to con­sult Dr. Willcox on the character and value of the pending bill-and I detour for that purpose just for a moment--! quote him as follows:

The force behind this bill is not the tardy conversion of Congress to the method of equal proportions, but a discovery by the teaders of the ma~rity that under the population figures and the political conditions of 1940 a switch from the method of major fractions to that of equal proportions will transfer a seat in the House of Representatives tor the current decade from Michigan to Arkansas.

So, if we are to undertake to consult Dr. Willcox on what he .thinks about the present bill, that is what he thinks.

But now, Mr. President, I , desire , with my colleague's permission, to call atten­tion to this calculation made by Dr . Will­cox on this question of whether the small­et States are prejudiced. He applies the methods of major fractions and equal proportions to the 18 largest States and the 27 smallest States, and reaches this conclusion:

Under the method of equal propor­~ions. the average district in the larger States would contain 303,144 persons. The average district in the smaller States would contain an average of 298,439 per­sons. or a differential of 4,705. That is under equal proportions. Under major fractions the same calculation produces an average district of 302,166 in the large States and 300,885 in the small States. a differential of 1,281 under major frac­tions, which clearly proves that in the final analysis there is no prejudice to the smaller States under the method of major fractions.

Mr. BROWN. I thank my col1eague. Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, willtme

Senator yield? Mr. BROWN. I yield. Mr. BURTON. On that precise point,

I think the simplest way for us to de..; termine whether these methods favor the smaller or the larger States would be to apply them specifically to the 1940 re­sult. There we see that the major-frac­tions method would favor the larger State of Michigan against the smaller State of- Arkansas.

In 1930 it made no difference which method was used.

I find that 6 differences would result from the application of the respective methods to the 1920 census. To name these a States is the simplest way to see whether the major-fractions method tlien also favored the larger over the smaller State~ . If we had had equal pro­portions instead of major fractions in the 1920 census, it would have meant that Virginia. a comparatively large State, would have had 9 instead of 10 Repre­sentatives; it would have meant that North Carolina, another comparatively large State, would have had 10 instead of 11, and New York, our largest State, would have had 42 instead of 43. Of the smaller States, Vermont would have had 2 Representatives instea~ of 1, New Mex­ico would have had 2 instead of 1, and Rhode Island would have had 3 instead of 2.

That seems to be rather a simple illus­tration of the actuel operq.tion of the rule as applied to the three last censuses.

Mr. BROWN. I wil1 say to the Senator from Ohio that certainly the experts dif­fer upon the results of the two methods to the question of whether one favors the larger States or the smaller States.

I feel, out of courtesy to the junior Senator from Arkansas r Mr. SPENCER] that I should conclude my remarks; but I desire to advert very briefly again, for not more than ~ minutes, to the political implications ol this matter , which, of course, are of great importance.

1941 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8081 The four additional Representatives

who were given to Michigan in 1932 re­sulted in four new Democratic districts in the populous city of Detroit. If an extra Representative comes to us , or if we retain the statute as it now stands, the next Representative from the State of Michigan will be elected at large, and all six of the Represents tives from the State of Arkansas will be elected at large. I am correct in that, am I not. Senator SPENCER?

Mr. SPENCER. Unless we redistrict the State.

Mr. BROWN. And you do not expect to do that.

In the State of M~chigan-and I am speaking now particularly to my Demo­cratic colleagues-the heavy increase in population is in the populous southeast corner of the State-Flint, Genesee County; Detroit. Wayne County; Monroe County, and Oakland County Any measure of justice which is given by the legislature to the question of apportion­ment when it comes up-remember that at the present time we have a ~epublican legislature and a Democratic Governor­would give the extra Representative to the populous southeastern area of the State of Michigan. While I would not stand on the floor of the Senate and say tom~ Democratic colleagues that we are as certain of the election of a Democratic Representative in scutheastern Michigan as they are in the State of Arkansas, nevertheless the chances are very much that way. The 6 Democratic districts of the State of Michigan proportionately are measurably larger than the 11 Re­publican districts of the State of Michi­gan. and justice would dictate granting this extra Representative to a Demo­cratic area But that is not what con­cerns me so much today What concerns me is the effect upon my party of what I would consider to be a blow at the democracy. the fighting democracy. of the State of Michigan.

I think we have justified our claim to this Representative on the basis of prece­dent .- I think tt is fair to say that one method has no superior claim to justice over the other method, and I think it is fair to say that the politics of the situa­tion should not affect my democratic col­leagues adversely to the interests of the democracy of Michigan in this contro­versy.

Mr SPENCER. Mr. President, the able Senator from Michigan LMr. BROWN] has said that politics might enter into this matter I hope it will not. I am Of the opinion that it ~nouid not; but if it should, it not only would affect the Rep­resentatives, it might affect the Electoral CoiJege, and I am sure that nom of the Democrats have been taking that into considt::ration. We appreciate the flag which the Governor of Michigan gave our Governor. but we do not want to tradt a Representative for a flag. [Laughter.]

We have been spea.lting ot experts .. The only expert I have iounq who did not agree that the equal-proportions metbo d was the best method was Dr. Willcox, and it is my understanding that he does not favor either of these methods

but has a method of his own. I shall now quote the testimony of some of the experts, in fact of all the expert~ of whom I have been able to get any record.

Mr. President, in the Apportionment Act of 1929, and under the bill of 1940, and under every act wherein any method has been designated by the Congress, both the equal-proportions method and the major-fractions method has been deKgnated, with the p:ovisc, however, that il the Congress did not designate either of these methods then the method last used would be chosen. The reason for this is obvious-so that the reappor­tionment would occur whethe1 or not the Congress acted. So, after ~he census of 1940 tht .President, following thP Jaw, presented to Congress a table showing the number of Representativer to which each State would be entitled under both the major-fractions method and the equal-proportions method

The House Committee on the Census then held extensive hearings, and recom­mended that the pending bill, providing for the equal-proportions method, be passed The matter was then debated on the floor of the House for 2 days and passed by a vote of 210 tl 142 The Sen­ate Committee on Commercf then held heal'ings and teported the bill favorably by s vote of almost 2 to 1.

Now, Mr . President, I desire to quote from the statements of some o.f the lead­ing authorities on the question of appor­tionment.

Prof. Edward V. Huntington of Har­vard Univeisity, made the following statement, which is printed in the Ap­pendix of the RECORD at page A1923:

In regard to methOd ot app:>rtionment in Congress, Government officials have three timel appealed to scientific bodies for tech­nical information Since one of these bod1es is the Harvard Department of Mathematics, of whic.h happen to be now the se:il..tor mem- . ber. I beg the pr1vilege of explaining briefly the role which mathematics has to play in this situation

This role has been much misunderstood. The picture of a "long line of mathema­ticians" filing by, each trying to "sell his own pet schem " to the committee, is a fantastic travesty. A ·mathematical theorem 16 not a matter for "proponents" and "opponents" tO wangle over as if it were a rivers-and-har­bors bill. A new mr.thematical theorem bas just one essential property . It lB either true or false If it is true, it is simply accepted as one more st~p ln advance tn the natural growth of this rapidly growing soience · If it is false , that tact will be speedUy discovered by competent critics. No personal 01 pollti­cal motives, inside or outside of Congress, . haVE. anything to do wtt.b thf' truth or falsity of the theorem

What mr.thematics has done m the present instance is to establish, 1n 1P21 a new theoren. called the theorem of equal propor­tion~, through which the whole problem bas been enormously simplified

For over a century Congress had been try­ing to find a mathematical method of appor­tionment that would put each State as nearly as possible on a par with ever.~ other State in accordance with the Constitution; but the mathematical tools then available were not far enough advancea to supply a solution. All kinds of complicated theories about things like "sliding divisors•· and "fractional remain­ders" were argued pro and con without lead­ing to any satisfactory conclusion. The new .

theorem came like an answer to p:-ayer, sup­. lying precisely the kind of simple and self· explanatory test that Congress had long been ~eeki.ng

The simplified theory is thoroughly realistic. It takes up the situation at· precisely the point where Congress itself takes it up in each decennial debate--at tht point, namely, where an actual apportionment bill is pre­sented for discussion Every Congressman who examines such a bill begins by figuring out the average numerical size of the con­gressional districts in his State (by dividing the population of the State by the number of Representatives assigned thereto) . If the average d istrict in his State comes out larger than that in some other State. he very natu­rally and properly raises the question whether a seat should not be transferred from that other ~tate to his. The size of the House being fixed, the debate always comes down, in the last analysis to this question: "Should or should not such a transfer be made?" As the most natural common-sense answer to this question, the modern theory offers the following simple test:

·TEsT OF EQUAL PROPORTIONS

A proposed transfer of a seat from one State to another State should be made when-and only when-the percentage in­equality . between the congressional districts in. the two States would be reduced by the transfer

For example, suppose State A demands the transfer of a seat from State B. If before the transfer the A district is 11.02 percent larger than the B district. while after the transfer the B district is 11 .26 percent larger than the A district, then under the test of equal proportions the transfer ehould not be made

By this simple test any dispute between two States in the matter of apportionment can be settled immediately by the most ele­mentary arithmetic. The only data required are the populations ot the two States directly concerned and the number of Representatives assigned to each It is no longer necessary to compute any txact quotas or any frac­tional remainders. All the controversial items in the earlier debates s~mply drop out of the picture

It should be observed that this test of equal proportions merely gives precise ex­pression to an aim which has always been upheld by Congress, namely. the desire to equalize as far as possible the congressional districts among the several States The only point at which any real mathematics is in­volved is in the proof that the test can be successfully applied to every pair of States. (It is not immediately obvious that an im­provement in the relation between two States A and B might not upset the relation be­tween one of these States and some third State C.) This point is covered by the fol· lowing theorem:

TH~OREM 1

There is a process of computation well known to the Bureau of the Census, the re­sult of which will always satisfy the test of equal proportions for every pair of States simultaneously

The truth of this theorem is vouched for by thE:. unanimoUs report of the Census Ad­visory Committee, requested by the chairman of the House Committee on the Census in 1921. and by the unanimous report of a com­~ittee of the National Academy of Sciences, requested by Speaker Nicholas Longworth in 1928; and the technical process referred to in the theorem is clearly set forth in many places. But the details of the process of com­putation shed no new light on the fairness of the method and need not be repeated here. The fairness of any method can be tested only by examining the resulting actual

8082 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE OCTOBER 21 apportionment. In this game the test's the thing

The current debate in Congress turns on a choice between two methods The role of mathematics in this debate may be summed up as follows:

THEOREM 2

If Congress desires to equalize the congres­sional districts as far as possible among the several States. the method of equal propor­tions will always give a better result than the older method of major fractions The method of major fractions cannot be counted on to equalize the congressional districts on any basis whatever

George Washington, whose first veto con­cerned an apportionment blll, and Daniel Webster. whose eloquent appeal for a just apportionment represented the best thought of his day. ~ould have welcomed eagerly the mathematical tools which are now available for achieving their goal The goal remams the same: to make tbt> congressional distrlcts as nearly equal as possible among· the several States Senator, CARAWAY. of Arkansas, is en­deavoring to revive the equal-proportions bill with a perfecting amendmet\.t According to tbeqrem 2 above · a vote to reject this amendment and to retain the method of maj~r· fractions would be tantamount to a complete abandonment of the goal of equaU­zatipn _of districts Do the present .. day lead­ers in Congress really believe that a deliberate abandonment of that goal would be a sound polftical po~icy?

Next I quote from a book· by M·r. Law­rence F~ Schmeckebier, published by the Brookings Institution:

The method' o:t. equal proportion.s tends to give the most equitable distrl'butim among ~be States regardless o1 size Of all 0 1 the. flve methods that have been presented 01

talired about, some fl'lvor small States; some favor large States, but the yardstick- known as the method of equal proportions is right 1n the middle It favors neither large States nor small Stat~ The m~tbod of equal pro­portJo:t;u •. mo~t .!}early equal~es . the .average pop1;1latl9n per district a:qd the individual's ~ba~e in a ~epresentattve if· the inequality is measured by the relative difference.·

He then proceeds, and on page 72 of -the 'book says: · ·

As explained on preceding pages, varying differences are used in the several methods to measure the degree or amount of inequality, but - both t_be weight of authority and the equity of the apportionment indicate that the metbud of equal proportions is more de­sirable than any other method that bas been deviEed .

And Mr. Meyer Jacobstein, of the staff of the Brookings Institution, testifying before the committee, said:

What it does is to ~limlna.te as far as pos­sible the i~equities of a situation. Under both methods. you ttnderstand, ·at least nine States are gning to lose seats, and other States wlll absorb those losses Only in one instance. and that is as between Michigan and Arkansas. is there a que·stion as to which -method you should use.

If· you use the yardstick which was ur;ed first' in 1910, constructed by Dr Willcox, but not mentioned in the law of 1910, then Michi­gan · wol.•:d gain a seat . Michigan would go from 17 to 18 Members and Arkansas would drop from '1 to 6 Members

On the other hand, if you use the equal­proportions yardstick, fair from ·my stand­poin"t and ·from • the standpoint of experts who are matbematic·ians in this field, then· Arkansas will retain her present membership, and you do not disturb the number of seats 1n Michigan. ·You take nothing ·away from

Michigan by adopting this bill, which has been recommended to you by the House. Arkansas keeps what it has, 7 seats, and Michigan keeps what it bas, 17 seats, and no law will have to be passed within eitbar State calling for a redistricting. They just stand pat

That is the only thing involve~ here. I am not interested in Arkansas I have nothing against Michigan I am interested in getting the Congress to enact into the law the method which would seem to be fairest and best­that of equal proportions.

Now, Mr. President, I read what Dr. Calvert L . Dedrick, chief statistician of the Division of Statistical Research, Bu­reau of the Census, said before the com­mittee:

, The method which equalizes as far as pos­sible the congressional districts 01 any two States (and therefore of all States) and at _

~the same time equalizes As far as possible the ·representation per million people, the dis-parity in each case being measured as a rela­tive or percentage of difference, ts the method of equal proportions

The method of equal proportions may be d~fi.nect as the only method which will appor­tion a given number of Representatives an10ng- the several States so that the ratios of p6pulation to Representatives,· and also the rlitios of Representatives to population, shall be as equal as may be among the several States ·

·In 1928, at the request of the Speaker of the House of Representatives Mr. Longworth . the NationaJ Academ~ of Sciences appointed a committee of dis­tinguished mathematicians to study- the mathematical aspect! of the apportion­ment problem. The committee con­cluded· its report with the following statement:

The method of equal proportions is pre­fe,rred by the ~ommittee because it satisfies the -test proposed abovt (the test of propor­tion.ality) when applied either to sizes of congression~l districts or to numbers of Rep-

. res~mtatives per person, and because it occu­pit>s mathematically a neutral position with resr.ect to emphasis on larger and smaller States

That is all the authority I have been able to find on the subject, and it is unanimous except . for Dr WillCOX·, who says neither method is right, and that his •method should be used.

Mr. President. to sum up, I wish to say, first, that this iS a method which affects. the House of Representatives . The House of Representatives . had the right and has the right under the present law to elect which method it would use. The House elected to use the method- of equal pro­pertions. They passed· a ·bill -providmg · for that method and sent ·it to the Sen.;. ·ate. It has not been acted upon by the Senate. The bill merely. permits . the ·House to do what it has a ·right to do.

Second, the Committee on Commerce of the Senate, by a vote of almost 2 to 1. -has reported the bill favorably .

,Third. the leading scientific societies, mathematicians-, and.others, ttll of whom are · entirely. disinterested,· and_ who have­devpted years of study to the question, are practically unanimous ir the opinion · that the equal-proportions method is the most equitable yet. discovered. ·

Fourth, the passage of the pending bill would not take anything· away from

Michigan. It would not give anything to Arkansas. It would siinply leave every­thing as it is. Certain Senators have said they think the method provided by the bill is. a good one, and the~ are Willing that it should go into effect. but they do not wish to have it go into effect for 10 years . . That would mean that Arkansas would lose a Representative for 10 years, and in 10 years would get back that Rep­resentative. That reminds me of the story of the man who swallowed a cow and was choked on the tail .

¥r. President, I think the Senate should pass the bill -today. By doing so we Will do what the House of Representa­tives wants to have done I think if we do so everyone will be happy, including the distinguished Senators from Michigan, for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. BUNKEl< in the chair> . The question is on agreeing to the amendment in the

· n;1ture of a substitute reported by the committee

The amendment reported by the com­mittee was. to strike out all after the en­actin~ clause and insert:

Be it enacted. • etc., That . section 22 of the act entitled "An act to provide for the fif­teenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment. of Representa­tives in Congress' approved June 18, 1929, as amended. is amended to. read as follows:

"SEc 22 (a) On the first day, or within 1 . week thereafter , of thP first regular ession of tht> Eighty-second Congress and of each fifth Congress tbtreafter. the Fresident shall trans­~It-to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in , each State, ex­cluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained under the sevent-eenth and each subsequent decennial census of the population, and the . number of RepresentatJves to which each State would be entl .led under an apportion­ment of the then existing number of Repre­sentati,7es by the'· method known as the .method of equal proportibnr . no State to re­ceive less than one Member.

"(b 1 Each State shall be entitled, in the Eighty-third . Congress .and in each Congress thereafter untll the taking effect of a reap­p6rtionment under this section or subsequent statute, to the number of Representatives shown · in the statement required by subsec­tion (a) of this section. no State to· eceive less· than one Member It shall be the duty of the Clerk-of the Houst of Representatives, -within 15 calendar ·days ..after the receipt of such statement. to send to the executive of each State a · certificate of tht> number of Representatives to which such State is en­titled under this sect-ion In case of · a va­·cancy in the office of Clerk, or of his absence or inability to discharge this duty. ther such duty shall devolve upon the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives: and tn case

.of vacancies in the offices of both the Clerk and the Sergeant at Arms, or the absence or iJ:lability of both to act, PUch duty shall de­volve upon the Doorkeeper of the House of Represen taU ves

"(c) · Until a State · Is redistricted In the manner provided-by 'be law thereof afte:- any apportionment; the Representatives to which such State is entitled under such apportion­ment shall be elected in the following man­ner ; ( 1) If there is no change tn the number of Representatives. they shall be elected from· the districts then prescribed by the law of such- State, and if any of tl.em are elected from the State at large they shall continuP to be so elected; '2) 1f there is an increase ~n the

1941 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-: SENATE 8083 number of Representatives, such additional principle which is to be followed when Representative or Representatives shall be there is no dispute between States or elected from the State ~t large and the other Congressmen; in other words-, when the Representatives from the districts then pre- personal and . political elements are not scribed by the law of such State; (3) if there is a decrease in the number of Representatives factors. The principal vice of the present but the ~umber of districts in such State is bill is that after the facts are known and equal to such decreased number of Repre- the results calculated, we then seek to sentatives, they shall be elected from the dis- establish a principle, to bring about a re­tricts then prescribed by the law of such· suit which certain Members of the House State; (4) if there is a decrea:;;e in the num- of Representatives want. This is the ber -of Representatives ·but the number of wrong way to do it. Under existing law, districts in such- State is less than such num-ber of Representatives, the number of Repre- which was passed before it was known sentatives by which such number of -districts what the census figures would show and is exceeded shall be elected from the State at what the apportionment under the large and the other Representatives from ·the adopted rule would be,. the rule works to districts then prescribed by the law of such retain Michigan's 18 Representatives. as State; or (5) if there · is a decrease in ·1·le provided by the present law, and to leave number of Representatives and the number Arkansas with a _epresentation of 6, as of districts in such State exceeds such de- provided under the present law. creased number of. Representatives, they shall be elected from the state at large." Pages could be written by the advo-

SEc. 2. (a) Each State shall be entitled·, in cates Of either me.thod shoWing SOUnd the seventy-eighth and in each Congress reasons why the rule should be one way. thereafter until the taking effect of a reap- or the other. No one from Michigan and portionment under a subsequent statute or no one from Arkansas knew what the such section 22, as amended by this act, to result would be when the automatic re­the number of Representatives shown in the · apportionment law was adopted. This statement transmitted to the Congress on . is as it should be. Section 2 of the com­January 8, 1941, based upon the method known as the ·method of equal proportions, no mittee amendment, to which we object, state to receive less than one Member. seeks to overturn this sound plan and

(b) If before the enactment of this act a nullify the automatic reapportionment certificate bas been sent to the executive of feature of the law. any State under tlie provisions of such sec- Under existing law the number of Rep­tion 22, as in force before. the enactment of resentatives for the 1942 and subsequent this act, the· Clerk of the House of Repre- elections until the 1950 census is now sentatives shall, within 15 calendar days after fixed. Acting under the requirements of the date of enactment of this act, send a new certificate to such executive stating the num- the law, tpe Clerk of the House has ad-ber of Representatives to which such State is vised all the States of the Union of the entitled under this section. number of Representatives in the House

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I move to amend the committee amendmen:t by 1

striking out section 2, on page 4, b,egin­ning with line 7 to and fncluding line 22, as follows:

to which they are entitled. Arkansas has been advised that it will have 6 Rep­resentatives to elect in 1942. Michigan has been advised th~t it will have 18 Representatives to elect in 1942. To now change a statute -which was in effect when it was not known what the results would be, when it was much easier to agree upon a basis for apportionment, is

SEc. 2 . (a) Each State shall be entitled, in the Seventy-eighth and in each Congress thereafter until the taking effect of a reap­portionment under a sub~equent statute or such section 22, as amended by this act. to the number of Representatives shown in the statement transmitted to the Congress on January 8, 1941, based upon the method known as· the method of equal proportions, no State to receive less than one Member.

· contrary to good policy and sound legis­lation.

{b) If before the enactment of this act a certificate has been sent to the· executive of any State under the provisions of such sec­tion 22, as in force before the enactment of this act, the Clerk of the House of Representa­tives shall, within 15 calendar days after the date of enactment of this act, send a new cer­tificate to such executive stating the number of Representatives to which such State is entitled under this section.

Mr. President, the effect of the amend­ment to the amendment, if adopted, would be to leave in the measure the ·pro­visions of section 1, which provide for the equal proportions method, which, of course, I shall vote against; but to apply that principle following the next census, in the next apportionment in 1949, 195(>': or 1951, whenever it may be made. ·

It is my contention that, regardless. of the method adopted, there should be au­tomatic reapportionment fixed and defi­nitely established by law, before the fig­ures for each decennial census are known. This principle has long been agreed to by stUdents of the problem. It is obvious that it is better to lay down the g~neral .

Briefly, the situation is this. If my amendment should be adopted, the Cara­way . method of equal proportions would become the law; but it would not be applicable to change retroactively the

. present apportionment of Representa­tives between the States of Michigan and Arkansas. It would be effective in 1950.

Mrs. CARAWAY. Mr. President, I certainly hope the Senate will not strike section 2 from the bill. The House of Representatives passed this bill in time to get in under the deadline. In the Sen­ate it got behind the lease-lend bill and was delayed. The Senah has recently been in recess a considerable part of the time. Therefore, we were not able to have the bill brought up for action.

I hope the committee amendment will be agreed to. The fact that the measure has not been considered up to this time is not the fault of the Arkansas delega-

- tion. I trust they will get a square deal in this matter.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. . _

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold the suggestion of the absence of a quorum for a moment?

Mrs. CARAWAY. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. I think no one else wishes to say anything more on this subject.

Mrs. CARAWAY. I do not think so. Mr. BROWN. I shall ask for . a yea­

and-nay vote on the Brown amendment tc the committee amendment. Is that satisfactory?

Mrs. CARAWAY. Yes. I make the point of no quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the oil.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Adams Aiken Andrews Ball Banl{head Barbour Barkley Bilbo

. Brewster Bridges Brooks Brown Bunker Burton Butler Capper Caraway Chavez Clark, Mo. Connally Danaher Davis

Doxey Ellender Glass Green Guffey Gurney Hatch Herring Hill Holman Hughes Kilgore La Follette Lee McFarland McKellar McNary Maloney Murdock Murray Norris Nye

O'Daniel O'Maboney Peace Pepper Radcliffe Rosier Russell Schwartz Shipstead Smathers Spencer Taft Thomas, Idaho Thomas, Okla. Thomas, Utah Truman Tunnell Vandenberg Van Nuys Wallgren Walsh

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty­five Senators having answered to their names, a quorum is present. .

Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, in order to complete the record, I wish to state that the duties placed on the President and the executive departments by this bill are ministerial duties to be performed for the Congress, and the instructions as to their performance are directory in their nature.

I should also like to ask unanimous consent to have placed in the RECORD the matter found on pages 64 and 65 of the book entitled "Congressional Apportion­ment," by Laurence F. Schmeckbier, pub­lished in 1941, which contains the tables illustrating the application of all five modern methods of apportionment to the censu3es of 1920 and 1930, and also from page 233 the figures showing the appor­tionment for 1940, under the major-frac­tions and equal-proportions methods. I also present appendix B from the same book, covering pages 216 to 225, which c~>ntains the "priority list" of States as prepared under the major-fractions and equal-proportions plans, based on the 1940 census.

There being no objection, the several matters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Apporttonment under census of 1920 by 5 methods

State

-------1-----1--1-----~ VERY SMALL STATES

Nevada. __ ---------Wyoming _________ _ Delaware __________ _

75,820 1\!3, 487 223,003

3 3 TotaL_______ 492, 310 1===11= = ===== = =

8084 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE OCTOBER 21 Apportionment under census of 1920 by 5

Methods-Continued

~

8~ 0 0 ~ ~

.s "' ·a~ "'"' "'"' ~"' OM o,..

~ Ao 0"' ..... o ~0 States "3 'd~ ... ~ SQ) ';·~ c:c .!!l d ... ·2:3 :;,S ~-~ A $8. s;o 0

~ til 0"0 Poi w. - - - -

SMALL STATES

Arizona _________ --•. 309,495 1 1 1 2 1 Vermont__--------- 352,428 2 1 2 2 1 New Mexico ________ 353,428 2 1 2 2 1 Idaho _______________ 430,442 2 2 2 2 1 New Hampshire ____ 443,083 2 2 2 2 1 Utah ___ ------------ 448,388 2 2 2 2 1 Montana_---------- 541,511 2 2 2 3 2 Rhode Island _______ 604,297 3 2 3 3 2 South Dakota ______ 631,239 3 3 3 3 2 North Dakota __ ____ 643,953 3 3 3 3 2 Maine ______________ 768,014 3 3 3 3 3 Oregon_------------ 783,289 3 3 3 4 3 Colorado .. _-------- 939, 161 4 4 4 4 4 Florida _____ -------- 968,470 4 4 4 4 4

TotaL _______ 8, 217,398 36 33 36 39!28 }IEDIIDI-SIZED

STATES -Nebraska ___________ 1, 296,372 5 5 5 6 5 Washington ________ 1, 354,596 6 6 6 6 5 Connecticut ________ 1, 380,631 6 6 6 6 6 Maryland _______ . ___ 1, 449,661 6 6 6 6 6 West Virginia ___ ___ 1, 463,701 6 6 6 6 6 South Carolina _____ 1, 682, 724 7 7 7 7 7 Arkansas.---------- 1, 752,204 7 7 7 7 7 Kansas __ __ --------- 1, 769,257 7 7 7 7 7 Mississippi__ _______ 1, 790,618 7 7 7 7 7 Louisiana ___ ------- 1, 798,509 7 7 7 8 7 Oklahoma ______ ___ _ 2,028, 283 8 8 8 8 8 Virginia __ ---------- 2, 309,187 9 10 9 9 10 Tennessee __________ 2, 334,885 10 10 10 10 10 Alabama_---------- 2,348,174 10 10 10 10 10 Minnesota __________ 2, 385,656 10 10 10 10 10 Iowa ___ ------------ 2, 4.04, 021 10 10 10 10 10 Kentucky---------- 2, 416,630 10 10 10 10 11 North Carolina _____ 2, 559,123 10 11 10 11 11 Wisconsin __________ 2, 631,305 11 11 11 11 11 Georgia _____ •••••• __ 2, 895,832 12 12 12 12 12 Indiana __ ---------- 2, 930,320 12 12 12 12 12 N~w Jer~ey _________ 3, 155,900 13 13 13 13 13 MISSOurL _ ··-·-···- 3, 404,055 14 14 14 14 14 California.--------- 3, 426,031 14 14 14 14 14 Michigan ___________ 3, 668,412 15 15 15 15 15 Massachusetts ______ 3, 852,356 16 16 1G 16 16

- - - -TotaL _______ 60,492,513 248 250 248 250 249

- - - -LARGE STATES

Texas_------------- 4,663, 228 19 19 19 19 20 Ohio.-------------- 5, 759,394 24 24 24 23 25 illinois ._ ----------- 6,485, 280 27 27 27 26 28 Pennsylvania _______ 8, 720,017 36 36 36 34 37 New York __________ 10,380,580 42 43 42 41 . 45

-143 1155 TotaL _______ 36,008,508 148 149 148

105, 210, 729 1435 -

4351435 Grand totaL_ 435 435

Apportionment under census of 1930 by 5 Methods-

~

8~ ~ 0 .s ·a~ "'m "'en

~"' OM o ...

States ~ Ao ... ~ s~ .... o ~-~· "3 'a~

-~~ ';;;·~ A ::s ... t;;S ~~ 0 $8. s;o

Poi ~ til w. 0 - - -

VERY SMALL STATES

Nevada._.--------- 86,390 1 Wyoming __________ 223,630 1 Delaware ___________ 238,380 1

TotaL _______ 548,400 - - -

SMALL STATES

Vermont.---------- 359,611 1 1 1 2 1 Arizona._---------- 389,375 1 1 2 2 1 New Mexico ____ ____ 395,982 1 1 2 2 1 Idaho _____ ____ ______ 441,536 2 2 2 2 1 New Hampshire ____ 465,292 2 2 2 2 1 Utah ___ ------------ 50.:i, 741 2 2 2 2 1 Montana ____ _______ 524, 7:.:;) 2 2 2 :2 1 South Dakota ______ 673,005 2 2 2 3 2 North Dakota ______ 673,340 2 2 2 3 2 Rhode Island _______ 687,497 2 2 3 3 2 Maine ______________ 797,418 3 3 3 3 2 Oregon.------------ 950,379 3 3 3 4 3

- - - -Total _________ 6, 863,905 23 23 26 30 18 - - - =

Apportionment under census 'of 1930 by 5 Methods-Continued

~

E-r~ 0

~ A§~"' ~· .... J..t;::::l States "3 g~ ·2~ A

0 Poi f"i.JA~

-MEDTUM·SIZED

STATES

Colorado ___ -------- 1, 034,849 4 4 Nebraska_.-------- 1, 375,123 5 5 Florida _____________ 1, 468, 191 5 5 Washington _____ ___ 1, 552,423 6 6 Connecticut ________ 1, 606,897 6 6 Maryland __ ________ 1, 631, 522 6 6 West Virginia ______ 1, 729,199 6 6 South Carolina _____ 1, 738,760 6 6 Arkansas ___________ 1, 854, 444 7 7 Kansns. __ ---------- 1, 879.498 7 7 Mississippi_ __ . ______ 2, 008, 154 7 7 Louisiana_--------- 2, 101,593 8 8 Oklahoma __________ 2, 382,222 9 9 Virginia_------- ____ 2, 421,829 9 9 Iowa_.---- --------- 2,470, 420 9 9 Minnesota.-------- 2, 551,583 9 9 Kentucky---------- 2, 614.575 9 9 Tennessee ____ ____ __ 2, 616,497 9 9 Alabama.---------- 2, 646,242 9 9 Georgia __ ---------- 2, 908,446 10 10 Wisconsin ___ _______ 2, 931,721 10 10 North Carolina _____ 3, 167, 274 11 11

0 ~

·a~ "'"' Q)M o<G ~-~ SQ) :;;s <GI>

s:a til w. - -

4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 !) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

10 10 10 10 11 11

~

::;~ ~rn

::E M"' 0 -

3 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9

10 11 11

Apportionment under census of 1930 by 5 Methods-Continued

1:1 ~~ ~

0 ~ ~ 0 ";:j ~ "'"' "'"' ~ ~§

OM Q) ... ~-9 ags :::::.§ ~-~ States "3 as~

A ::s ... ·2~ ~s <Gt> >D.!:: 0 &8. ~ til

s:a M"' Poi tw. 0

- - - --MEDIUM-SIZED

STATES-COntinued

Indiana_----------- 3, 238,480 12 12 11 11 12 Missouri.---------- 3, 629,110 13 13 13 13 13

- · -TotaL _______ 53,559,052 192 192 189 191 188 - = -

LARGE STATES

New Jersey _________ 4, 041,319 14 14 14 14 15 Massachusetts ______ 4, 249,598 15 15 15 15 15 Michigan __ _________ 4,842, 052 17 17 17 17 18 California __________ 5, 668,241 20 20 20 20 21 Texas.------------- 5, 824,601 21 21 21 20 21 Ohio_-------------- 6,646, 633 24 24 24 23 25 illinois ___ ---------- 7, 630,388 27 27 27 26 28 Pennsylvania.----- 9, 631,299 34 34 :.'1 33 36 New York __________ 12,587,967 45 45 45 43 47

- - - -Total _________ 61,122,098 217 217 217 211 226 - -

Grand total._ 122, 093, 455 435 435 435 435 435

Total population, apportionment population, and Representatives after each censua

1930

States Apportion- Number

Total popu-ment popu- of Rep-

lation lation resenta-

tives

!~~~oa~~~~=::: ::::::::::::::::::: ~:::::: 2, 646,248 2, 646,242 9 435,573 380,375 1

Arkansas •• ----- ---- __ --- - ______ ---- - --- 1, 854,482 1, 954,444 7 California _______________________________ 5, 677,251 5, 668,241 20 Colorado _________________________ --- __ -- 1, 035, '191 1, 034., 849 4 Connecticut. ______ ___________ ~ ____ _ ---- 1, 606,903 1, 600,897 6 Delaware _____________ -- ________ -- __ ---- 238,380 238,380 1 Florida __ ---- __ __________________ ____ • __ 1, 468,211 1, 468, 191 5 Georgia __ ___ ---- _______________ ________ _ 2, 908,506 2, 908,4.46 10 I dabo ___ --------- ___ ----------- --- ------ 445,032 441,536 2 Illinois __ __________________________ ----- - 7, 630,654 7, 630,388 27 Indi:::.na ________ • ______ - _ -----_---------- 3, 238,503 3,238, 480 12 Iowa _____ __ ----. ______ -_---------------- 2,470, 939 2,470, 420 9 Kansas __ -------------------------- _____ 1,880, 999 1, 879,498 7

fg:tfs~i~!_-_: :::::::: ==:::: =::::: ::: ====: 2, 614,589 2, 614,575 9 2, 101,593 2, 101,593 8 Maine. ____ ----- _____________ -------.--- 797,423 797,418 3

Maryland ___ --------- ________ ---------- 1, 631,526 1, 631, 522 6 Massachusetts. _________________________ 4, 249,614 4, 249,598 15 Michigan _____________________________ ._ 4,842, 325 4, 842,052 17

~~~1~N~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2, 563,953 2, 551,583 9 2, 009,821 2,00!1, 154 7 3, 629,367 3, 62!J, 110 13

Montana_.----------------------------- 537,606 524,729 2 N ebrnska. ----- _________________ • ___ •• __ 1, 3"17, 963 1, 375, 123 5 Nevada __ ___ -- ________________ __ • _______ 91,058 86,390 1 New Hampshire ________________________ 465,293 465,292 2 New Jersey----------------------------- 4, 041,334 4, 041,319 14 New Mexico ________________ -----------_ 423,317 395,982 1 New York __ ---------- ____ ------------- - 12,588,066 12,587,967 45 North Carolina _____ -------------------- 3, 170,276 3, 167,274 11 North Dakota_------------------------- 680,845 673,340 2 0 hio ____ ___ •• ___________________________

6, 646,697 6,646, 633 24 Oklahoma •• __________________________ -- 2, 3!16, 040 2,382, 222 9 Oregon ___ -------- __ -------------------- 953,786 950,379 3 Pennsylvania ________________________ ._. 9, 631, 350 9, 631,299 34 Rhode Island ____ ___ ________ ____ _____ ___ 687, 4{17 687,497 2 South Carolina __ -v··------------------ 1, 738,765 1, 738,760 6 South Dakota •• _---------------------- - 692,849 673,005 2 Tennessee ••• ------------------------- -- 2, 616,556 2, 616,.497 9 T exas .•• _------------------------------- 5, 824,715 5, 824,601 21 Utah. __ -------------------------------- 607, R47 505,741 2 Vermont •••• __________ __________________ 359, fill 359,611 1 Virginia. ___ ---------- _________________ _ 2, 421,851 2, 421,829 9 Washington. __________ ---------- ------ - 1. 563,396 1, 552,423 6

;~I~~i~~a=-====~===================== 1, 729,205 1, 729,199 6 2, 939,006 2, 931,721 10

225,565 223,630 1

Total __________ ------------------- 122,288, 177 122, 093, 455 435

1940

Apportion- Method m ent popu- of major

laiion 1 frac-tions'

2, 832,961 9 499,261 2

1, 94!J, 387 6 6, 907,387 23 1, 123,296 4 1, 709,242 6

266,505 1 1, 897,414 6' 3, 123, '123 10

524,873 2 'l, 897,241 26 3,427, 796 11 2, 538,268 8 1, 801,028 6 2,845, 627 -9 "2, 363, 8SO 8

847,226 3 1, 821,244 6 4, 316, 'i21 14 5, 256, 106 18 2, 792,300 9 2, 183,796 7 3, 'i84, 664 -13

55!J, 456 2 1, 315,834 4

JlO, 247 1 491,524 2

4, 160,165 14 531,818 2

13,479,142 45 3, 571,623 12

641,935 2 6, 907,612 23 2, 336,434 8 1, 089,684 4 9, 900,180 33

713,346 2 1, 899,804 6

642,961 2 2, 915,841 10 6,414, 824 21

550, 310 2 359,231 1

2, 677,773 9 1, 726, 191 6 1, 901,974 6 3, 137,587 10

250,742 1

131, 006, 184 435

Method of equal propor-

tions

9 2 7

23 4 6 1 6

10 2

26 11 8 6 g 8 3 6

14 17 9 7

1 3 2

1

1

• 2 4 2

( 5 1 2 2 3 8 4 3 2

2

3

6

1 2 0

21 2 1 9 6 6

1 0 1 ----

435

1 The apportionment population is the same as the total population. s This method will be used if Congress takes no action.

APPENDIX B

PniORrrY LISTS BASED ON 1940 CENSUS

The tables on the following pages give priority lists based on the census of 1940 for the methods o! majo:r fractions and equal

proportions. They are reproduced through the courtesy of the Bureau of the Census, wJ;lich prepared them.

Figures are given for any size of House up to 500 members; the list may be extended by multiplying the population of each State by

1941 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE· 8085 the appropriate multipliers given in chap­ter III.

In order to determine the apportionment :(or any size of · House a. line is drawn below the number in the first column (total num­ber of representatives from each State), which shows the size of House determined upon. Then for each State the last entry above the line in the fourth column ( cumu­lative total of representatives for each State) shows the number of representatives to whlch the State is entitied.

As the membership of the House was :ttxed at 435 in 1929 a line is drawn in the lists at this point. '.l'he last entry for each State above the line is shown in italic, and the figure in the last column is the apportion­ment. Priority list, method of major fractions,

census of 1940

Total number of Priority Reprcsenta tive~ from ·numbers all States

49 __________ 8, 986,095

50 _______ --- 6, 600, 120 lil_- -------- li, 391,657 52_--------- li, 264, 827 53_--------- 4, G05, on 54 __________ 4, 604,925 lili_ --------- 4, 276, 54t 56 __________

3, !)60, ()72 57 __________ 3, 851, 183 58 __________ 3, 504,071 59 ___________ 3, 158, 896

60 __________ 2, 995,365 61_- -------- 2, 877,814 62_ --------- 2, 828,623 63 ___________

2, 773,443 64 __________ 2, 763, 04"5 65 __________ 2, 762,955 oo __________ 2, 565,930 67 __________ 2, 523, 109

68_- -------- 2, 450, 753 69_- -------- 2, 381,082 70 __________ 2, 285, 197 71_ _________ 2, 256, 355 72_ --------- 2, 200, 040 ' 73_- -------- 2,102, 442 74 __________ 2, 091,725 75_- -------- 2, 082,482 76_- -------- 2, 073, 714 77 _______ ___

1, 973,603 78 __________ 1, 973,539 79 __________ 1, 943,894 80 __________ 1, 897,085 81_ _________ 1, 888,641

82_- -- -- ---- 1, 861,533 83_ ------ - -· 1,832, 807 84 __________

1, 800,033 85 __________ 1, 797, 219

86_- -------- 1, 785, 182 87 ______ ____ 1, 754,942 88 __________ I. 726,688 89 ____ - ------ 1, 692,179 9()_- -------- I. 664,066 91_- -------- I, 585,781 92 __________

1, 575, 920 93 ____ ______ I. 557,623 94 __________ 1, 535,025 95 __________ I, 534,975 96 __________ I, 523,105 97 __________ I, 513,866

98_- -------- 1, 501,745 99 __________ I,41i5,864 100.-------- I. 435,862 101 _________ I. 428,649 102_- ------- 1, 425,516 103_- ------- I. 418,857 104_- ------- I. 371, 118 105 _________ 1,320,024 106 _________

1, 299,591 1!Y7 --------- 1,283, 728 108 _________

1,267, 983 109_ -------- 1, 266,536 110.-------- 1, 264,943 llL -------- 1, 255,929 112_ -------- 1, 255,889 113.-------- 1, 255,035 114_ -------- 1, 249,489 115 _________

1, 233,349 116.-------- I, 214,960 117--------- 1, 214, 163 118 _________

1, 200,685 ll9 ______ _. __ I, 188, G19 120 _________ 1, 172,099 121_ ________ 1, Hi8, 024 122 _________ 1. 1r.r., 336 123_- ------- 1.161}, 332 124 _________

1, 164,727 125.-------- 1, 157,461 126 _________

1,139, 495 127--------- I, 138,251 128 _________

1, 133,184

States

New York ______ Pennsylvania ___ New York ______ illinois __________ Ohio ____________ California _______ Texas_----------Pennsylvania ___ New York ______ Michigan __ -----illinois __________ New York ______ Massachusetts __ Pennsylvania ___ New Jersey _____ Ohio ________ ____ California _______ Texas_----------Missouri ________ New York ___ ___ North CaroliiML Indiana __ _____ __ Illinois __________ Pennsylvania ___ Michigan __ -----Wisconsin _______ Georgia.--------New York ______ Ohio.--- --------California_ ______ Tennessee _______

Kentu<'kY -------Alabama ________ Minnesota_-----Texa.~-----------

· Pennsylvania ___ New York ______ Virginia --------Illinois __________ Massachusetts __ Iowa ________ ____ New Jer~ey _____ New York ______ Louisiana _______ Oklahoma _______ Ohio ____________ California _______ Pennsylvania ___ Missouri__ ______ Michigan __ -----Mississippi__ ____ lllinois _______ ---North Carolina_ Texas __ _________ New York ______ Indiana ____ _____ Pennsylvania ___ Arkansas .. New York_~==== West Virginia ___ South Carolina __ Florida __________ Ohio ___ ---------California _______ Wisconsin _______ Georgia_--------Massachusetts __ Illinois ____ ------MP..ryland _______ Kansas __________ New Jersey _____ New York ______ ?-Jichigan_ ------Tennessee _______ Texas_----------Pennsylvania ___ Washington _____ Connecticut _____ Kentucky _______ Alabama ________

Cumulative total of

Representa· tives from each State

2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 5 2 4 2 3 3 3 ? 6 2 2 4 5 3 2 2 7 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 6 8 2 5 3 2 3 9 2 2 5 5

3

1

1

4 2 6 3 5 0 3 8 2 1 2 2 2 6 6 3 3 4 7 2 2 4

12 5 3 6 9 2 2 3 8

Priority list, method of major fractions, census of 1940-continued

Total number of

Represents· tives from all States

129_ --------130_- -------131_ --------132 ________ _ 133 ________ _ I34 ________ _ 135 ________ _ 136 ________ _

137---------138.--------139_ --------140 ________ _ 14.1 ________ _ 142 ________ _

143_- - ------144_-- ----- -145 ________ _ 146 __ ___ ___ _ 147 ________ _

148_- -------149.--------I50 ________ _ 15L _______ _ 152 ________ _ 153 ________ _ 154 ________ _

155.-_- ------156 ________ _ 157 ________ _ 158 ________ _

159_ --------l(j()_- -------161_ _______ _ 162 ________ _ 163 ________ _ 164 ________ _ 165 ________ _

166_- -------167 ________ _ 168 ________ _ 169 ________ _ 170 ________ _

171_- -------172 ________ _ 173 ________ _ 174 ________ _ 175 ________ _ 176 ________ _

177---------178_- -------179 ________ _ 180 ________ _ 181 ________ _ 182 ________ _

183_- -------184_- -------185 ________ _ 186 ________ _

187---------188 _________ .

189_ ----- ---190_ --------191_ _______ _

192_ --------193 ________ _ 194 ________ _

195_ --------196_ --------197---------198_ --------199 ________ _ 200 ___ _____ _

20L --------202 ________ _

203_ --------204 ________ _ 205 ________ _ 206 ________ _

207---------208 ________ _ 209 ________ _ 2IO ________ _

21L --------212 ________ _ 213 ________ _ 214 ________ _

2I5_ --------216 ________ _

217---------218_- -------219.--------220 ________ _

22L _ -------222 ___ _____ _ 223 ________ _

224.--------225.--------226 ________ _ '}2.7 ________ _ 228 ________ _ ~9 ________ _

230.--------231 •••••••••

Priority numbers

1, 116, 920 1, 081,333 1, 078,331 1, 071, 109 1, 062, 710 1, 062, 675 I, 052,965 1, 042, 124 1, 020, 464 I, 015, 307

!>98, 455 986,896 979, 370 959, 271 955,656 945, 552 942,874 934, 574 929,596 929,087 924,481 921,015 920,£85 896,453 £92,492 877, 223 873,518 869,622 £60, 885 855, 310 841.036 833,097 831,289 816,918 813,036 812, e60 812,634 809,417 808,632 797,800 793,694 792,014 784,858 779,755 770,237 765,078 761,732 760, 790 759,222 758,966 756,394 754,685 752, 118 748,864 733,347 728,602 728,498 727, 117 727,093 726,456 725,219 720,411 700,814 697,242 694,476 694,161 691.238 688,121 686,717 683,697 682,771 675,394 675,245 667,553 664, 111 657,868 657,846 657,519 649,386 647,965 640,025 638,721 632,362 631,779 629,547 626,937 623,942 623,236 620,511 618.365 610, 936 600,662 600,642 600.011 599.073 595,061 584,981 582,256 575,563 573,580 570,470 667,950 665.725

States

Minnesota _____ _ Missouri_ ______ _ New York _____ ,. Virginia ________ _ Ohio ___________ _ California ______ _ IUinois . ________ _ Pennsylvania __ _ North Carolina_ Iowa ___________ _ New York _____ _ Texas_----------Indiana ________ _ Massachusetts._ Michigan ______ _ Louisiana ______ _ Pennsylvania __ _ Oklahoma_ ·-----Now York _____ _ illinois ___ ______ _ New Jersey ____ _ Ohio _______ ____ _ California ______ _ Wisconsin .•. ----Georvia ___ ------Nebraska __ -----Mississippi__ ___ _ New York ______ _ Pennsylvania. __ Texa.~- ____ ------Missouri_ ______ _ Tennessee ______ _ fllinois _________ _ New York _____ _ Kentucky ______ _ Ohio ___________ _ California ______ _ Alabama _______ _ Michigan ______ _ Minnesota _____ _ North Carolina_ Pennsylvania __ _ Massachusetts._ Arkansas __ _ -----New York _____ _ Virginia_ -------Indiana ________ _ West. Virginia __ _ South Carolina __ Florida --- ------New Jersey ____ _ Texas_----------fllinois _________ _ Colorado ______ _ _ Pennsylvania __ _ New York _____ _ Maryland ______ _ Ohio ___________ _ California ______ _ Oregon _________ _ Iowa __ _________ _ Kansas ___ ______ _ Michigan ______ _ Wisconsin ______ _ Washington ____ _ Georgia. __ ------New York _____ _ Missouri__ _____ _ Dlinois _________ _ Connecticut ____ _ Pennsylvania __ _ Louisiana_-----­Texas_----------Oklahoma ____ _ _ Massachusetts __ Ohio __ ----------California ______ _ New York _____ _ North Carolina.~ Tennessee ______ _ New Jersey __ _. __ Pennsy Ivania __ _ Kentucky------­Illinois_---------Alabama _______ _ New York _____ _ Mississippi__ ___ _ Indiana_--------Minnnsota _____ _ Michigan __ ----­Texas_- ---------Ollio ____ --------California ______ _ Pennsylvania __ _ New York _____ _ Virginia ________ _ Illinois _________ _ Missouri_ ______ _ Massachusetts._ New York _____ _ Wisconsin ____ __ _ Georgia_--------Pennsylvania __ _

Cumulative total o!

Representa­tives from each State

3 4

13 3 7 7 8

10 4 3

I4 7 4 5 6 3

11 3

15 9 5 8 8 4 4 2 3

16 12 8 5 4

10 17 4 9 9 4 7 4 5

13 6 3

I8 4 5 3 3 3 6 9

11 2

14 19 3

10 10 2 4 3 8 5 3 5

20 6

12 3

15 4

10 4 7

11 11 21 6 5 7

16 5

13 5

22 4 6 5 9

11 12 I2 17 23

5 14 7 8

24 6 6

18

Priority list, method of major fractions, census of 1940-continued

Total number ol Priority Representa- numbers tives from all States

232 _________ 564, 817 233_- ------- 564,060 234_- ------- 557,811 235.-------- 556,968 236 _________ 554,689 237--------- 553,274 238_- ------- 552,609 239.-------- 552, 591 240 _________ 550, 169 241_ _______ _

549,480 242_ -------- 544,637 243 _________ 543,421 244 _________ 542,801 245_ -------- 542, 118 246_ -------- 535, 145 247_ -------- 530,I·53 248 _________ 528,594 249 _________ 527,353 250 _________ 526,334 251_ -------- 525,307 252 _________ 520,355 253 _________ 519,208 254_ -------- 517, 387 255_ -------- 5I5, 084 256.-------- 5I4, 579 257_ -------- 5I3, 186 258.-------- 511,675 259 _________ 511,658 260_ -------- 509,499 26L _______ _- 50P, 647 262 _________ 507,850 263 _________ 507, 702 264 _________ 507,691 265 _________ 504, 622 ?66_ -------- 500,582 267 _________ 496,055 268 _________ 490, 151 269_ -------- 489,431 270 _________ 488,355 271 _________ 486,868 272 _________ 485,288 273_- ------- 482,936 274 _________ 482,706 275 _________ 480,573 276 _________ 478,621 277--------- 476,387 278 _________ 476, 372 279_ -------- 476,216 eso _________ 475, t64 281_- ------- 475, 172 ~2 _________ 472,952 283 _________

461,503 284 _________ 460.474 28S_ -------- 457,053 286 _________ 457,039 287--------- 456,920 288 __ _______ 454,392 289_-- ------ 451,271 290 _________ 449,318 291_ ________ 448, 591 292 _________

44-\652 293 __ _______ 445,638 294 ____ _____ 445,255

295_-- ------ 442,402 296 _________ 441,939

297--------- 440,008 298 _________ 437,912

299 _________ 437,789 300 _________ 435,874 301_ ________ 435.840 302 _________

433, 197 303 _________ 429,796

304 _________ 429, 585 S05 _________ 4£8,641 306 _________ $1, f'57

307--------- 427,909 308_- ------- 426,878 309_ -------- 424,806 310_- ------- 422,661 311_- ------- 4'1:2, 179 312 _________ 421,648 313 _________ 421,284 314 _________ 420,488 315_-- ------ 420, 191 316 _________ 418,643 317--------- 4I8, 630 318 _________

418, 341\ . 319 _________ 416,496 320 _________ 414,743 321_ ________ 413,860

322_- ------- 411,965 323_ -------- 411, Il6 324 _________

404,987 325 _________ 404,721

326_-- ------ 404,089 327 _________ 403,270 328 _________ 402,362

329_- ------- 400,228 330 _________ 398, 38fi 331_ ________ 397,0.54 332.-------- 396, 206 · 333 _________

394,721

States

Maine ____ _______ Iowa ______ ______

Texas_----------Arkansas ________ New Jersey-----Michigan _______ Ohio _

. California======= New York ______ North Carolina_ Illinois __________ West Virginia __ _. South Carolina __ Florida __________ Pennsylvania ___ Tennessee _______ New York ______ Indiana_--------Nebraska_------Louisiana _______ Maryland _______ Oklahoma _______ Kentucky _______ Alabama ________ Kansas __________ Texas ___________ Ohio ________ ____ California _____ __ illinois ___ _______ New York ____ :_ Massachusetts __ Pennsylvania ___ Minnesota ______ Missouri_ _______ Michigan __ · _____ Washinrton ____ New York ______ New Jersey _____ Connecticut_ ·---Virginia ___ ------Mississippi__ ____ Pennsylvania ___ Wisconsin _______ Georgia_--------fllinois __________ Ohio.-----------California ______ _ North Carolina_ Rhode Island __ ___ Texas ____________ New York ______ Iowa ____________ Pennsylvania ___ Michir;an _______ Indiana_--------New York ______ M assaehusetts __ Illinois __ ------ --Colorado ________ Tennessee. ______ Ohio_ cB:tiforn!B.======= MISSOuri ________

Texa~- ----------New York ______ Pennsylvania ___ New Jersey-----Kentucky _______ Oregon ____ ______ Alabama ________ Arkansas ________ Louisiana_------Minnesota __ ____ South Dakota __ __ North Dalwfa ____ NE-w York ______ Illinois __ --------Oklahoma ___ ____ West Virginia ___ South Carolina_ Florirla. Pennsylvania~== Michigan _______ Nr.rth Carolina_ Ohio _______ _____ C~liforn~a _____ __ V. Jsconsm _______ Georgia ___ ------New York ______ Texas __ --------Virginia ______ ___ Ma.~sachusetts __ ntinois ______ ____

~;~;~:fvdallia= == Indiana _________ New York ______ Knnsas __________ Mis~ouri_ _______ Mississippi__ ____ New Jersey-----Ohio ____________

Cumulative total of

Represents· tives from each State

2 5

12 4 8

10 13 13 25

7 15 4 4 4

19 6

26 7 3 ~ 4 ~ 6 6

1 4 3 4 4 6 7 9 0 6 8 1 4

1 1 1 2

(

2

1

28 9 4 6 5 I 7 7 7 5 5 8 ! 4

2

1 1 1

I 29 6 2 2 8

2 1

30 0 8 3 7 6 6 9 5 1

1 1

1 1

1 3 2a 0 7 3 '1 5 6 7 I ! 2 9 6 5 5 5 4 3 9 7 7 8 8 3 6 7 1

1

3 1

2 1

1 1

3 1

1 20 5

25 9

34 5 0 6 1 8

1

1 1

8086 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE OCTOBER 21 Priority list, method of major fractions,

census of 1940-Continued

Total Cumulative number of Priority total of Represents- States Represent a-tives from numbers tives from . all States each State

334 ____ ____ _ 394,708 California __ ___ 18 335 _________ 390,700 New York ____ 35 336 _____ __ __ 390,503 Iowa ______ ______ 7 337--------- 389,341 Michigan_------ 14 338 _________ 388,779 Tennessee _______ 8 339 _________ 388,777 Texas __________ _ 17 340 ______ • __ 388,242 P ennsylvania ___ 26 341_ _____ ___ 385,820 Washington _____ 5 342_- ------ - 385,231 lllinois _______ ___ 21 343_- ------- 379,832 Connecticut_ ___ 5 344--------- 379,694 New York ______ 36 345 _________ 379,417 Kentucky _______ 8 346_ -------- 377,728 Alabama _______ _ 8 347-------- - 375,960 North Carolina_ 10 348 _______ __ 375,953 Nebraska ________ 4 349 _________ 375,367 Massachusetts __ 12 350 ________ _ 373,592 Pennsylvania ___ 27 351_ ________ 373,384 Ohio ___ -----~--- 19 352 _________ 373,372 California _______ 19 353 _________ 37£,971 Montana ________ £ 354.-------- 372,307 Minnesota ______ 8 355 _________ 369,292 NewYork ______ 37 356_ -------- 369,128 Wisconsin _______ 9 357--------- 367,497 Georgia_------- - 9 358 _________ 367.314 Illinois __ ------ __ 22 359 _________ 366,873 Utah ____________

£ 360 _________ 366,56\ Texas_ --- ------- 18 361_ ________ 363,674 Louisiana _______ 7 362 _________ 362,490 Michigan _______ 15

363 _________ 361, 753 New Jersey _____ 12 364 ________ ._ . 360,821 Indiana_----- --- 10 365 ________ _ 360,444 Missouri_ _______ 11 366_- ------- 360,007 Pennsylvania ___ 28 367--------- 359,451 Oklahoma __ ____ 7 368 _________ 359,444 New York ______ 38 369 _________ 357,036 Virginia _________ 8 370 _________ 354,545 New Mn·ico _____ t 371_ ________ 354,434 Arkansas ________ 6 372 _________ 3.'54,237 Ohio ____________ 20 373 _________ 354, 225 California _______ 20 374 _________ 350,988 lllinois ___ _______ 23 375 _________ 350, 108 New York ______ 39 376 _________ 349,915 Idaho ____________ B 377 _________ 347,375 Pennsylvania ___ 29 378 _________ 346,747 'l'exas_ ------- - -- 19 379 _________ 345,813 West Virginia ___ 6 380 _________ 345,419 South Carolina __ 6 381_ ________ 345,338 Massl\chusetts. _ 13 38£ _________

3ti,984 Florida ____ ______ 6 383 _________ 3 3, 040 Tennessee _______ 9 384 _________ . 341,244 New York __ ____ 40 385_- ------- 340, 155 North Carolina_ 11 386_ -------- 339, 104 Michigan _______ 16 387--------- 338,890 Maine __ -------- 3 388 _________ 338,436 Iowa _-- -------- - 8 389 _________ 336,057 Ohio ____ -------- 21 390 _________ 336,946 California __ ____ _ 21 391_ ________ 336,053 TI!inois ________ __ 24 392_- ------- 335,969 Mis3issippi__ ____ 7 393_- ------- 335,599 Pennsylvania __ _ 30 394--------- 334,780 Kentucky ________ 9 395 _________ SSS,£90 Alabama_------- 9 896 _________ 83£,841 Arizona _________ 2 397----- - --- 332,818 New York ______ 41 398 _________ 332, 813 New Jersey _____ 13 399 _________ 331, 135 Maryland_------ 6 400 _________ 330,272 Wisconsin _______ 10 401_ ________ 329, 101 Missouri_ _______ 12 402 _________ 328,-965 Texas ___________ 20 403 _________ 328,813 Georoia __ ________ 10 404-------- - 328,506 Minnesota _______ 9 405 _________ 327,683 New Hampshire _ 2 406 _________

327,460 Kansas ____ ______ 6 407--------- 326,457 Indiana ___ ---- -- 11 408 _________ 324,799 NewYork __ ____ 42 409 _________ 324,596 P ennsylvania ___ 31 410 _________ 322,336 lllinois __________ 25 411_ ________ 321,284 Ohio ______ ______ 22 412_- ------- 321,274 California _______ 22 ,ps _________ 320,942 Colorado ________ 4 414--------- 319,757 Massachusetts ___ 14 415 _________ 318,552 Michigan _______ 17 416 _________ 317, 156 New York ______ 43 417--------- 315,671 Wasl!ington _____ 6 418 _________ 315,184 Louisiana _______ 8 419 _________ 315,032 Virginia _________ 9 420 _________ 314,291 Pennsylvania-___ 32 421_ ________ 312,918 Texas ____ ______ _ £1 422 _________ 311,525 Olclahoma _______ 8 423 _________ 311,338 Oregon_--- ----- - 4 424--------- 310,771 Ccnnecticut ____ __ 6 4£5 _________ 310,576 North Carolina __ 12 426 _________ 309, 865 New York ______ 44 427 ______ c __ 309,696 Illinois __________ 26 428 ______ ___ 308,160 New Jersey ______ 14 4£9 _________ 307,005 Ohio __ ---------_ 23 430 _________ 306. 9:J5 California _______ 23 431 _________ 306,981 Tennessee_-- ---- 10 4!Jf _________ 304,621 P ennsylvania ____ 33 433 _________ 302,90£ New York _____ __ 45 434--------- 302,773 Missouri_ ____ ___ 13 435 ____ __ ___ 300,349 JHichigan __ ___ ___ 18 436 _________ 299,906 Arkansas ________ 'I

Priority list, method of major fractions, census of 1940-Continued

Total num- Cumulative ber of Rep- Priority total of

resentatives numbers States Represents-from all tives from States each State

437--------- 299,540 Kentucky _______ 10 438 _________ 298,818 Wisconsin _______ 11 439 _________ 298,620 Iowa __ __________ !) 440 ______ ___ 298,364 Texas ___________ 22 44L _______ _ 298,207 Alabama _______ _ 10 442 _________ 298,069 Indiana _________ 12 443 _____ __ __ 298,009 Illinois ______ ____ 27 444 _________ 297,705 Massachusetts __ 15 445 _________ 297,497 Georgia ___ _____ _ 11 446 __________ 295,245 New York __ ____ 46 447-------- - 295,527 Pennsylvania ___ 34 448 _________ 293,941 Ohio ____________ 24 449 _________ 293,931 California _______ 24 450_- ----- -- 293,926 Minnesota ______ 10 451_ ________ 292,611 West Virginia ___ 7 452 _________ 292,408 Nebraska ____ ___ 5 453 _________ 292,278 South Carolina __ 7 454 _________ 291,910 Florida --------- 7 455 _________ 291,173 MississipuL ____ 8 456.-------- 289.874 New York ______ 47 457--------- 287,172 Illinois __ -------- 28 458 _________ 286,962 Pennsylvania ___ 35 459 _________ 286,903 New Jersey _____ 15 460 _________ 285,730 North Carolina_ 13 461_ ________ 285,338 Rhode Island ___ 3 462 _________ 285, 103 Texas _____ ______ 23 463 _________ . 284,114 Michigan __ ----- 19 464_ -------- 283,771 New York ______ 4.8 465 _________ 281,943 Ohio ____________ 25 466 _________ 281,934 California _______ 25 467-------- - 281,871 Virginia _________ 10 468 _________ 280,346 Missouri_ ______ _ 14 469 _________ 280,191 Maryland ____ ___ 7 470 _________ 278,878 Pennsylvania ___ 36 47L ________ 278,498 Massachusetts __ 16 472 _________ 278,104 Louisiana _______ 9 473 _________ 277,920 New York ______ 4.9 474 ________ _ 277,699 Tennessee __ _____ 11 475 __________ 277,096 Illinois ____ ------ 29 476 _________ 277,081 Kansas ___ _______ 7 477--------- 274,875 Oklahoma _______ 9 478 _________ 274,224 Indiana_-------- 13 479 _________ 272,971 Texas_---------- 24 480 _________ 272,834 Wisconsin __ _____ 12 48L ________ 272,306 New York ______ 50 482 _________ 271,628 Georgia_- - ------ 12 483_- ------- 271,238 Pennsylvania. __ 37 484 _________ 271,012 Kentucky------- 11 485 _________ 270,887 Ohio ___ _________ 26 486.-------- 270,878 California _______ 26 487--------- 269,800 Alabama ________ 11 488 _________

269,544 Michigan _- ----- 20 489 _________ 268, S98 New Jersey _____ 16 490 _______ __ 267,703 Illinois _____ ----- 30 49L ________ 267,186 Iowa __ __________ 10 492 _________ 267,106 ·washington _____ 7 493 _________ 266,914 New York _____ _ 51 494 _________ 265,933 Minnesota ______ 11 495 _________ 264,565 North Carolina. 14 496 _________ 264,005 Pennsylvania ___ .. 38 497--------- 262,960 Connecticut _____ 7 498 _________ 261,830 Texas ___________ 25 499 _________ 261,731 New York ______ 52 500 __ _______

261,619 Massachu~etts __ 17

With a House of 435 Members the following States do not appear in the priority list for the method of major fractions and receive one Member each: Delaware, Nevada, Ver­mont, Wyoming.

Priority list, method of equaZ proportions, census of 1940

Total num­ber of Rep­

resentatives from all States

49 _________ _ 50 _________ _ 51 _________ _ 52 _________ _

53_---------54 _________ _ 55 _________ _ 56 _______ ----

57----------58----------59 _________ _ 60 _________ _ 61 _________ _ 62 _________ _ 63 _________ _ 64 _________ _ 65 _________ _ 66 _________ _

67----------68 _________ _

Priority numbers

9, 531,193 7,000,484 5, 584,193 5, 502,837 4,884,419 4,884, 260 4, 536,966 4,041,732 3,891, 003 3, 716,628 3, 224,035 3,052,383 3, 014,028 2, 941,681 2,857, 936 2, 820,021 2,819, 929 2, 676,162 2, 618,841 2, 525,519

States

New York _____ _ Pennsylvania __ _ illinois _____ ____ _ New York _____ _ Ohio ____ --------California ______ _ Texas ________ __ _ Pennsylvania __ _ New York _____ _ Michigan __ , _____ _ TIJinois _________ _ Massachusetts __ New York _____ _ New Jersey ____ _ Pennsylvania __ _ Ohio ___________ _ California ______ _ Missouri_ ______ _ Texas __________ _ North Carolina_

Cumulative total of

Representa­tives from each State

2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 2 5 2 4 3 3 2 a ~

Priority list, method of equal proportions, census of 1940-Continued

Total Cumulative number of Priority total of

Representa- States Representa-tives from numl::ers tives from all States each State

69 __ _______ _ 2, 460,£43 New York ______ G 70_ -------- - 2, 423,818 Indiana _________ 2 71_ ________ _ 2, 279,737 illinois __________ 4 72 __________ 2, 213,609 Wisconsin _______ 2 73 _________ _ 2, 213,748 Pennsylvania ___ 5 74 __________ 2, 208,806 Georgia _________ 2 75 __________ 2, 145,796 Michigan _______ 3 76 __________ 2, 079,877 New York ______ 7 77-------- -- 2, 061,811 Tennessee _____ __ 2 78 _______ ___

2, 012,162 Kentucky _______ 2 79_- ------ -- 2, 003,206 Alabama ________ 2 80 ________ __ 1, 994,056 Ohio ____________ 4 81_ --------- 1, 993,991 California _______ 4 82 __________ 1, 97~. 454 Minnesota ______ 2 83.--------- 1, 893,471 Virginia _________ 2 84 __ ________ 1, 851,800 Texas ___________ 4 85 __________ 1, 805, 517 Pennsylvania ___ 6 86 __________ 1, 801,223 New York ______ 8 87---------- 1, 71:4,827 Iowa ___ _________ 2 88 __________ 1, 765,877 Illinois __________ 5 89_ ------- -- 1, 762, 294 Massachusetts __ 3 90 _____ _____ 1, 608,380 New Jersey _____ 3 91 __________ 1, 671, 516 Louisiana _______ 2 ll2 __________ 1, 652, 103 Oklahoma ______ 2 93_ --------- 1, 588, 532 New York ______ 9 94 __________

1, 545,088 Missouri_ _______ 3 !)5 __________ 1, 544,589 Ohio ____________ 5 !l6 __________ 1,-5H,-539 California- -- ~-- -· 5

97---------- 1, 544,177 Mississippi__ ____ 2 ll8 __________ 1, 527,631 Pennsylvania ___ 7 99 __________ 1, 517,307 Michigan ____ __ _ 4 100 _________ 1, 458, 109 North Carolina_ 3 10L _______ _ 1, 441,832 illinois __________ 6 102 _________ 1, 434,398 Texas ___________ 5 103 _________ 1, 420,826 New York _____ _ 10 104 _________ 1, 399,392 Indiana _____ ____ 3 105 ____ _____ 1, 378,425 Arkansas ________ 2 106 _____ ____ 1, 344,899 West Virginia ___ 2 107 _________ 1, 343,364 South Carolina __ 2 108 _________ 1, 341, 674 Florida _________ 2 109 _________ 1, 322,957 Pennsylvania ___ 8 110 _____ __ __ 1, 287,814 Maryland __ _____ 2 11L ------- - 1,285,186 New York ______ 11 112 _____ ___ _ 1, 280,915 Wisconsin _______ 3 113 _________ 1, 275,255 Georgia _________ 3 114 _____ ____ 1, 273, 519 Kansas __________ 2 115 _________ 1, 261, 152 Ohio _____ _______ 6 116 _________ 1,261, 111 California _______ 6 117--------- 1, 246, 130 Massachusetts __ 4 118_-- ------ 1, 227,672 Washington _____ 2 119 _________ 1, 218,571 illinois __________ 7 120 ________ _ 1, 208,617 Connecticut _____ 2 121_ ____ ____ 1, 200,936 New Jersey ____ _ 4 122 __ _______ 1, HJO, 387 Tennessee _______ 3 123 ____ _____ 1, 175,301 w~~~~~k====== 5 124 ________ _ 1, 173, 209 12 125 _________ 1, 171, 181 Texas ______ ____ _ 6 126 _________ 1, 166,747 Pennsylvania ___ 9 127--------- 1, 161, 722 Kentucky _______ 3 128 _________ 1, 1S6, 551 Alabama __ _____ _ 3 129 _______ __ 1, 139,952 Minnesota ______ 3 130 _________ 1,093,196 Virginia _________ 3 131_ ________ 1,on, 538 Missouri__ ______ 4 132 _________ 1, 079, 105 New York ______ 13 133_ ---- ---- 1, 065,868 Ohio ____________ 7 134_- ----- -- 1, 065,833 California _______ 7 135 _________ 1, 055,313 illinois __________ 8 136_ -------- 1, 043, 571 Pennsylvania ___ 10 137----- ---- 1, 036,244 Iowa ____________ 3 138 ______ ___ 1, 031,039 North Carolina_ 4 139 _________ 999,140 New York ______ 14 140 _________ 98:>, 829 Texas ___________ 7 141_ _____ ___ 989, 519 Indiana ____ _____ 4 142_ ---- ---- 965,248 Massachusetts __ 5 143 _____ ____ 965,050 Louisiana _______ 3 144 _________ 959,629 Michigan_------ 6 145 _____ ____ 953,845 Oklahoma ______ 3 146_ ---- ---- 943,945 Pennsylvania ___ 11 147--------- 930,699 illinois. _________ 9 148 _________ 930,435 Nebraska _______ 2 149 _________ 930,241 New Jersey _____ 5 150 _____ ____ 930, 149 New York ______ 15 151_ ____ ____ 1:23,068 Ohio ____________ 8 152 _________ 923,038 California _______ 8 153 _________

905,743 Wisconsin _______ 4 154 _________ !lOl, 741 Georgia _________ 4 155 _________ 891, 531 ~~~i~~t===== 3 156 _________ 870,075 16

157--------- 861,700 Pennsylvania ___ 12 158 _________ 857,217 Texas_ ----- ----- 8 159 _________ 846,277 Missouri_ _______ 5 160_ -------- 841,731 T ennessee _______ 4 161_ ________ 832,442 lllinois __________

10 162 _________ 821,462 Kentucky------- 4 163 _________ 817,805 Alabama ________ 4 164 _________ 817,293 New York ______ 17 165 _________ 814,070 Ohio _----------- 9 166 _________ 814,043 California _______ 9

167--------- 811,035 Michigan __ ----- 7 168 _________ 806,068 Minnesota ______ . 4

169_- ------ - 798,639 North Carolina_ 5 170 _________ 795,834 Arkansas ____ ____ 3 171 ________ _ 794, 290 Colorado __ ______ 2 172 _________ 792 649 Penns lvania ___ 13 y

1941 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8087 Priority l ist, method of equal proportions,

census of 1940-Continued

Total number of Priority Represents-tives from numbers

all State~

173 _________ 788,122 174 _________ 776,478 175 _________ 775,592 176 _________ 774,616 177 _________ 773,006 178 _________ 770,551 179 _________ 770,523

180_-- ------ 766,478 18L __ ------ 759,539 182_ -------- 755,994 183 _________ 752,972 184_-- ------ 743,520 '185 _________ 735,267 186.-------- 733,850

·187 _________ 732,735 188 _________ 728,869 189 _________ 728,126 190 __ - ------ 728,103 19L ________ 708,797 ~92_ -------- 702,377 193 _________ 701,586 194 _________ 698,486 195 _________ 697,795 196 _________ 691,465 197 _________ 690, 1!82 198 _________ 687,367 199 _________ 683, 177 200 _________ 682,393 201_ ________ 676, 182

·202 _________ 674,470 203 _________ 666,084 204 _________ 658,615 '205_-- ------ 658, 594 ·206_-- ------ 657, 715 207--------- 652,086 '208 _________ 652,002 209 _ _- _______ 641,927 210 _________ 639,054 211 _________ 636,302 212_ -------- 633,469 213 _________ 632,285 '214 _________ 630,408 215 ________ _ 627, 106 216 _________ 625,827 217--------- 624,377 ~218 _________ 619,438 219 _________ 611,629 ~20 _________ 601,230 ~21_ ________ 601,211 ~22 _________ 600,287 ~23 _________ 599,221 :024 _________ 599,079 ~25_- ------- 598,768 ~~6-- ------- 585,382 ~27 --------- 583, !)86 :<28 _________ 576, 846 ~29 _________ 573,710 no _________ 572,842 231_ ________ 570,311 ~32 _________ 567, 574 233 _- ------- 565,956 ~34 _- ------ - 562, 740 ~35_ - ------- .558, 339 ~36_- ------- 555,925 237- -------- 554,042 2~8: ________ 553,052 239 _________ 553,034 240 _________ 551, 113 241_ ________ 550,284 242 ________ _ E49, 053 243 _________ 548,426 244 ________ _ 547,736 245_- ------- 544,961 246 _________ 537, 187 247--------- 535, 340 248 _________ 532,357 249 _________ 528,920 250_- ------- 528,695 251_ ________ 528,580 252.-------- 525,748 253 ________ _ 522,443 254_- ------- 519, 912 255 __________ 519, 538 256 _________ 517. 226 257--------- 513, 597 258_- ------- 512, 026 259 _________ 512,010 260_ - ------- 509,802 26L ________ 509,765 262 _________ 508,737 263_ -------- 508,730 264_- "------ 507, 869 265 _________ 505, 747 266_- ------- 504,412 267--------- 501, 195 268_- ------- 501, 150 269 _________ 493, 416 270_- ------- 490,280 271_ __ __ ____ 490, 232 272 _________ 488,892 273_- ------- 488, 312

otate:

Massachusetts __ West Virginia ___ South Carolina_ Florida ______ ----Virginia _________ New York ______

Oregon .. --------Indiana _________ New Jersey _____ Texas_----------Illinois. _____ ----Maryland _______ Kansas __________ Pennsylvania ___ Iowa ________ ____ New York ______ Ohio California~:::::: Washington _____ Michigan __ -----Wisconsin _______ Georgia_--------Connecticut _____ New York ______ Missouri_ _______ []]inois __________ Pennsylvania ___ Louisiana _______

·Texas_ --- -- -- ---Oklahoma.~-----Massachusetts __ Ohio --- -- -------California _______ New York ______ North Carolina_ Tennl'ssee ------New Jersey _____ Pennsylvania ___ Kentucky-------Alabama ________ lllinois __________

' MississipEL ____ New Yor -------Indiana_--------JM:innesota~-----Michi~an _______ Texas ___________

Ohio ___ ---------California _______ Pennsylvania ___ New York ______ Maine__--------Virginia _________ lllinois __ ________ Missouri_ _______ Massachusetts __ New York ______ Wisconsin _______ Geor!!'ia_ --------Iowa ________ ____ Pennsylvania ___ Arkansas_ ------Texas ___________ New Jersey _____ Michigan __ -----Ohio ____ --------California _______ North Carolina_ New York ______ West Virl!inia ___ South Carolina __ Florida ____ ______ Illinois _____ -----Nebraska _____ __ Pennsylvania __ _ Tennessee ___ ___ _ Indiana_--------New York ______ Louisiana _______ Maryland _______ Oklahoma __ _____ Kansaf;_ Kentucky~:::::= Alat>ama ________

Texas.-- --------Ohio _--- --------California ___ ____ Minnesota ______ Illinois ._ .. ------New York ______ Massachusetts __ Pennsylvania. __ Missouri.. __ ____ Rhode Island ____ Washington ____ Michigan __ __ ___ Connecticut __ ___ New Jersey _____ New York ______ Vin•i nia --- -----Mississippi__ __ --Wiscon~in ___ ____

Cumulative total of

Represents· tives from each State

6 3 3 3 4

18 2 5 6 9

11 3 3

14 4

19 10 10 3 8 5 5 3

20 6

12 15 4

10 4 7

11 11 21 6 5 7

16 5 5

13 4

:l2 6 5 9

11 12 12 17 23 2 5

14 7 8

24 6 6 5

18 4

12 8

10 13 13 7

25 4

1

4 4 5 3 9 6 7

1

1 1 1

1 2

2

1

~

26 5 4 5 4 6 6 3 4 4 6 6 7 9 0 8 2 4 1 4 9 8 6 5 7

Priority list, method of equal proportions, census of 1940-Contlnued

Total Cumulative number of Priority total or

Representa- numbers State Represents tives from tives from all States each State

276.-------- 482,001 Georgia _________ 7 277--------- 478,841 minois __________ 17 278 _________ 477,278 North Carolina_ 8 279 _________ 476,671 Ohio ____________ 15 280 _________ 476, 655 California _______ 15 28L -------- 475,498 Texas ___________ 14 282_ -------- 473,025 New York _____ ~ 29 283_ -------- 463, 422 Iowa 6 284 _________ 460,598 PennsY'ivariia::: 22 285.-------- 458,584 Colorado ________ 3 286 _________ 458,059 Indiana 8 287--------- 457,485 ¥ichigan~==:::: 12 288.-------- 456,986 New York ______ 30 289_ -------- 455,022 Massachusetts __ 10 £[1() _________

454, 64! South Dakota ____ B £91_- ------- 45t, 917 North Dakota ____ 13 292_ -------- 451,455 Illinois ___ -- ----- 18 293 _________ 449,924 Tennessee ______ : 7 294_- ------- 446,027 · Missouri__ ______ 9 295.-------- 445;884 Ohio ____________ 16 296_ -------- 445,870 California _______ 16 297 --------" 444,862 Oregon _____ _____ 3 29~ ________ ! 442,665 Texas __ _ -------- 15 299_ - ------ ~ 441, 998 . New York ______ 31 300_- ------- 440, 117 Pennsylvania ___ 23 301 _________ 439,090 Kentucky_ ----- 7 302 _________ 438,520 New Jersey _____ 10 303 __ _______ 437, 135 Alabama __ ------ 7 304 _________ 435,896 Arkansas ________ 5 305 _________ 431,583 I,ouisiana _______ 6 306 __ _______ 430,861 Minnesota ______ 7 307--------- 427,963 New York ______ 32 30ll _________ 427,034 Illinois __________ 19 309--------- 426, 57;{ Oklahoma._---- 6 310 _________ 425,294 West Virginia ___ 5 311_ ________ 424,809 South Carolina __ 5 312 _________ 424,275 Florida ____ ----- 5 313 _________ 421,380 Pennsylvania ___ 24 314 _________ 420,920 North Carolina __ 9 315 _________ 420,825 Michigan_------ 13 316 __ _______ 419,278 Wisconsin _______ 8 317--------- 418,836 Ohio_----------- 17 :n8 _________ 418,822 California _______ 17 31!l_ -------· 417, 425· Geor!!ia_ -------- 8 320 ________ : 414, 792 New York ______ 33 321_ _______ ~ 4.14, 075 ~r~~~a~======== ·16 322_ -------- 413, 189 7 323 __ 411,583 Massaehuretts. _ 11 324---====== 407, 243 Maryland _______ 5 325 _________ 405, 120 Illinoi~ __________ 20 326 __ ______ ._ 404, 173 Pennsylvania ___ 25 327--------- 403,970 Indiana_ 9 328 _________ 402,722 Kansas ___ :====:: 5 329 ___ _____ _ 402,407 New York _______ 34 330 __ ______ _ 398,939 Missouri_ ___ ; ___ 10 331_ ________ 398,705 Mississippi__ ____ 6 332 ________ _ 396,656 New Jersey----- 11 S~3 _________ '195, 595 Montana ________ f 334 _________ 394,882 Ohio_ ---- ------- 18 335- ------- ~ 394,869 California _______ 18 336_ -------- 391, 663 Iowa ___ --- ------ 7 337 __ _______ 390,741 New York ______ 35 338 _________ 389,646 Tennessee _______ 8 :>39_- ______ ... 389,608 Michigan _______ 14 840.-------- 389, 1!!8 Utah ____________ 2 341_ ________ 388, !)56 Texas _______ ____ 17 242_ - ------ - 388,317 Pennsylvania ___ 26 343 _________ 388,224 Washington _____ 5 344 _________ 385,346 Illinois_· ____ _____ 21 345 ___ ______ 382, 198 Connecticut _____ 5 246_- ------- 380, 263 Kentucky _______ 8 347--------- 579,84.9 Nebraska ________ 4 348 _________ 379, 732 New York ______ 36 349 __ ______ _ 378, 570 Alabama ________ 8 E50 _________ 376.482 North Carolina_ 10 S51_ ________ 376, 0.52 New Mexico __ ___ B 31i2_- ------- 375,722 Massachusetts __ 12 353 ______ ___ 373,658 Pennsylvania ___ 27 351 _________ 373,521 Ohio ___ _________ 19 355 _________ 373, li09 California _______ 19 356 ________ _ 373, 137 Minnesota_----- 8 so7 ____ _____ S71,1J,l Idaho ____________ 2 358 _________ 369,768 Wisconsin ______ _ 9 3£9 __ ____ .. __ 369, 326 New York _____ _ 37 n6Q_. ------- 368, 134 Georgia_-------- 9 361_ ________ 367,413 Illinois __________ 22 362 _______ __ 366, 711 Texas ___________ 18 363 _____ ____ 364,71\5 Louisiana _______ 7 364 __ ______ _ 362, 70o Michigan ___ ____ 15 265 ___ ___ ___ 362, O!l6 New Jersey _____ 12 366.---- - --- 361, 321 Indiana_-------- 10 3fi7-- - ------ 360,854 Missouri__ ______ 11 3!\8. -------- 360,520 OklahQma _______ 7 2!\9 _____ ____ 360,066 Pennsylvania ___ 28 570 _________ 359,476 New York ______ 38 371 __ _______ 357,832 Virginia _____ ____ 8 372 _________ 355,908 Arkansas ________ 6 ~73 _______ __ 354,353 Ohio. ___ -------- 20 374.- ------- 354, 341 California _______ 20 575 _________ 858,091 Arizona_"------- 2 376 _________ 351,075 Illinois _- -------- 23

New York ______ 39 274 _________ 484, 14.0 ~75 _________ 483,079 Pennsylvania. __ 2 I 377 _________ 350,137

'-7 560 NewHam shire. 2 1 S78 ________ _ 3-t' p

Priority list, method of equal proportions, census of 1940-Continued

Total Cumulative number ol Priority total of

Represent a- numbers ctates Repre~en a-tives from tives from all States each State

379_- ------- 347,428 Pennsylvania ___ 29 380 _________ 347,251 West Viruinia ___ 6 381_ ________ 346,874 Texas ___________ 19 382 _________ 346,855 South Carolina __ 6 383 _________ 346,4}9 Florida __ ---- ---- 6 384--------- 345,879 Maine __________ _ 3 385 _________ 345,614 Massachusetts._ 13 386 _________ 343,635 Tennessee _____ __ 9 387 _________ 341,271 New York ______ 40 388 _________ 340,541 North Carolina_ 11 389 _________ 339,280 Michigan _______ 16 390_ -- ------ 339,190 Iowa __ ---------- 8 39L _ ------- 337,057 Ohio __ ---------- 21 392_ -------- 337,046 California _______ 21 893 _________ 336,967 Mississippi__ ____ 7 394_- ------- 336,129 illinois __ ________ 24 395 _________ 335,648 Pennsy I vania ___ 30 396 _________ 335,360 Kentucky ____ ____ 9 397--------- 333, 8(]8 Alabama __ ------ 9 398 _________ 333,080 New Jersey _____ 13 399 _________ 332,844 New York ______ 41 400 _________

332, 512 Maryland _______ 6 401.-------- 330,781 Wiscon.~in _______ 10 402 _________ 329,413 Missouri_ _______ 12 403 _________ 329,269 Georgia_--- ------ 10 404--------- 329,076 Minnesota _______ 9 405.-------- 329,074 Texas ___ : _______ 20 406 _________ 328, 8B1 Kansas __________ 6 4(Jl-- ------- 326,828 Indiana _________ 11 408 _________ 324,822 New York' ______ 42 409_- ------- 324,640 Pennsy lvartia. __ 31 410 _________ 324,268 Colorado _________ 4 411_ ________ 322,404 lllinois __________ 25 412_. ------- 321,371 Ohio . ----------- 22 413 _________ 321, 361 California _______ 22 4-14--------- 319,977 Massachusetts ___ 14 415 _________ 818,698 Michigan ________ 17 416 _________ 317, 178 New York ______ 43 417--------- 31(], 984 Washington _____ 6 418 _________ 315,887 - Louisiana _______ 8 419 _________ 315,578 Virginia _________ 9 4£0 _________ 314, 5(]5 Oregon __ - ------- 4 42L _ ------- 314, 331 Pennsylvania ___ 32 422--------- 313, 011 Texas __ --- --- --- 21 4£3 _________ 812,219 Oklahoma _______ 8 424--------- 812,063 Con·necticut _____ _ 6 4£5 _________ 810,870 North Caroliva •• 12 426 _________ 309,886 New York _____ 44 4£7--------- 809,755 ltlinors_ ---- ----- £6 428 _________ 308,372 New Jerse11------ 14 4£9 _________ 3(Jl, 357 Tennessee_·----- 10 430_- ------- 3(Jl,081 Ohio -- ---- ------- £3 4SL _ ------- 3(Jl, (Jlt California_------ ~

J,S2_ -------- 304,657 Pennsvlvania ____ 33 433.-------- 303,016 Missouri_------- 13 434.-------- 30£, 9~1 Neu• York _______ -45 43/) _________ 800,797 Arkansas ________ 7

436 _________ 300,472 Michigan _______ 18 437--------- 299,956 Kentucky------- 10 438_ -------- 299, 157 Wisconsin _______ il 439_- ------- 299, 138 Iowa ______ ______ 9 440_- ------- 298,620 Alabama ________ 10 441_ ________ 29R, 44.~ Texas ___________ 22 442_- ------- 298, 351 Indiana _________ 12 443_- ------- 298,062 !Ilinois __________ 27 444_- ------- 297,882 Massachusetts __ 15 445_- ------- 297,835 Georgia_-------- 11 446 _________ 296,262 New York ______ 46 447--------- 295, 561 Pennsylvania ___ 34 448_ -------- 294, 334 Minnesota _____ 10 449 _________ 294, 229 Nebraska _______ 5 450 _________ 294,007 Ohio __ ________ __ 24 451 _________ 293,998 California _______ 24 452 _________ 293,481 West Virginia ___ 7 453_- ------- 293, 146 South Carolina . .. 7 454 _________ 292, 777 Florida _______ ___ 7 45.'-i _________ 291,822 Mississippi__ ____ 8 456 _______ __ 291,222 Rhode Island ___ 3 457--------- 289,891 New York ______ 47 458_- ------- 287. 219 Illinois __ ________ 23 459 _________ 287.079 New J ersey _____ 15 460 _________ 286, !)92 Pennsylvania __ _ 35 461_ ________ 285,959 North Carolina_ 13 462 _________ 285, 174 Texas ___________ 23 463 _________ 284,218 Michigan _______ 19 464 ______ ___ 283,787 New York ______ 48 465_- ------- 282,262 Virginia_- ------- 1o 466. -------- 282,002 Ohio ___ --- ------ 25 467----- ---- 281,993 California ___ ____ 25 468_- ------- 281,024 Maryland ------ 7 469.-------- 280, 538 Missouri ________ 14 470 __ _______ 278,906 Pennsylvania ___ 36 47L _ ------- 278, 643 Massachusetts __ 16 472 _________ 278, 586 Louisiana _______ 9 473 __ _______ 278,015 Tennessee _______ 11 474 _________ 277, 9:{5 New York ______ 4g

475_- ------- 277,905 Kansas ___ _______ 7 476_- ------- 277, 139 Illinois __ -- ------ 29 477 _________ 275, 351 Oklahoma ____ ___ 9 478_- ------- 274,443 Indiana _- ------- 13 479 _________ 273,092 Wisconsin _______ 12

8088 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE OCTOBER 21 Priority list, method of equal proportions,

census of 1940-continued

Total number of

Representa­tives from all States

480 ________ _ 481_ _______ _ 482 ________ _

483 • • -------484 ________ _

485.--------486 ________ _

487---------488 •• -------489 ________ _ 490 ________ _

491.--------492.--------493 ________ _

494.--------495. - -------496 ________ _ 497 ________ _ 498 ________ _ 499 ________ _

600.--------

Priority numb<.'rs

273,033 272,320 271 885 2'71: 320 271, 26~ 270,939 270,930 270,112 269,633 268,537 267,900 267,742 267,557 266,927 266,235 204,746 264,028 26.1, 742 262,488 262,069 261.884

Cumulative total of

States Representa tives from each State

Texas___________ 24 New York______ 50 Georgia_________ 12 Kentucky_______ 11 Pennsylvania___ 37 Ohio._ .. ·------- 26 California_______ 26 Alabama________ 11 Michigan_______ 20 New Jersey_____ 16 Washington_____ 7 lllinois . _ ------- 30 Iowa__ _____ _____ 10 New York______ 51 Minnesota._____ 11 North Carolina. 14 Pennsylvania.__ 38 Connecticut__ ___ 7 South Dakota___ 3 North Dakota__ 3 Texas___________ 25

With a House of 435 Members, the follow­Ing States do not appear in the priority list for the method of equal proportions, and receive one Member each: Delaware, Nevada. Vermont, Wyoming.

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I shall take but a moment to express the hope that the amendment offered by the able Senator from Michigan [Mr. BRowN] will be rejected. The explanation of the bill presented yesterday by the able Sen­ator from Ohio [Mr. BuRTON]- leaves nothing more to be said, in my judgment, insofar as the bill is concerned. I de­sire to declare myself in accord with his statement and to ·associate myself with his remarks; and at the same time to express my appreciation to him-I do it as a member and as chairman of the sub­committee-for the intensive study he has given . to this particular proposal. If, as he explained in his statement of yesterday, it is fair to use the method of equal proportions in 1950, it would seem to me quite unfair to deny the method of equal proportions to the pending situation.

Senators will remember that in his ex­planation he pointed out that the pro­posal was not given consideration in the Senate within the 60-day period because of the fact that at that time we were ex­tremely busy here. I also desire to com­pliment the two very able Senators from Michigan, who have lab::>red so hard on this matter, and to point out some­thing which I fear they missed, in the excitement of the moment, that is, that by the passage of this bill we bring to a successful conclusion, it seems tome, the very great and successful effort of the senior Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG] when in 1929 he, more than anyone else, helped to make clear to the country and to the Congress the serious­ness of the question of apportionment. His effort at that time-very successful­only fell short, it seems to me, by failing to definitely decide upon only one method of apportionment of the Mem­bers of the House of Representatives. I think that by the passage of this bill we will do away for all time hereafter with the danger of controversy on this tre­mendously important matter . . But it seems to me that we would not do it

wisely and fairly if we should adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. BROWN], and I am-hope­ful that the amendment will be rejected.

Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, I am moved by the statement of the able Senator from Connecticut [Mr. MA­LONEY J simply to · remark that I am greatly indebted to him for his compli­ments and for his efforts to assure me that automatic reapportionment is being magnificently saved by this act of de­capitation. I want to thank him for sending flowers to the funeral, and that is my only reason for speaking.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is ·on agreeing to the amend­ment offered by the Senator from Michi­gan [Mr. BROWN] to the amendment re­ported by the committee.

Mr. VANDENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays. · ·

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to can the roll.

Mr. DAVIS <when his name was called). I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CHANDLER]. Not knowing how he would vote, I transfer that pair to the junior Senator from Kansas [Mr. REED], and will vote. I vote "yea."

Mr. THOMAS of Idaho <when his name was called>. I have a general pair with the senior Senator from Arizona rMr. HAYDEN J. If he were present, he would vote "nay." If I were permitted to vote, I should vote "yea."

The roll call was concluded. Mr. HOLMAN. I h~,tve a general pair

with the junior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. STEWART]. It is my understanding that if he were present he would vote "nay." I transfer that pair to the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. ·WILLIS], and will cast my vote. I vote "yea." ·

Mr. HILL. I announce that the Sena­tor from Washington [Mr. BoNE] and the Senator from New York [Mr. WAG­NER] are absent from the Senate because of illness.

The Senators from North Carolina [Mr. BAILEY and Mr. REYNOLDS], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Bu­LOW], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CHANDLER], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CLARKl, the Senator from California [Mr. DOWNEY], the Senators from Iowa fMr. GILLETTE and Mr. HERRING], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE], the Senator from Rhode Island fMr. GERRY], the Senator from Arizona fMr. HAYDENl. the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON], the Senator from Tilinois fMr. LUCAS], the Senator from New York fMr. MEAD], the Senator from Nevada fMr. McCAR­RAN), the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. OVERTON]. the Senator from South Caro­lina fMr. SMITHl, the Senator from Ten­nessee [Mr. STEW"RT], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS], and the Sen­ator from Montana [Mr. WHEELER] are necessarily absent.

I am advised that if present and vot­ing the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Bmowl, the Senator from Ken­tucky [Mr. CHANDLER], the Senator from California [Mr. DOWNEY], the Senator

from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON], the Sena­tor from Nevada [Mr. McCARRANJ, the Senator from New York [Mr. MEAD], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. OVERTON], the Senator from North Carolina £Mr. REYNOLDS], the Senator from South Car­olina ·Mr. SMITH], and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. STEWART] would vote "nay.•·

Mr. McNARY. I announce the fol­lowing general pairs:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Aus­TIN] with the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON];

The Senator from New Hampshire fMr. TOBEY] with the Senator from Maryland fMr. TYDINGS]; and

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LoDGE] with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRDJ.

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] has been called out on official business. He has a pair with the Senator fr_om Louisiana [Mr. OVERTON]. If pres­ent, the Senator from Wisconsin would vote "yea," and the Senator from Loui-siana would vote 11nay." -

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. WIL­Lisl is necessarily absent. If present, he would vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas · 19, nays 44, as follows:

Ball Barbour Brewster Bridges Brooks Brown Butler

Adams Aiken Andrews Bankhead Barkley Bilbo Bunker Burton Caraway Chavez Clark, Mo. Connally Doxey Ellender Glass

YEA8-19 Capper

· Danaher Davis Gurney Holman La Follette McNary

NAYS-44 Green Guffey Hatch Hill Hughes Kilgore Lee McFarland McKellar Maloney Murdock Norris O'Danl.el O'Mahoney Peace

Murray Nye Shipstead Taft Vandenberg

Pepper Radcliffe Rosier Russell Schwartz Smathers Spencer Thomas, Okla. Thomas, Utah Truman Tunnell Van Nuys Wallgren Walsh

NOT VOTING-33 Austin Hayden Reynolds Bailey Herring Smith Bone Johnson, Calif. Stewart Bulow Johnson, Colo. Thomas, Idaho Byrd Langer Tobey Chandler Lodge Tydings Clark, Idaho Lucas Wagner Downey McCarran Wheeler George Mead White Gerry Overton Wiley Gillette Reed Willis

So Mr. BRow:N's amendment to the amendment reported by the committee was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the Committee on Commerce.

The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question now is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading of the bill.

The amendment was ordered to be en­grossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill <H. R. 2665) was read the third time and pa_ssed.

1941 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8089 EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. BARKLEY. I move that the Sen­ate proceed to the consideration of execu­tive business.

The motion was agreed to. EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following favorable reports of nominations were .submitted:

By Mr. McKELLAR, from the Committee on Post Offices and' Post Roads:

Several postmasters. By Mr. HILL, from the Committee on M111-

tary Affairs: Several officers for appointment to tem­

porary rank in the Air Corps, Regular Army, under the provisions of law: and

Sundry officers for appointment in the Reg­ular Army under the provisions of law

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. BuN­KER in the chair> . If there be no further reports of committees, tl!P- clerk will state the nominations on the calendar. THE ARMY-NOMINATION PASSED OVER

The legishitive clerk read the nomi­nation of Brig. Gen. Dawson .Olmstead to be Chiet Signal Officer of the Army with the rank of major general.

Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, inas­much as this nomination is still in abey­ance, I ask that it be passed over again today.

The PRESil.JING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN SERVICE

The legislative clerk read the nomina­tion of Herschel V. Johnson, of North Carolina. to be Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Sweden.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

The legislative clerk read the nomina­tion of Lester L. Schnare, of Georgia, to be consul general.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. the nomination is confirmed.

·The legislative clerk read the nomina­tion of Austin C. Brady, of New Mexico, to be consul general.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

POSTMASTERS

The legislative clerk proceeded to read the nominations of sundry postmasters.

Mr. McKELLAR. I ask unanimous consent that the nominations of post­masters be confirmed en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair .1ears none, and the nominations of postmasters are con­firmed en bloc.

Mr. McKELLAR. I ask that the Pres­ident be immediately notified of the con­firmation of the nominations of post­masters.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BARKLEY. I ask unanimous con­sent that the President be notified of the action of the Senate on all nominations confirmed today. '

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TO REPORT

The Senate resumed the consideration of legislative business.

LXXXVII--511

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations be authorized to sub­mit a report on any proposed legislation it may be ready to report during the recess or adjournment of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, does that mean that the Senate will not have a session tomorrow but will meet on Thursday?

Mr. BARKLEY. Yes. The Committee on Appropriations is meeting now to con­sider the lend-lease appropriation bill. They may conclude their deliberations on it this afternoon. I want the bill re­ported, if possible, so that the Senate may take it up on Thursday.

Mr. McNARY. · I navf; no objection to that, but I did not want the report made and the bill to be taken up on the same day.

Mr. BARKLEY. No; we do not con­template that.

Mr. McNARY. Very well. Mr. BARKLEY. I wish to say also that

I had thought we might call the calendar at the conclusion of the business just disposed of, but in view of the fact that thf' Appropriations Committee is in ses­sion and the Committee on Foreign Re­lations is in session I deem it inadvisable to attempt to call the calendar at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request of the Senator from Kentucky is granted.

ADJOURNMENT TO THURSDAY

Mr. BARKLEY. If there is no further business, I move that tht! Senate adjourn until Thursday next.

The motion was agreed to; and tat 2 o'clock and 8 minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned until Thursday, October 23, 1941, at 12 o'clock meridian.

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate, October 21 (legislative day of October 16>, 1941:

DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN SERVICE

Herschel V. Johnson to be Envoy Extraor­dinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, United States of America to Sweden.

Lester L. Schnare, of Georgia, to be con­sul general of the United States of America. . Austin C. Brady, of New Mexico, to be con­sul general of the United States of America.

PosTMASTERS MINNESOTA

. Hans A. Nelson, Canby. Floyd H. Scheid, Easton. James D. Brennan, Hinckley. I. Selmer Reiland, Kensington. Earl M. Wilson, Willow River.

NEW MEXICO A. Clyn Inman, Conchas Dam.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TuESDAY, OcTOBER 21. 1941

The House met at 12 o'clock noon, and was called to order by the Speaker. · The Chaplain, Rev. James Shera Mont­go;mery, D. D., offered the following prayer:

Heavenly Father, we bear witness of the strength given us when it seemed that we were to falter under our burdens. We thank Thee that crosses have been borne and that the yoke that threatened to crush was made easy. Open in all hearts the sealed avenues of gratitude and let us be filled with gladness at the unvarying goodness of our God. Rebuke our pride and that murmuring selfish­ness and with self-forgetful devotion set our face steadfastly to go forward. We "'pray that we may catch the undertone of prophecy which assures of a brighter day. Allow nothing to disturb nor startle our faith in Him, who in times past was most glorious and will remain resplendent in the years to come. No storm can rage so furiously as to drown the voice of the One who rules the winds and the waves. "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee." In His holy name. Amen.

The Journal of the proceedings of yes­terday was read and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate, by Mr. Frazier, its legislative clerk, announced that the Senate had adopted the follow­ing resolution <S. Res. 183): In the Senate of the United States, October 201

(legislative day of October 16), 1941

Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow the announcement of the death of Hen. LAWRENCE J . CoNNERY, late a Representative from the State -of Massachu­setts,

Resolved. That a committe~ of two Sen­ators be appointed by the· Vice President to join the committee appointed on the part of the House of Representatives to attend the funeral of the deceased Representative.

Resolved, That the Secretary communlcate these resolutions to the House of Representa­tives and transmit a copy thereof to the fam­ily of the deceased.

Resolved, That as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased the Senate do · now take a recess until 12 o'clock meridian tomorrow.

The message also announced that pur­suant to the provisions of the above reso­lution the Vice President named Mr. WALSH and Mr. LoDGE as members of the committee on the part of the Senate.

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House to a bill of the Senate of the fol­lowing title:

S. 1731 An act to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to provide salvage facilities and for other purposes .

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the com­mittee of conference on the disagreemg votes of the two Houses on the amend­ment of the Senate to the bill <H. R. 4270) entitled "An act for the relief of Margaret M. Cutts."

RECESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent th::~. it may be in order at any time this afternoon for the Speaker to order the House to stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request · of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr~ McCoRMACK] ?

There was no objection.