Continuing, Randolph stated:

What relates to suffrage is justly stated by the celebrated Montesquieu, as a fundamental article in Republican government. If the danger suggested by Mr. Gouverneur Morris be real, of advantage being taken of the legislature in pressing moments, it was an additional reason, for tying their hands in such a manner that they could not sacrifice their trust to momentary considerations. Congresses have pledged the public faith to new States, that they shall be admitted on equal terms. They never would nor ought to accede on any other. The census must be taken under the direction of the general legislature. The States will be too much interested to take an impartial one for themselves.

Then followed a running debate as to the question of counting the colored folks or only three-fourths of them.

Several votes were taken as fixing the period between censuses. It will be remembered that in the original motion the committee's report left the time in blank. A motion to make it 15 years was voted down. Then a motion of 6 years and 20 years, respectively, was voted down, and finally 10 years was agreed upon, the vote being Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voting in the affirmative and Connecticut and New Jersey voting in the negative. (My State, New York, on this and many other votes on the question was conspicuous by its absence.)

As I have just stated, when the Constitutional Convention agreed to fix the taking of the census every 10 years and that there should be a reapportionment immediately thereafter it | was by no means intended that it should be left to the discretion, will, or caprice of any future Congress. The debate and the motions themselves indicate that it was intended to be mandatory, and even the opponents of the proposition left no doubt that they understood that the provision in the Constitution was mandatory upon future Congresses. Hence the bill before the House is not only timely and necessary in the face of the failure of past Congresses to do their duty by obeying the express mandate of the Constitution but entirely in keeping with the intent and desire of the framers of the Constitution to make it absolutely imperative that there shall be a reapportionment following the census every 10 years.

Mr. MOORE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. In just a moment. If the Constitutional Convention had had presented to it the formula or method such as we have in this bill to provide for the omission of any future Congress, it seems to me that they would have adopted it at that time. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. MOORE of Virginia. Conceding what the gentleman has just said about the meaning of the Constitution, we have at this moment a question as to how fractions shall be dealt with. Does the gentleman not think that we ought to postpone determining that question until we know what the fractions are?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. No; because the principle of equal representation divided among the whole country is more important than the distribution of three Members among 48 States. [Applause.]

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LAGUARDIA. I can not yield. I have not the time. It seems to me that all that we propose to do here is in the event a Congress charged with the responsibility and constitutional mandate to provide a reapportionment fails to do so, to take the necessary precaution to provide an instrument whereby the reapportionment may be brought about.

It is all to my personal interest that there shall be no change. My colleagues from New York know well that if there is a reapportionment, considering the geographical location of my district, its population, the present popularity (?) of the present Representative in his own party, and the antagonism of the adverse party, my district will be the first district to be wiped out under this reapportionment. Notwithstanding that, I feel that the principle of representation, of carrying out the mandate of the Constitution for apportionment at stated intervals, is far more important to representative government than the political interest of any individual. [Applause and cries of Vote!"] The CHAIRMAN. The debate on this amendment has been exhausted.

The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair that is not a substitute amendment.

Mr. GREEN. That is offered as an amendment to the amendment.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the amendment, if adopted, will enable the committee to adjudicate the membership of this House.

I am for reapportionment. The population of the United States has increased about 20 per cent since the last apportionment. The trend of population is governed by economic conditions. It has drifted into the economic centers of our country. My State, under the proposed legislation, would receive one, or possibly two, additional Members beyond what it now has, as the people have gone there, as in other sections of the country.

The people of the United States should be represented, regardless of where they reside. Under the present calculation a Member of Congress coming from Florida would represent 299.800 people. Under the present schedule, if it goes into effect, if the Member comes from Michigan he would represent 220,000 people. If he comes from California he would represent 220,000 people, approximately. If he comes from the State of Ohio he would represent 260,000, approximately. If he comes from Vermont he would represent 352,000 people, approximately. Now, do you gentlemen mean to tell me that our Committee on the Census can not work out a better basis on equal proportions and major fractions whereby the people in 1930 shall be represented, no matter where they reside?

If this amendment is adopted it will prevent the great variation of population to be represented by Members of Congress. The amendment should be adopted. I sympathize with my friend from California who represents half a million people. My colleague from east Florida, Mr. SEARS, represents possibly three-quarters of a million people, and my colleague Mr. DRANE, represents probably more than a half a million people, and my district and the district of my colleague Mr. YoN contain far more than the amount allotted under last reapportionment. But if you reapportion representation, why not reapportion regardless of whether the result applies to a small State or to a large State like California or Michigan or New York? If you adopt this amendment, you give the Congress a chance two years from now to have the matter properly adjusted in the bill, and each Member shall represent an equal number of people on this floor after reapportionment.

The amendment is offered in behalf of reapportionment. I want my State to receive six or seven Members of Congress as it should, instead of five, as it would receive under the schedule offered by your committee.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. The gentleman is in error as to that. I am in the same boat.

Mr. GREEN. Florida should have 7 Members if Michigan is entitled to 17.

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. We have done nothing for 10 years to fix the basis of representation.

Mr. GREEN. I contend that representation should be according to population. I hope the House will adopt this amendment. I offer it to the end that we may have full representation according to population, regardless in what State the No discrimination should be made against people reside. small States. No undue advantage should be awarded to larger States.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state the parliamentary situation. Without objection, the pro forma amendment of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. LozIER] will be withdrawn, thus making the present amendment in order. There was no objection.

Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Chairman, the interest I have in this bill is more along business lines than political. I think every Member on the floor of the House will agree with me that during the last eight years the burden that has fallen upon the Member of Congress is many times greater than was ever known before to an average Member of Congress prior to that time. Members of the House will recall that only last year there was serious agitation for an additional office building, so that Members could have a larger space in which to transact the business of their districts. There is an unusual load falling upon certain Members of Congress. There are Members repre

Amendment offered by Mr. GREEN as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. BEEDY: Page 2, line 4, after the period, add the following: "Provided, That said remainder of the 435 Representatives shall be apportioned so that the number of inhabitants represented by each Representative shall not vary in number in excess of 20,000,"

only a few thousand people. The time has come when this country is turning more and more to the Members of Congress to transact business in an efficient way, and more and more the people are turning to their Members of Congress for services unknown to a Representative years ago. It is manifestly unfair in this business age for us to go on in this way, with one Member trying to represent perhaps a half million people and another one 25,000 people.

I am for the bill, but there is one other point I want to stress, and that is this: Ever since we have been taking the census and making a reapportionment of the country we have been following the method of major fractions. The people of the country are familiar with that method and the Members of Congress are familiar with that method. Never in the history of the country has this other method been tried such as is proposed in this amendment, and I feel it would be safer for us to vote down this amendment and follow the lines which have been tested, tried, and proved satisfactory to the people and to the Members of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. GREEN].

The question was taken, and the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BEEDY].

The question was taken, and the amendment was rejected. Mr. BRIGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BRIGHAM: On page 2, line 4, strike out the period, add a comma, and the following: "Provided, That any State whose representation would be reduced to the one Representative to which such State is entitled under the Constitution shall have apportioned to it an additional Representative if its population shall exceed by more than 25 per cent the average population per Representative for the United States, and to that extent the whole number of Representatives shall be increased accordingly."

Mr. CRAIL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The amendment is out of order in that it would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman state what provision of the Constitution?

Mr. CRAIL. The Constitution of the United States provides that apportionment of Representatives in Congress shall be based upon the number of persons in each State and the gentleman's amendment would abrogate that provision of the Constitution.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the constitutional effect of amendments and their consistency or other relation to other portions of a pending bill have never been considered, so far as the present occupant of the chair is advised, a subject for a point of order. The main question arising upon an amendment is its germaneness or, perhaps in the case of committee amendments, the jurisdiction of the committee, but germaneness generally. The Chair does not think the gentleman states a point of order and accordingly overrules it. Mr. BRIGHAM. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I have offered this amendment for the purpose of calling attention to and providing a remedy for a condition of inequality in representation which will be brought about by the enactment of this bill.

All laws hitherto enacted by the Congress for the purpose of apportioning Representatives among the several States, with one exception, I believe, have been passed after the taking of the census when all the facts regarding the distribution of population were known and these laws have assigned to each State a definite number of Representatives. Furthermore, reapportionment heretofore has been usually by the comparatively simple process of adding to the House enough Members to take care of the gain in population in each State without taking away a substantial percentage of the Members from any State. Only once in the history of the country has the representation of a State been reduced by 50 per cent. In 1810 the representation of the State of Delaware was reduced from two to one.

The bill before us to-day provides for fixing the membership of the House at 435, the present number, and leaving it to the Secretary of Commerce to make the reapportionment of this number of Representatives among the several States according to a prescribed method-the method of major fractions.

Apportionment of Representatives by the method of major fractions means that a State will have assigned to it a Representative for each full quota of a certain determined number of population and one for a number of population which is more than one-half of such full quota. For instance, in the 1910 reapportionment a State received a Representative for each full quota of 211,877 people and an additional cne if there was a remainder of 105.939 people or more.

If the reminder were less than 105,939 the State would not be entitled to a Representative for this lesser number. Therein

lies the inequality between the large and the small State. Suppose a State is entitled to one Representative under the full quota of population and falls just under the major fraction which entitles it to another. The one Representative must not only represent his full quota, but an additional quota of 105,000 persons. In a large State this extra quota of 105,000 persons would be divided up among a number of Representatives. For instance, in New Jersey the extra quota could be divided among 12 Representatives and would not mean a large additional quota for each Representative.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont has expired.

Mr. BRIGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont asks unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. Is there objection?

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object to the gentleman's request, will the gentleman yield to me to propound a unanimous-consent request? Mr. BRIGHAM. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close at the end of five minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi asks unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in five minutes, the five minutes to be occupied, under unanimous-consent request, by the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I will make it 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi modifies his request so as to make it 10 minutes. Is there objection? There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont asks unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. BRIGHAM. If we fix the membership of the House at 435 and our population continues to grow, the quota of population which entitles a State to a Representative must also continue to increase. In a few decades it may require 400,000 for a full quota, so that a State with 400,000 population will have one Representative and a State will not be entitled to two Representatives until it has a population of more than 600,000. The increase in population has not been and probably will not be equal in its distribution among the various States. Agriculture requires extent of territory for its development and with the increased use of farm machinery fewer men are required to work a given number of acres. On the other hand, the development of industry does not depend upon extent of territory but rather upon nearness to raw materials, to a supply of labor, and to markets. Therefore we may expect the States dependent upon agriculture to remain stationary in population or at any rate to gain less rapidly than the industrial States and if the House is to have a fixed membership of 435 there will inevitably be a shift of Members from the agricultural to the industrial States with an increasing number of States which will be entitled to only one Representative in this House. It has been proposed to amend the Constitution so that each State will have at least two Representatives here. When we consider that through the illness or the death of its one Representative the people of a State may for some time be deprived of representation in this body, I believe the justice of such an amendment is apparent. However, amending the Constitution is a long process, and I believe the amendment I have offered, providing that when reapportionment works out so that a Representative in a State will have to represent a constituency larger by 25 per cent than the average for the United States, then an additional Representative is assigned to that State. I believe such an amendment would tend toward more just and equal representation of the people in the several States. [Applause.]

Representatives from the States of Michigan and California have complained bitterly at the injustice done their States by failure of the Congress to reapportion on the basis of the 1920 census. There is nothing to prevent the States of Michigan and California to reapportion the number of Representatives they now have at any time it is considered wise to do so. On the basis of the 1920 census, with the present representation of these States in this House, a Member from Michigan, if the population of that State were fairly and equally apportioned among the different Representatives of that State, would represent 282,185 persons. A Representative from California, if the people of that State were fairly and equally apportioned, would represent

311,532 persons. I call attention to the fact that if reapportionment had been made on the 1920 census a single Representative from the State of Vermont would have represented here 352,428 people.

If the people of California and Michigan, Mr. Chairman, have a right to complain of the injustice done them by the failure of Congress to reapportion, I am sure that the people of Vermont would have had a right to complain if reapportionment had been made on the basis of the 1920 census according to the method it is proposed to adopt in this bill.

Mr. STOBBS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BRIGHAM. Yes.

among the several States, then each State shall be entitled, in the second succeeding Congress and in each Congress thereafter until the taking effect of a reapportionment on the basis of the next decennial census, to the number of Representatives shown in the statement; and it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the last House of Representatives forthwith to send to the executive of each State a certificate of the number of Representatives to which such State is entitled under this section. In case of a vacancy in the office of Clerk, or of his absenco or inability to discharge this duty, then such duty shall devolve upon the officer who, under section 32 or 33 of the Revised Statutes, is charged with the preparation of the roll of Representatives elect. (b) This section shall have no force and effect in respect of the

Mr. BRIGHAM. On the estimated population of 1930, I think it would affect two States-the States of Vermont and New Mexico.

Mr. STOBBS. In other words, it would add two more Representatives to the 435?

Mr. BRIGHAM. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont.

The question was taken, and the amendment was rejected. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CELLER: Page 2, line 4, insert: "All special agents, supervisors, clerks, enumerators, interpreters, and all other employees taking the census shall be appointed from civil-service lists after examinations conducted under rules and regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission.”

ment required by section 1 in respect of such census is transmitted to the Congress on or before the first day of the first regular session which begins after the taking of such census has begun.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the passage of this bill. The Constitution and the practice since its adoption seem to have fixed the duty upon Congress to pass reapportionment legislation as soon as practicable after the taking of each census. Justice Story so interpreted the Constitution when he stated in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania (16 Peters 618) that to make the apportionment is a duty positively enjoined by the Constitution," and as the report of the Committee on the Census sets forth, Congress, without exception, has made such apportionment after the taking of every census until the census of 1920.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York desire to argue the point of order?

Mr. CELLER. I would like to hear what the point of order is. Mr. LAGUARDIA. The point of order is that the amendment is not germane, and the gentleman from New York knows it is not germane.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York states that the amendment is not germane.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is germane and for this reason: This bill seeks to set up a method or standard by which there may be a reapportionment so as to get due and proper representation of the people of the United States according to the census. We lay down the method and I am merely amplifying the method by which the census shall be taken upon which this reapportionment is to be based-it shall be taken by those qualified by fitness and ability to take the census. For this reason it is quite germane, relevant, and in no sense of the word outside of the provisions of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman permit a question? Mr. CELLER. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the bill in any sense provide for the taking of a census?

Mr. CELLER. It mentions specifically the census, and I indicate how the census shall be taken. These terms are well defined. Census means something which is definite.

Mr. BLACK of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLACK of New York. It seems to me this bill is adding new duties to the Bureau of the Census, calling upon the Bureau of the Census, of course, to get new employees, and the amendment is perfectly germane, because it provides that they must come from the civil-service list.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman indicate where that is provided in the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule. The amendment of the gentleman from New York reads as follows:

All special agents, supervisors, clerks, enumerators, interpreters, and all other employees taking the census shall be appointed from civilservice lists after examinations conducted under rules and regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission.

It is clear to the Chair that this bill does not deal with the subject of the census or with the taking of a census and that the amendment is not germane to the section or to the bill. The Chair sustains the point of order.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 2. (a) If the Congress to which the statement required by section 1 is transmitted fails to enact a law apportioning the Representatives

The argument that the Constitution does not in express language require Congress to make the apportionment is not very convincing in view of the express provisions requiring Representatives to be " apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers" and an enumeration to "be mandate to Congress to make the enumeration, to take the census, every 10 years and to apportion the Representatives among the several States according to their respective numbers. The only question left for argument is, When shall that apportionment be made? The plain inference or intent seems to be that it shall be made every 10 years after the taking of the census. That has been the uniform interpretation of that provision of the Constitution up to this time and it is too late to question it now.

It may well be asked, How can Representatives be apportioned among the several States according to population if Congress refuses to apportion after the census has been taken and it knows what the population is? If Congress can refuse to apportion after one census, why not after another or after all?

However, as is well known, this Congress is deadlocked on reapportionment legislation, and the next best thing seems to be to pass some legislation such as is provided in the bill before us, authorizing an automatic reapportionment after the next census based upon a membership of 435, unless the Congress at that time determines otherwise.

It seems to me that the main question involved in this legislation is whether this Congress thinks it advisable to fix the membership of Congress at 435 until future Congresses take affirmative action to fix a different number. I can not help but feel that those who argue against it on constitutional grounds are going out of their way to look for trouble. To me there is no question about the power and right of Congress under the Constitution to pass the legislation if it sees fit to do so. It is not delegating any legislative power or prerogative. It is merely assigning a ministerial duty of a very limited nature to the Secretary of Commerce. It does not permit the exercise by him of any discretionary power. It is difficult to conceive of the delegation to any agency of the Government of any ministerial duty of a more restricted nature. That it would be faithfully and honestly performed, no matter who may be Secretary of Commerce or what administration may be in power, must be assumed. I do not think that any Member of Congress will seriously question but what it would be.

In fact the legislation only requires the Secretary of Commerce after the taking of the census to do what Congress itself in effect has heretofore done before it could intelligently and fairly apportion the Representatives among the several States according to the population and make the definite assignment to each State in the law of the number of Representatives to which it was entitled, as has been the practice. As a matter of practice I presume Congress has asked the Bureau of the Census to furnish for its use the very information which this legislation requires. What reasonable objection can there be to providing by law for the performance of this purely ministerial duty by the Bureau of the Census under the Department of Commerce?

The only real question for us to determine is whether 435 is the right number for the House of Representatives.

I would prefer to see the size of the House reduced rather than increased. I would also favor the passage of apportionment legislation by this Congress, but as a practical proposition I realize it is impossible to accomplish either one of these results. Therefore, as the next best thing, I shall vote for this bill. [Applause.]

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin rose.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in five minutes.

Mr. HUDSON. Reserving the right to object, does the gentleman mean the section or the paragraph?

The CHAIRMAN. The bill is being read by sections. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi?

There was no objection.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman [applause], I have been not a little surprised to-day to hear gentlemen very earnestly declare that the Constitution has no mandate requiring reapportionment. I can not understand how anyone familiar with the history of the Constitutional Convention and of the events in England which preceded it can make this contention.

The Constitution was formulated and published in the summer of 1787. In 1782, 5 years before, there began in England the great struggle which continued for 50 years to have just representation in the House of Commons. This struggle was long and violent. There were riots, there was bloodshed. The friends of the reform were defeated in 1782, but they fought on for half a century and triumphed at last.

Now, what was the reason for the struggle? Every reader of history knows it. There were districts in England-" rotten boroughs" they called them-with only 5 or 10 voters, and in some really only 1 or 2, and each district elected a member of Parliament. A lord sometimes owned such a district and sent his man to the House of Commons, In some instances 50 votes or 100 votes sent members to the House, while in other districts it required thousands of votes to elect a member. There was one district with a comparatively scattered population that had a larger representation in the House of Commons than had the city of London.

This was abuse, shameful, unpardonable; but special privilege had secured the advantage and the power, and it kept these for 50 more years.

Now, our fathers in the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 knew all about the "rotten-borough" system in England; and therefore you gentlemen who assert that the provision for apportionment in our Constitution is not mandatory must also contend that Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Washington, and the other immortals of that great convention, knowing well the awful abuses in England, did absolutely nothing to prevent similar abuses from growing up in the Government they were about to establish. Do you believe that? It is the most serious indictment I have ever heard made against the illustrious patriots who constituted that convention-that they neglected a thing like this.

I looked in the directory a few minutes ago, and I find that here sits a Member who represents 138,000 people, while on this side of the aisle is a Member representing approximately 1,250,000 people. Is the equivalent of the rotten-borough system to obtain here and curse this country, because Congress is to continue to ignore the provisions in the Constitution, requiring that the census shall be taken every 10 years, and that representation in the House shall be based upon numbers?

This provision was adopted by the Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of preventing the Representative of only 138,000 people having one vote on this floor, and while the Representative of 1,250,000 other people has only one vote on this floor. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one more minute.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

men denounce the proposed delay until after 1930. And yet, as I find the record shows, the very gentlemen who now protest against this provision of the bill before us, themselves voted on Tuesday last for the Hawes-Cooper convict labor bill, which expressly provided that it should not take effect for three years after its enactment. They are all on record as voting for it. [Applause.]

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out, on page 2, line 21, all of section (b).

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

Page 2, beginning on line 21, strike out all of subsection (b).

The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this section has expired, and the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

The question was taken, and the amendment was rejected. The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 3. In each State entitled under this act to more than one Representative, the Representatives to which such State may be entitled in the Seventy-third and each subsequent Congress shall be elected by districts equal in number to the number of Representatives to which such State may be entitled in Congress, no one district electing more than one Representative. Each such district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory and contain as nearly as practicable the same number of individuals.

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the section. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment by Mr. LOZIER: Page 3, beginning in line 3, strike out section 3.

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to occupy five minutes, but I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that this section embodies a proposition that is clearly invalid. The bill provides that the Congress shall allocate to the several States the number of Representatives to which they are entitled according to their population. When that act is done the power of Congress ends. The power of Congress does not exist to determine how and in what manner the States shall elect their Representatives or in what form the States shall lay off their congressional districts. There is no power on the part of Congress to prevent a State from electing all its Members of Congress at large, if it so desires. There is no power in Congress to in any way determine or direct how the States shall elect the Members of Congress to which they are entitled.

I call attention also to the fact that section 6 is clearly unconstitutional and remind my Republican friends that in 1921 the versatile and able constitutional lawyer, Mr. BURTON, of Ohio, condemned that section as invalid. Both section 6 and section 3 of the pending bill were embraced in the act of 1921. Both are invalid because they attempt to limit the power of the States over a matter that rests exclusively in the jurisdiction of the States and in relation to which Congress has no power whatever. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in five minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi asks unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in five minutes. Is there objection? There was no objection.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am not complaining because my amendment was voted down a few moments ago, but I do want to call the attention of the House to what is in this bill, and if there is one member of the committee who is sponsoring the bill who can justify section (b) in the bill and give reasons for it, I think the House is entitled to know it.

Some of us who sponsor the bill are standing on the matter of principle and bringing about an express mandate of the Constitution, and some of us are doing it at expense of our own districts. This subsection (b) could not have been put in there except for some evil purpose.

Section 1 of the bill provides that the census shall be taken as soon as practicable and the Secretary of Commerce shall transmit to Congress. Now, turn to page 2, section (b), and they say that if he does not do it the whole law is void and of no effect.

What is the purpose of that section? I ask the chairman of the committee, I ask the gentleman from New York or any sponsor of the bill to stand up and explain section (b). I think the House is entitled to it. We want to go along with

the committee and stand by you, but do not ask us to vote for a joker. Section (b) is absolutely dishonest and I think the House is entitled to an explanation.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. LOZIER].

The question was taken, and the motion was rejected.
The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 4. In the election of Representatives to the Seventy-third or any subsequent Congress in any State which under the apportionment provided for in section 2 of this act is given an increased number of Representatives, the additional Representative or Representatives apportioned to such State shall be elected by the State at large, and the other Representatives to which the State is entitled shall be elected as theretofore, until such State is redistricted in the manner provided by the laws thereof, and in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of this act.

Mr. NEWTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. First, I want to ask a question of the distinguished chairman of the committee. What would the situation be under this law in reference to a State which has not redistricted since 1910, where they still elect some of their Members at large? Take, for example, the State of Illinois. Under this section you provide for those States where the number of Representatives has been increased. You provide for election in the event of an increase; but as to those States where they remain the same and there are now Representatives at large, what would the situation be?

Mr. FENN. That is a matter for the State itself to determine. Mr. NEWTON. I understood that as a general principle, but in section 4 you lay down a rule of reapportionment, which is that

SEC. 5. In the election of Representatives to the Seventy-third or sequent Congress in any State which under the apportionment provided for in section 2 of this act is given an increased number of Representatives the additional Representative or Representatives apportioned to such State shall be elected by the State at large

And so forth.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. I suggest that the gentleman read section 6 in connection with this. That takes care of Representatives elected at large.

Mr. NEWTON.

the election.

Section 6 applies to the nomination, not to

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. It is all left to the State that elects Representatives at large.

Mr. FENN. The endeavor of the bill is to make the States redistrict and reapportion. These are the same sections that have been carried in previous reapportionment bills.

Mr. LOZIER. If the gentleman will read the subsequent part of that section, I think his question will be answered

and the other Representatives to which the State is entitled shall be elected as theretofore.

That covers the State of Illinois absolutely. That matter was discussed in the committee, and that language adopted in order to meet the Illinois situation.

Mr. NEWTON. I think that does meet that situation. Mr. Chairman, no one can read the Constitution of the United States and come to any other conclusion than that the duty of Congress to reapportion following every decennial census is mandatory. In addition to that, however, we should bear in mind that if representative government is to be maintained it must be kept "representative," not only in theory but in fact. There was no reapportionment made following the 1920 census. Various excuses have been made. The fact remains, however, that the opposition has come from those States which, under a reapportionment plan, would lose representation. No matter what the plan is that is presented, they are opposed to it unless the plan calls for such increase in the size of the House of Representatives as will prevent a reduction in their present representation. I do not see how anyone who has watched proceedings in the House can desire to see the membership increased. In order not to decrease the Representatives from any State the membership of this House would have to be increased to 483, or an increase of 50 Members. If the estimates are correct for 1930, when we then reapportion the size will have to be 534 Members to avoid cutting down the representation of any State. That is unthinkable. From the very commencement of this fight for reapportionment I have stood against increasing the total membership of the House, regardless of what State was affected. In my judgment, the House should not have been increased over 300 Members. With sufficient, competent help, the work could be done, and more efficiently. The pending measure, while not perfect

and no legislation is perfect-provides reapportionment. It keeps the House at the present size. It makes it effective in 1931, unless the next Congress should in the meantime determine otherwise and so provide. I trust that the constitutional mandate will be no longer disobeyed.

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman for two minutes.

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to detain the committee, because I think everyone has his mind made up. What the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. COOPER] just said is very pertinent. My district cast more votes in 1924 than 11 Southern and Western States cast. I have a district which probably in the next census will prove to have a million and a half people. Are they not entitled to a more numerous representation in this House?

Mr. NEWTON. I suggest that they have it in quality now. Mr. WILLIAMS of Illinois. That is a matter that lies with the State legislature.

Mr. HUDSON. This does not. There is no reason why the Congress should not pass this legislation at this time. Anyone who raises the constitutional question raises it as a barrage, as a smoke screen.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. The pro forma amendment will be withdrawn, and the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 5. In the election of Representatives to the Seventy-third or any subsequent Congress in any State which under the apportionment provided for in section 2 of this act is given a decreased number of Representatives, the whole number of Representatives to which such State is entitled shall be elected by the State at large until such State is redistricted in the manner provided by the laws thereof, and in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of this act.

Mr. DALLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the section. I can not believe that the House will adopt this section if the Members thoroughly understand its effect. It would make possible the election of the entire delegation from a State like New York or Pennsylvania or Massachusetts at large; if one political party happened to have a bare plurality of 1 vote in the State, the entire delegation from the State would be elected all of that party, when there might be a large number of districts in the State in which the other party is in an overwhelming majority. In that case those districts would have no representation in the House at all.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

At the conclusion of the third reading of the bill I propose to offer a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Census where all these matters may be straightened out. In the next section there is a provision to elect Congressmen according to the way that governors in the various States are elected. I can take the constitutions of the various States and show you that that is practically impossible. I shall offer a motion to recommit at the conclusion of the third reading of the bill and I hope it will be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts to strike out the section.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. DALLINGER) there were-ayes 31, noes 106. So the motion was rejected.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 6. Candidates for Representatives at large shall be nominated, unless the State concerned shall provide otherwise, in the same manner in which candidates for governor in that State are nominated. Mr. MONTAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the section.

Mr. FENN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. MONTAGUE. Yes; I shall give way to the chairman. Mr. FENN. This section should go out. I thoroughly agree with the contention which I think the gentleman from Virginia would make in regard to this. I agree with him that it should be stricken out.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gen tleman from Virginia to strike out the section. The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the committee will rise and report the bill with the amendment.

Mr. FENN. Mr. Chairman, there is but one amendment. Thereupon the committee rose; and Mr. TILSON as Speaker pro tempore having assumed the chair, Mr. CHINDBLOM, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the