V315 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 1 jljPPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES w: HEARING BEFOltE THE COMMITTEE ON ELECTION OF PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS Third Session on H. R. 20737 A BILL AMENDING SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 8, 1911, ENTITLED "AN ACT FOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AMONG THE SEVERAL STAl'ES UNDER THE THIRTEENTH CENSUS," SO AS TO GIvE ANY STATE ENTITLED TO AT LEAST THREE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS THE PRIV- ILEGE OF ELECTING THEM BY PROPOR- TIONAL REPRESENTATION FEBRUARY 16, 1915 ' n ® WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ma h ( *0cVfti)\j :<- 1 _ N Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030480721 Cornell University Library JK1951.U6 A65 1915 Apportionment of representatives olln 3 1924 030 480 721 '4 APPORTIONMENT OP REPRESENTATIVES. tainly may be called a bill providing for the emancipation and en- franchisement of minorities. In the bill itself it is described as one "to give to any State entitled to at least three Representatives in Congress the privilege of electing them by proportional representa- tion." I shall ask to have printed in the hearing a copy of the bill, with some explanation of the plan proposed. (The bill referred to follows ) [H. R. 20737.] A BILL Amending sections 3 and 4 of the act of August S, 1911,. entitled "An act for the apportionment of Kepresentatives in Congress among the several States under the Thirteenth Census," so as to give any State entitled to at least three Kepresentatives inCongress the privilege of electing them by proportional representation. Be it enacted, etc., That instead of being restricted to the method prescribed in the act of August 8, 1911, entitled "An act for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States under the Thirteenth Census," any State entitled to three or more Representatives in Congress may, if its legislature so prescribe, elect its Representatives in Congress by proportional representation. Sec. 2. That where the Representatives are elected by proportional representation, if the State is not entitled to more than nine Representatives, they shall be nominated and elected by the State at large; if the State is entitled to more than nine Repre- sentatives, they may, at the option of the State, be nominated and elected by the State at large or by districts, each of which shall be composed of a contiguous and compact territory and Shall be entitled to the number of Representatives that as nearly as practicable is in proportion to tie number of its inhabitants. Each of such districts shall be so composed that it is entitled to at least five Representatives. The dis- tricts of a State shall be determined in the manner provided by the laws of the State. Sec. 3. That the election of Representatives by proportional representation shall be subject to the following regulations: Submection A. The election 'shall be by ballot, which shall contain the names of the candidates for Representatives in lists, each of which lists may contain any num- ber of names from one up to the full number of Representatives to be chosen in the State or in the district, as the case may be. Subsec. B. I. Any group of electors, subject to such restrictions as the State may impose, may nominate one of the aforesaid lists, but no elector shall take part in the nominations of more than one list. II. Each State shall have the option of permitting the use of party names and emblems in connection with the aforesaid lists, and may prescribe a primary for the selection of candidates of a group of electors. Subsec. C. On the election. ballots the several lists of candidates shall be printed in an order determined by the election authorities by lot. The names of the candi- dates on each list shall be printed in the alphabetical order of the surnames, and each name shall be followed by the candidate's home address. The name of a candidate shall not be printed on the ballot unless he has previously filed with the election authorities a written acceptance of the nomination over his own signature. The form of the portion of the ballot devoted to Representatives in Congress shall be sub- stantially as follows: ( FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS. Directions to voters: Mark a cross (X) opposite the name of one candidate only for whom you wish to vote. (If the candidate you vote for is found to be elected without your vote, or if he is found to have too few votes to be elected with it, your vote will be counted for some other candidate on the same list.) Do not mark more than one name. If you spoil this ballot, tear it across once, return it to the election officer in charge of the ballots, and get another from him. . APPORTIONMENT OF BEPBE6ENTATIVES. DEMOCRATIC TICKET. REPUBLICAN TICKET. PROGRESSIVE TICKET. A C r> [Home address.] [Home address.] [Home address.] B.... '. Q.... .. L . [Home address.] [Home address.] [Home address.] H M [Homo address.] [Home address.] [Home address.] P J N [Home address.] [Home address.] .[Home address.] S 1 K.. .'....-..,.. .'.'... q ;....:.:..:. [Home address.] [Horne address.] [Home address.] T.. U [Home address.] > [Home address.] V..'.. .*...-...; [Home address.] Y [Home address.] Stjbsec. D. The following method shall be used in determining which candidates are elected: [ I. A ballot marked for candidates on more than one list shall be excluded from the count of the vote -for Representatives in" Congress. A ballot marked for more than one candidate on a single list, but not for candidates on more than one list; shall be counted as a vote for the list, but shall not be counted, in determining the preference for any particular candidate on that list; the aggregate of such votes and the votes for each individual candidate oh the same list constitute the total number of votes for the list. " ' II. The total number of valid votes cast shall be divided by the "number of Repre- sentatives to be elected and the quotient shall be the full constituency. ,, III. The number of full constituencies contained in the total number of valid votes for a list shall be the number of candidates oh that list to be declared elected on the first Assignment of seats. ' ' . IV. After this first assignment of seats the remaining seats, if any, shall be assigned as follows: The total number of valid votes for each list shall be. diyicled by the num- ber <5f seats already assigned to such list, plus one, and to the list showing the largest quotient shall be assigned one Additional seat. If two or more lists show, the same quotient, the. chief election official of the State or district, as the case may be, shall decide the tie by lot. This procedure shall be repeated until all the seatshave been ; ,V: The candidates to be declared elected from any list shall be those receiving the largest number of votes on that list. . . Sec. 4. That to any vacancy that shall occur in the delegation of Representatives in Congress from any State or district, as the case may be,* which'has elected its Repre- sentatives by proportional representation under the provisions of this act,. the chief election official of the State or district, as the case maybe, shall appoint, to fill out the unexpired term, that candidate from the list on wliiclf the vacating Representative was nominated who of all the unelected candidates on that list received the highest number of votes. Sec. 5 . That, all laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed . When you come to look over the bill it will be noticed that the pro- visions are purely permissive. There is nothing obligatory about it, but it leaves every State to choose for itself whether it shall adopt this system. Under the existing law, which this bill is intended to amend, it is ?rovided that Members of Congress shall be elected by districts, hat is under the act of 1911. Under the proposed bill no State need resort to proportional representation unless it feels so inclined. If our southern friends have a fear of breaking up the solidarity which has so long been maintained, that is their affair. They are not 6 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. asked to adopt an idea which for purely local reasons may be objec- tionable. But I take it that in my own State of Pennsylvania a good share of the people may be expected to incline favorably toward a a proposition so essentially fair. I might remark that an analysis of the vote for Congressmen in the State of Pennsylvania for 1914 shows that under the proportional representation system the Democrats would have elected 12 Members. They did elect 6 Members. The Progressives would have elected 6 Members and the Republicans 18 Members. As the results were actually achieved under the unfair system now prevailing the Repub- licans elected 30 of the 36 Members, the Democrats the remainder. Similar results were scored in other States, but Pennsylvania probably presents about as violent an example of the unfairness of the present system as could be disclosed by a scrutiny of the returns from the entire country. The plan of proportional representation does not involve taking anything away from anybody who is justly entitled to it. Its whole aim is one of simple square dealing. It would, of course; put the gerrymander out of business. It would open up political prison pens. It would largely destroy the influence of small and compact bodies . which in many congressional districts control the balance of power, and in doing so practically dominate both the majority and the minority. I have in mind a case in point. In a certain district the Republicans have abnormal majority of approxi- mately 1,200. In both the Republican Party and the Democratio Party there is -a small number of prohibitionists, not party Prohibi- tionists, but believers in the prohibition policy. The Republicans can not carry the district without holding these, nor can the Demo- crats hone to win unless they can gain over the prohibition element. This balance of power controls the election. Yet in the total vote the prohibitionists represent a negligible fraction. Under the dis- trict system the tail wags the dog. The fly oh the cart wheel makes it go round. This is not representative government; it is not majority govern- ment; it is government by the minority, and often by the smallest minority. In many cases it resolves itself into a government of fanatics and impracticals. I think I am not shooting much above the mark in saying that most Members of the House are in constant and mortal fear of this balance of power, our southern friends not less than our friends in the North, for the balance of power feared by the southern Member is in his own party, exerting itself as effectively in the primary as the same balance of power operates in the elections at the North! If Members will be honest with themselves, they will admit that -they feel the necessity of paying constant court to this balance of power. For every thought they give to the great body of the constituency they represent they give ten thoughts, or perhaps a hundred thoughts, to that shifting and capricious element which is blown about by every political freeze and which judges a man not by the sum of his record, not by his fidelity to principle, not by his industry, not by his scrupulous regard for the pledges he has taken, but by some isolated act, by some word said or vote recorded to ■ which that element can not subscribe. The act in question may meet the high approval of a majority of his constituents; the word may have been APPORTIONMENT OF BEPBESENTATIVES. 7 the very one expected and desired by 95 per cent of the electors whose commission he holds; the vote may have been in accordance with their express or implied instructions; yet the 5 per cent, holding the balance of power in the election or at the primary, may throw him to the wolves. Our system is supposed to be representative, but everyone knows that it is not truly so. What representation is there for a Democrat in Vermont or for a Republican in Texas ? There are Democrats in Vermont, as there are Republicans in Texas, but they are as utterly denied representation in this great body as if they did not exist. They indeed go through the forms of exercising their citizenship. They vote for candidates for Congress. But for all the good their ballots do toward securing for them representation here they would as well stuff their ballot into rat holes or chuck them into the kitchen stove. The only real purpose a Democrat serves in Vermont is to entitle the Republicans in that State to a larger representation in this House than they would otherwise get. But the Democrats might just as well be dead in actuality as they are politically for all the good they can do at the polls. The same is equally true as to Republicans in Texas. , I have some matters here, Mr. Chairman, that I will ask to have included. I give here an analysis of the figures in 19 States at the election in 1914, showing the results as they actually occurred in *ompar-ison with what they would have been had my bill as proposed been in operation at that time. _The paper referred to follows: CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION OF 1914. Btsults under the present system of election compared with those under a proportional system. IThe errors of the present system, which would l>e corrected by a proportional system, are indicated by the figures in italics.] States. .Arkansas Colorado .. Connecticut... Illinois ".*... Iowa Kansas Kentucky.... Maine Massachusetts Michigan Total vote for Congress- men. 43,133 247,506 173,844 1,021,315 397,756 483,683 323,293 141,046 "447,177 429,861 Number of Congress- men appor- tioned to the Btate. States. Minnesota Missouri.. Nebraska North Carolina North Dakota. Ohio. , Rhode Island. . South Dakota.. Washington... Total vote for Congress- men. 322,811 600; 589 234,627 202,582 67, 599 1,062,983 77,753 96,635 836> 190 Number of men appor- tioned to the Btate. 10 16 6 10 3 22 3 3 5 $ APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. congressional election of 1914 — continued. Remits under (he •present system of election compared with those under a proportional system — Continued. Democratic. ■States. Number ol Dem- ocratic votes. Percent of total vote. Number of Dem- ocratic Congress- men elected. Number who should have been elected. Gain or loss by propor- tional represen- tation. 37,265 118,211 78, 110 415, 248 169,232 195,830 173,374 60,683 186,924 149, 762 87,305 318,567 112,309 122, 147 23,396 484,248 35,190 37,752 96,652 86.3 47.7 44.9 40.6 40 40.6 53.6 43 41.8 34.8 27 53 47.8 60.2 34.6 45.5 45.2 39- 28.8 7 3 10 1 6 9 1 4 2 1 14 3 9 9 1 1 1 7 2 2 11 5 4 7 2 7 5 3 9 3 6 1 10 1 1 2 -1 +» +1 +t -g — » +1 +3 +3 +* — B -S +1 Ohio +1 +1 States. Number of Repub- lican votes. Eepublican. Percent of total vote. Number of Eepub- lican Congress- men elected. Number who should have been elected. Gain or loss by propor- tional . tation. 'Arkansas Colorado Connecticut... Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Massachusetts. Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Carolina North Dakota. ~Ohio Rhode Island.. ■ South Dakota. Washington... 4,087 84,485 89,000 440, in 207,472 188,106 123,518 #,318 219,993 218, 445 181,482 240,917 100,780 79,662 44,203 479,482 39,001 52,844 128,001 9.4 34.1 51.1 43.1 52.1 38.8 38.2 42.7 49.1 50.8 56.2 40.1 42.9 39.3 65.3 45.1 50; 1 54.6 38.1 +1 -g -6 ft: +g -1 -4 -4 -a +s +3 -1 -S -I APPOBTIONMENT OF KEPBESENTATIVES. 9 congressional election of 1914 — continued. Results under the present system of election compared with those under a proportional system — Continued. Progressive. States. Number of Pro- gressive votes. Per cent of total vote. Number of Pro- gressive Congress- men elected. Number who should have been elected. Ga'n or joss by propor- tional represen- tation. 1,781 32,400 6,734 123,833 19,095 74,401 15,048 17,958 33,683 47,700 24,728 22, 747 14,200 61,902 1,321 66,666 5.1 13 3.8 12.1 4.8 15.3 4.6 12.7 7.5 11 7.6 3.7 6.1 4.8 1.7 19.8 1 4 +S 1 +1 1 1 1 +1 +1 —1 Ohio 1 ■ +1 1 +1 States. Socialist. - J i Number of Socialist votes. Per cent of total vote. Number of Social- ist Con- gressmen elected. Number who should , have been elected. Gain or loss by propor- tional represen- tation. Colorado Illinois lo^a Kansas'. Kentucky Maine Massachusetts Michigan .Minnesota Missouri Nebraska Ohio Rhode Island . South Dakota . Washington.. 6,965 41,527 7,455 14,001 4,235 1,830 5,524 10,377 29,296 17*149 5,670 45,512 1,666 2,688 32j 512 +1 +1 +1 In the case of the Prohibition Party and "other parties" the last three column' are • omitted because no Kepresentath es were elected by these parties and none should ha\ e Leen elected. Prohibition. Other parties. States. Number of Prohi- "TJitfoh votes. Per cent of total vote. Number of votes. ■ Percent of total vote. 2 484 4,170 11,345 150 257 1 2.3 Independent and scattering, 6,968 2.1 3,346 (102 1,668 773 1,779 575 1.C50 10,23) 1.9 3 1.5 Independent-Prohibition, 1,129 10 AFFOBTIONMENT OF BEPKESENTATIVES, . This table shows that in these 19 States, which include Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington, the Democrats under the proportional system would have gained 19 and lost 13, a net gain of 6. The Eepublicans would have gained 12 and lost 28, a net loss of 16. The Progressives would have gained 8 and lost 1, a net gain of 7.., The Socialists would have gained 3 and, lost none. The Prohibition vote was so small that it entitled them to nothing. • While the proportional system would open political prison pens which now entomb minorities, while it would emancipate Repre- sentatives wholly or in large measure from enslavement to transitory and irresponsible minorities holding the balance of power, and while it would give us real and not pretended representative government, I think it would do something more even than this. I think it would give us a higher type of . Representative — perhaps not in mental strength or patriotic purpose, but in freedom of action, in moral fiber, in special training, and in those higher attributes of statesman- ship which are almost impossible of development under a system where the Representative must play the sycophant, where he must set his political sails, to catch every vagrant breeze, where he must hesitate and compromise, where he must suppress and deny, where he must at every turn subordinate conviction to expediency, and where if he hopes to succeed: and to keep his place he must play the courtier to office seekers and lend an attentive ear to special interests holding the balance of power. These interests may be of one sort or another. They may represent big business or the little redschoolhouse. They may represent some sect or some secret order. They may be as-va- rious in aspect and purpose as men are in their views of government and its. functions. It all amounts to the same thing. The maii seeking a congressional career must do so more as a mere politician, with all the arts which that term suggests, than a states- man; more a timeserver and a tidewaiter than a patriot and a worker, toward large ends for the general good. The man who does not "do something" forhis district under the present system is lost, no matter what his achievements may have been or what they may promise to be as a constructive legislator consecrated to the service of the people as a whole and to the perpetuation of the national ideals. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that under the proportional system the chance for little men would be reduced, the chance for big ones immeasurably augmented. As a rule big men are not skilled in cer- tain arts which are indispensable in the game of politics as it must be played under existing rules. They do not know how to set up the pins. They know nothing of stacking the cards. They are guiltless of any knowledge of "practical politics." They have no nimbleness in shifting from one foot to the other. In dispensing patronage they are blunderers and fools. They have probably devoted so much time and so much thought and so much conscience to the study of the great problems of society that they have not even heard of the purely local issues which convulse Podunk and inflame Shakerag to the point of revolt. And so they make little, if any, progress if they do venture into the field of politics. The man who knows the boys and who has the gift of appealing to the latest whim or caprice is the one who carries APFOBTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES*' 11 off the prize. And he goes from success to success, not because he has stood for any great idea, not because he has performed' any large service, not because he has actually listened to the voice of the people, but because he has managed to render that voice unintelligible by stifling it within political prison walls where only the clamors of a noisy minority with the balance of power can be heard. Lest some should imagine that the' proposed system is unworkable, it is proper to say that it is in practical and apparently satisfactory operation in a number of countries, notably in Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, the Union of South Africa, Tasmania, and parts of Germany. The senate of Ire' and, under the home rule act, will be chosen under the proportional system, James Bryce, former ambassador of Great Britain to the United States, having been among its supporters. The vice president of the Belgian Senate testifies regarding the system: < In Belgium * * * there is now no political group of any importance which would dream of proposing to suppress or even curtail the application of the propor- tional system. Sir John McCall, agent general for Tasmania, thus testifies: We have demonstrated the ease with which the system ean be worked. It has come to stay. Deputy Speaker Talberg, of the lower house in the Swedish Par- liament, adds his voice to the eame effect: It has * * * distinctly raised the intellectual level of the representatives— Adding that its adoption has marked — a great step forward in Swedish political life. Prime Minister Lindman, of the same country, says: All the parties * * * appear * * * to like the new method. And the leader of the Social Democratic Party in the lower house of the Swedish Parliament declares that — The thought of returning to majority voting is certainly not now entertained in any quarter. Testimony to like effect might be cited to much greater length, but this should suffice. It seems to me that no candid consideration of the matter can lead to any other conclusion than that proportional representation is in fact the fulfillment of democratic ideals in mak- ing it possible for the voice of the people to be heard — not the voice of some of the people, but of all the people. Is there any Member of this House who will say that he would deem this unwelcome? Are there really those among us who would stifle that voice when it rises from a minority or perhaps from a majority which has been over- borne, as too often happens, by a mere handful holding the balance of power in a large constituency? It is not inappropriate to mention some of those in this country who are committed to this great forward step in democracy. Con- spicuous among them is found the name of Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts. Dr. Charles W. Eliot, of the same State, is also an active propagandist in the movement. Ex-Gov. Lucius F. C. Garvin, of Rhode Island; Judge Ben B. Lindsey, Senator Owen, Moorfield Storey, Prof. Charles Zueblin, Jackson H. Ralston, Robert Treat Paine, Thomas Raeburn White, and many others whose names 12 APPOBTIOWMENT OF KEPBESEltrTATIVES. are familiar to most Americans are identified in an official capacity with the American Proportional Representation League; and among the honorary vice presidents of the organization are the Right Hon. Earl Grey, ex-Governor General of Canada, and the Right Hon. Lord Courtney, of Penwith, England. Of course I can not expect favorable action on my bill at this short session of Congress. It was not brought in with any such hope. But it is respectfully submitted for the consideration of Members between the present time and the day in the succeeding session when a hearing will be sought for it on the floor. It seems to me that it has one high merit which should commend it to the patience of even the most conservative of our friends on the floor and in the country — it is entirely optional. It merely opens a door through which a liberated minority may emerge into a field that is its own whenever any State shall choose to avail itself of the opportunity. It thrusts nothing down unwilling throats. It offers no compulsion. It merely removes an obstruction that now lies in the path of Commonwealths Which might be disposed to enfranchise their minorities and to ele- vate the standard of representation. In all modesty it is laid before you for your candid judgment; in all sincerity I venture to solicit that consideration for it at your hands which I feel it deserves. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will not go further into this matter. The time is very short, as the House meets at li, and I am going to sug- gest to the chairman that he call upon Mr. C. G. Hoag, of Pennsyl- vania, who is the secretary of the American Proportional Repre- sentation League. Mr. Hoag will be in a position to answer any questions that any member of the committee may desire to propound as to the practical .working of this system, a system which is already in operation in many other countries, and in all countries where it has been adopted they say they would not think of going back to the old system. I would suggest that you hear from Mr. Hoag. The Chairman. The committee will be glad to hear Mr. Hoag. STATEMENT OF MR. C. G. HOAG, GENERAL SECRETARY OP THE AMERICAN PROPORTIONAI REPRESENTATION LEAGUE, HAVERFORD, PA. Mr. Hoag. Mr. Chairman, in the beginning let me emphasize the optional character of this bill. I will not repeat anything that Congressman Bailey has said on this point, but I should Eke to emphasize the fact that the optional character of the bill makes it possible for a State that wishes to adopt the system to do so and for other States to hang back, if they wish, and see how it works out. The possibility of trying it out in one State before it is adopted in another is a very important virtue, I think, of the bill, and that some States will probably want to adopt this system is highly probable. Gov. Walsh, of Massachusetts, is not here to speak in favor of this bill only because a very important engagement prevented his com- ing. If an official engagement had not prevented, he would have been here. In this connection I might say also that among others who regret inability to be present is Mr. George Foster Peabody, treasurer of the Democratic Party during the last campaign. APPORTIONMENT. OP REPRESENTATIVES. 13 L&t me give a more complete statement of the countries that have already adopted a proportional system similar to the one set forth in this bill. Such a system has been adopted in Belgium and Sweden for both Houses of Parliament. In Sweden it has also been adopted for provincial and municipal councils. It has been adopted in nine Cantons of Switzerland. It has been adopted for limited application in five of the States of Germany. Proportional representation is prescribed for the entire senate and for part of the house of Ireland by the Parliament of Ireland act — the home rule act, as we usually call it-^which has been passed, as you, know, by the British Par- liament, though it has not yet been put into operation, on account of the war. I have a copy of the Parliament of Ireland act here, if any of you gentlemen care to see it. . - . Many other countries were in the act of adopting the proportional system when the war broke out. In Holland a royal commission, recently appointed to consider the matter, has reported in favor r of applying proportional representa- tion to the election of both chambers of the Dutch Parliament and also to that of the councils of the local governments.. In Denmark the minister of the interior introduced into the lower house in April of last year a bill for the election of that house by proportional representation. The bill has passed through all its Btages in that house, and was recently — and perhaps is now— before the Danish upper house. In France proportional representation has been, one of the two leading issues for the last four years, the other being that of military service. A proportional representation "bill, to appiy to the lower .house of France, the Chamber of Deputies, passed that body some months ago by over 100 majority. The present Senate of France is in favor of proportional representation, and I take it that the only reason why the bill has not passed the Senate and become law is the outbreak of the war. At the last election more than 5 put of 8 of the voters of France approved candidates who favored propor- tional representation. ,- ^v: In western Australia the chief electoral officer has issued an official report, in which he recommends proportional representation for -the election of the legislature of that Province. The Liberal Party of British Columbia recently declared for pro- portional representation. The Government of New Zealand is in favor of the reform for that colony. o Two parties in pur own country have, either nationally or locally, declared for proportional representation. TESTIMONY FROM LEADING STATESMEN. Perhaps the committee would be interested in the opinions; of lead- ing statesmen in the countries that already. have proportional repre- sentation as to its character and how it actually works. I will quote briefly from three leading statesmen of Sweden, a country in which the system is used, as. I told you a moment ago, for both Houses of Parliament, for provincial* councils, and for municipal or local coun- cils. There are three parties in Sweden, the Liberal, the" Conserva- 14 APPORTIONMENT OP REPBESENTATTVESl. tive, and the Social Democratic. Let me quote: from a leading statesman of each party. Herr Daniel Persson I. Talberg, deputy speaker of the Lower. Chamber, a Liberal — I will quote only that part of his statement that will especially interest you: "It [proportional representation] has not proved to put a premium on men of only average intelligence and ability, but has distinctly raised the inte lectual level of the repre- sentatives returned. * * * To sum up, the change from repre- sentation by- majority vote [of single-member districts] to propor-t tional representation marks, in my judgment, a great step forward in Swedish political life." I will next quote a Conservative, recently prime minister of Sweden, Herr A. Lindman. In quoting this statement I might remark that it was due to Herr Lindman's activity that the proportional repre- sentation act was passed. The modesty of his testimony should be interpreted in connection with that fact. He says: "All the parties, of which there are at present three in this country, appear on the whole to like the new method, on the ground of its yielding far more correct results than the o d one based on the majority principle, especially where more than two parties compete at the elections." Herr Hjalmar Branting, leader of the Social Democratic Party in the Second Chamber of Sweden, says: "Of the opponents of propor- tional representation at the time it was first proposed, there are scarcely any that have remained so, nearly all of them having by degrees become convinced both of the fairness and of the practical advantages of the new method. The thought qf returning to majority voting is certainly not now entertained in any quarter." I have also similar testimony from Tasmania — from the agent general of that Province; testimony from Belgium, from the vice president of the "Senate- and testimony from Switzerland and else- where. Perhaps time does not permit a further quotation of their views. I will say, however, that they are all in the same vein. JUSTICE. One of the most important reasons why the States should, it seems to me, be permitted to adopt such a system for the election of their Representatives in Congress is that it is a just system, whereas the present system, which is the only one now offered the States, accord- ing to the apportionment act of 1911, is not always a just system. Let me give you an example. Take the case of Iowa in the election of November last. You have before you, gentlemen, a table which gives these figures. In the election of November, 1914, in Iowa the total number of votes was nearly 400,000. Of these the Democrats cast 40 per cent, the Republicans 52 per cent, the Progressives 4 per. cent, etc. Casting 40 per cent of the votes, the Democrats ought to have elected about 40 per cent of the Representatives. In fact, however, they elected only one, the Republicans being so fortunate as to elect the remaining ten. Now, as Congressman Bailey has said, many of these Democrats, although they went to the polls and voted, had no other effect on the make-up of the delegation from Iowa than to increase, by the mere fact that they swelled the population of the Stale and increased the number of its seats in the House of Representatives, the Republican delegation. Their votes had no APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 15 effect whatever; and their existence and that of their families in, Iowa had only the effect of increasing by either three or four the delegation of Republican Representatives from Iowa. Iffnd.that the number of Democrats who voted in the 10 districts in- which the Democratic votes had no effect on the result is 138,000. It is apparent, then, that 138,000 Democratic votes in Iowa — all the Democratic votes of 10 districts — had no effect toward the elec- tion of Democratic Representatives. If, therefore, the 138,000 Democrats in those 10 districts had drowned themselves with their families before the last census was taken, the Democrats of Iowa would have elected just as many Representatives in Congress as they did, and the Republicans would have elected three, or possibly four, less. "That is perhaps sufficient, is it not, to show that our present system of electing Representatives is not a suitable one for the purpose ? NATURE OF THE DEFECT IN OUH PRESENT SYSTEM. Perhaps you would be interested if I pointed out the nature of the error inherent in our present system, which has now come to be recognized all over the world. It is simply just, we argue, that if the people of a State, or of part of a State, are to elect, say, 10 Repre- sentatives, one-rtenth of them should elect one. Now that is true, and it will always be true, that one-tenth of the voters who are to , elect 10 Representatives should be allowed to elect one. But how do we at present apply this principle? We divide the people in question into 10 geographical parts, each containing one-tenth of the population. Then we say, "This tenth of the population who live within this district line, may elect one Representative; this tenth within this second district line one; and so on." The error is in not saying that one-tenth of the people who are united 'in support, of, a man may elect him. We arbitrarily say it must be one-tenth who live within a geographical line, instead of saying, as we should, that it shall be one-tenth who are united politically. That is the error. Now, the proportional system incorporated in the bill under con- sideration simply offers the States the opportunity of removing what I have just pointed but as the error. If they wish to, they may elect all their Congressmen at large or in large districts, which districts would have to elect five or more members according to the bill; and then if five Representatives, for example, ' are being elected in a dis- trict, one-fifth of the voters who united in supporting one man would elect him regardless of all the other voters. To elect three men would require three-fifths, or approximately three-fifths, of the voters united in support of three men. With this system no party gets less than its deserts, and therefore no party can get more than its deserts. CORRUPTION. Now, take the next point that ought to be considered, corruption, and by corruption I mean not the giving of money only, but the giv- ing of favors as well as money. Corruption is invited by our present system, under which a few voters may turn the scale in a district; and the corruptionist goes, does he not, to those districts which are 16 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES!, likely to be close ? High tariff bills — and possibly low tariff bills, but certainly high tariff bills — have been passed in this country by Rep- resentatives elected by voters a majority of whom were for a lower tariff; the element of chance in a number of close districts and of corruption — though we do not know to what extent it played a part — made it possible for a minority of the voters of the country to, elect a majority of the Representatives. I mention the tariff only as an example of an issue that all will admit to be important. I think we all admit that on any such important issue the majority should rule. It is evident, however, that our present system makes it possible for chance or for corruption, by turning the scale in a number of close districts,, to defeat the will of the majority. EFFECT ON THE VOTER. The effect of a voting system on the voter should also be considered. At present, if you live in a district that is almost sure to go strongly agamst you, you are sure to say to yourself, "My vote can't help elect my man, anyway." If, on. the other hand, you live in a dis- trict that is sure to go for the party of your choice, you are sure to say to yourself, "My vote can't help, for my man will be elected anyway." The apathy of the voter is largely caused by the fact that he is not sure that his vote will count one toward the election of a man that he wants. The system incorporated in the bill under consideration insures the counting of each vote toward the election of a man wanted by the voter. EFFECT ON THE REPRESENTATIVE. The effect on the elected has been admirably treated by Congressman Bailey in his. remarks. That is a very important consideration. One great English statesman has spoken of "the enfranchisement of the elected," and the phrase is a good one. Surely the elected Member ought to be free to vote on measures in accordance with his own conscience and in accordance with the will of a whole con- stituency of voters that put him in, instead of feeling obliged to placate a few voters sufficient to turn the scale in his district, who may be a very small but very active minority. THE COUNTRY INTERESTED. I think I will add one other point, and then ask if there are any questions that you would like to ask me. In one State, at least, the governor has recommended the consideration of proportional repre- sentation for the election of the State legislature by the constitutional convention that he hopes will be called. I refer to the governor of Massachusetts. This shows that the country is coming to the point of considering very seriously a change in the method of electing Representatives. Now, I shall be glad to answer, if I can, any questions that the members of the committee care to ask. I may sav that I have a good many official documents here, so that possibly I can give official evidence from investigations made in other countries. APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 17 ' The Chairman. Do you desire to ask any questions, gentlemen? The committee does not seem to desire to interrogate you. We have been very much, enlightened by your remarks, Mr. Hoag, Whom will you have next, Mr. Bailey ? Mr. Bailey. Mr, Chairman, on behalf of the others here, as well aa myself, I wish to extend our very cordial thanks to the members of the committee for their courtesy and to say that we hope for fair and friendly consideration of this bill at the hands of the committee. The Chairman. On behalf of the committee I will state that this is a very interesting question and, for my own part, one that I have pre- viotisly given no thought to at all, and I believe that we have all been benefited by the discussion this morning. Of course, there is no like- lihood of further action being, taken at this time than to print these hearings. . Mr. Gregg. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if any of these other gen- tlemen have anything to say, they hand it in in shape for insertion in the record. -• The Chairman. Yes; that may be done. I presume that Mr. Bailey also will want to make his remarks somewhat more extensive than his formal discussion, and Mr. Hoag, also; and the other gentle- men who are here. If any of you have anything that you wish to put in the record, if you will hand it to me, with the approval of the com- mittee, I will have it printed as part of this hearing. I want, again, to apologize to you gentlemen here and to the ladies for the fact that we have not a full attendance. We have now prac- tically a quorum, however. Conditions have been such, as you will understand, as to excuse anyone from attendance this morning. The committee desires to be very courteous to everyone having business before it, and I am sure all will greatly regret their inability to attend this morning and hear this discussion. Mr. Gregg. I wish some of you would put in a succinct statement how you would work out this proposition. Suppose, now, in a cer- tain State, assuming the apportionment to be 200,000 per Member, in a 'certain area of that State there are 600,000 people, which would entitle them to three Representatives. Now, how would you deter- mine who is elected if there are six or eight candidates ? Mr. Hoag. I have worked out the method, Mr. Chairman, in con- nection with a particular State, the State of Iowa, showing the result from actual figures. The total vote for Representatives in Congress in Iowa in 1914 was 397,756. We divide that by 11, as provided in the bill. That gives 36,159. Mr. Gregg. Eleven is the number of Representatives ? Mr. Hoag. Yes. That gives 36,159, which we will call the con- stituency — so many voters instead of so much territory. Now, we divide this constituency number into the Democratic vote, which is 159,232. It goes four times, with some votes left over. So we give the Democrats four seats. Then we divide the total Republican vote, 207,472, by the constituency number, 36,159. We find that there are five constituencies of votes' in the Republican vote, with some votes left over. So we give the Republicans five seats. That makes only nine seats altogether that we have assigned. (The votes of the other parties were smaller, much smaller, no other party getting a constit- uency of votes or a seat.) Now, let us see to whom we should assign the tenth and eleventh seats. What if we should give one more, namely, a fifth seat, to the 18 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 8 Democrats? How many voters would then be behind each 'of the five Democrats elected ? Dividing the total Democratic vote, 159,232, by five gives a quotient of 31,846, the number, of Democratic votes which would be behind each of the Democratic Members if there were five of them. Now, what if we gave another seat, a sixth, to the Republicans? We can easily see how many voters would be behind each Republican Member in that case by dividing the total Republican vote, 207,472, by 6, which gives 34,578. It looks, then, as if the Republicans had a better right to the tenth seat than the Democrats. This 34,578 is not an absolutely perfect quota — that is, not a com- plete eleventh of all the votes cast in the State — for the reason that at the election the voters of Iowa did not divide themselves perfectly on the fines of complete elevenths; but it is the nearest thing to a complete eleventh that can actually be used to assign the tenth seat by. The Republicans, then, have the fairest right to the tenth seat; for if they got it, they would have 34,578 votes behind each Member, which is more votes than the Democrats would have behind each of their Members if they were given this tenth seat. Now, who shall get the eleventh seat ? We do not need to divide over again for the Democrats, for we already have the number of votes, 31,846, that would be behind each Democratic Member if we gave the Democrats a fifth Member. How many would be behind each Republican Member if we gave them a seventh one? Divide their total, 207,472, by 7, which gives 29,639. That is not so large a number of votes as would be behind each Democratic Member if the Democrats got five members. So we give the eleventh seat to the Democrats. Mr. Gregg. What do you mean by "give the seat" to them? Mr. Hoag. Assign the seat. . The "Democratic Party has polled so many votes — 159,232. How many seats does it have a right to ? Mr. Gregg. How do you apportion the vote so as to bring about that result? Mr. Hoag. You refer to which men are elected ? Mr. Gregg. Yes. How do you put it around in the different districts so as to secure that result ? Mr. Hoag. I see that I did not make myself quite clear. This election is assumed to be at large. Mr. Gregg. Oh, yes. Mr. Hoag. It is assumed that the State of Iowa, if it adopted the proportional system, would decide to conduct the election of its eleven Representatives at large. The voter votes by marking a cross against his favorite name in his favored list. Now a vote for a man in the list is counted as a vote for the fist. There were 159,232 voters who would have marked names on the Democratic list, and 207,472 voters who would have marked names on the Republican" list. Mr. Crisp. Your plan does not change the method of securing the nominations of the respective parties? Mr. Hoag. The bill leaves to the State the regulation of nomina- tions. It says: Each State shall have the option of permitting the use of party names and emblems in connection with the aforesaid lists, and may prescribe a primary for the selection of candidates of a group of electors. APPORTIONMENT OP REPRESENTATIVES. 19 * That is one clause in regard to it, and the other provides that nomi- nations shall be under the control of the State. Mrs. Post reminds me that there is one point that has not been touched upon. The Democrats, under this plan — taking the Iowa illustration — are to get five members and the Republicans six. Now which Democrats are to receive the seats? You will recall the fact that the voting is by the marking of a particular name on one list. Now the five seats secured by the Democrats are secured by tbe five Democrats who get the highest vote individually; and the six seats secured by the Republicans are secured by the six Republicans who get the highest vote individually. You see the voting is by a single cross against a particular name; but it is interpreted poth as a vote for the particular candidate and as a vote for the list of candidates in which the particular name stands. ' Mr. Crisp. Each party has as many candidates on the ticket as there are places to be filled ? Mr. Hoag. Each party has as many candidates on the ballot as it desires to have there, up to the number of seats to be filled. You will notice that the specimen ballot printed in the bill indicates that the party nominating fist 2 had presented only five candidates, think- ing it not worth while to present more. Mr. Gregg. That is based on election at large ? Mr. Hoag. Yes. The bill provides, however, that it shall be optional with any State that elects more than nine Members whether it.'shall have elections at large or elections in two or" more districts. But the system would not work well if you made the district so small that only two, for example, were elected in each district. So the bill prescribes that if the State has nine M emDers or l ess thpy shall be elected at large, if the system is adopted. If the number of Members is, ten or more, the State has the option of electing its. Members by districts electing five or more each, or of electing them at large. I may say that there are different ways of working out the pro-'' portional principle in different countries, but the system that is incorporated in this bill is substantially the same as that in use in Belgium and Sweden. It differs a little more from that in Switzer- land^ and still more from that in use in other countries. But the experience in Belgium and Sweden has been very convincing, and I am glad to be able to say the bill follows practically the same lines that the Swedish and Belgian acts follow. There is no question whatever in those countries of its superiority over the old system, and no question of its replacement again by the old system. The Chairman. Now you can hand in your manuscript, Mr 1 . Hoag, when you desire, and any of the rest of these gentlemen who have not formally been heard. On behalf of the committee I thank you for your presence here this morning, STATEMENT OF IIETJT. C. P. SHAW, UNITED STATES NAVY, RETIRED, OF NORFOLK, VA. Lieut. Shaw. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, to those who have listened to the addresses of Mr. Bailey and Mr. Hoag, it would seem superfluous to add one word of evidence in order to prove that our present single-Member-district electoral system for choosing 20 APPOETIONMENT OF BEPBESENTAnVES, Representatives in Congress has entirely failed to secure accurate representation of public opinion. Therefore, I shall confine my re- marks to a brief analysis of the causes which inevitably produce this result, and the principles on which a system must be based in order to select a Congress which shall accurately represent the views of the electorate. The singles-Member district, by which the Representative is elected from a certain geographical locality, would only be logical in case it could be shown that the voters of each such district were all of one mind in regard to the issues on which the election turns. In a free eountry public opinion is supposed to be the ruling force, and each vote cast is one of the theoretically equal units which make up the Bum total.' Now, in a single-Member district as long as human na- ture remains as it is, men will inevitably differ in regard to general issues, no matter how closely they may agree in regard to local ques-* tions. If the Member's sole duty was to vote with reference to these local questions, the single-Member district in which such local ques- tions might have a preponderating influence would be defensible; but since the Member elected from each single district affects by his vote 434 other congressional districts, scattered throughout the con- tinental area of the United States, besides Alaska, the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, and our extensive insular possessions, it is quite evident that it would be wholly illogical to choose such Mem- bers solely, or even largely, according to their views on local issues-. Members so chosen would necessarily place local infinitely ahead of national interests, and the Congress would consist of a mere aggrega- tion of logrollers. But since, even in single-Member districts, electors do differ m their views of questions on which elections turn, it is a self-evident fact that in such districts the minorities must always be disfranchised; that is, their only Representative in Congress is a man against whose election they have voted because he did not represent their views. In case there are three or more parties, the resulting plurality election gives the Representative to a minority candidate, and thus the majority is disfranchised, and a still larger portion of public opinion is unrepresented. With ordinary conditions, when the dis- trict is compact and contiguous, this frequently happens, but the con- ditions are. infinitely worse when that infamous device, the gerry- mander, has been invoked for the express purpose of giving some particular party an unfair advantage. In close districts the purchase of a few votes may accomplish the result of silencing and leaving unrepresented a very large minority, which in justice, but for the corrupt use of money or promise of place or preferment, would have been the majority. Now, it is a physical impossibility that a single member can actuallv represent and give voice to the aspirations of electors in his district who hold contrary opinions on public questions. The disfranchised voters in all the districts in a State may amount to many more than the number necessary to elect a Representative in Congress. Since a single member is indivisable, the only practical way to secure the accurate representation of electors having conflicting views on public questions is to enlarge the electoral district; so that each group may have the opportunity of selecting a number of ' Representatives in exact proportion to its numerical strength, thus giving representative APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. %1 fDvernment in fact, not merely in name. The ideal district would . e the whole State as a unit, so as to make gerrymandering within its borders a physical impossibility. Within such a district, the whole vote of the State would be counted and the members apportioned to each group in proportion to its strength. This method complies then with tKat absolute justice which is the only foundation for permanent achievement. No one having just cause for complaint, there would be no desire on the part of anyone to. change the existing status. Members elected from the State at large under this system would not have the incentive to bargain for peculiar favors to their own locality. Being elected by votes scattered throughout the State, the whole State becomes their constituency, with the resulting tendency to elect a Congress not of mere local politicians, but of statesmen Theirs would be the broader view which comes from mak- ing their campaign not on local issues but on those affecting the general welfare. There being no close districts, the motive to ribery disappears.- _ .The logical defect of our present system is that it restricts an "elector's power to vote for a candidate not. by what he thinks but by where he lives. A mere question of residence is made to out- weigh views honestly held. This restriction acts detrimentally to the public welfare in another way, from the fact that the voters in a certain geographical district must choose as their Representative a man who lives in that district, while it may and doubtle£s often does happen that several men eminently qualified for the position of a Representative in Congress live . in the same district. Under these circumstances only one can go to Congress. The acknowledged abilities of the others may not be employed in the public service where they could be most effective in promoting the general welfare. When elected by a constituency scattered throughout*, the State, Members of Congress would be in a great measure freed from the importunities of office seekers and would then not be tempted to violate party platforms and the merit system to secure places for partisans. .There is no taxation without representation; each man's vote counts one in the election of a candidate of his choice who will cor- rectly represent his opinion in public matters, and thereby will be established perfect equality amongst all the voters in the power to choose Representatives. The proportional system tends to select for public service the best men within the borders of the State and retains them in office as long as they are able to command the vote of a constituency. No sudden changes in the political character of the Congress will be effected, as they are now, through the change of a few votes in doubtful districts; thus the probability of the continuance of a wise and conservative program is greatly w.creased. From the tendency of the system to cause the selection as Repre- sentatives of statesmen rather than local politicians, the necessity for the use by the people of such instrumentalities as the initiative and referendum will be greatly lessened, if not entirely removed. By no other single reform could the public welfare be so surely promoted as by the. adoption of the proportional system for the elec- tion of all. the Representatives in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Bailet. I would like to have Mrs., Post say just a word. 22 APPORTIONMENT OP REPRESENTATIVES'. The Chairman. The House is just convening now, but we will be glad to hear Mrs. Post briefly. STATEMENT OF MRS. LOUIS F. POST, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mrs. Post. I was not expecting to speak, Mr. Chairman, and I will only say that it seems to me very important in this crisis in the world's history that the United States rise to its greatest possibilities. As a result of this war we are undoubtedly going to come forward as a world power more markedly than ever before, and we can not afford to be a laggard nation in adopting new methods. We organized our Government so long ago that, while we were then in. the forefront, the great example, the great democratic gov- ernment of the world, with the passing of former methods we may become last instead of first, and this at a time when we can not afford to be last. We must adopt new methods, even if they have not been 60 fully developed all over the world as to leave us actually last. There are many nations already ahead of us in this matter, and it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to consider very seriously everything that affects the great future of our democracy at this time and that we ought to adopt it as quickly as may be. Mr. Bailey. I will ask Mr. Kalston to speak next. STATEMENT OF ME. JACKSON H. EAISTON, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. Ralston. Mr. Chairman, I did not come here to-day with any intention of making a speech, and I am not prepared to do it. I eame only with the intention of rendering such sympathetic assistance as one's presence might give to 6uch a proposition as that proposed by Mr ; Bailey. I think the remarks made must be convincing of the fact that proportional representation is one of the reforms which must receive, if we are to have a thoroughly representative government — which must receive the attention of those who formulate our laws. I take it that so long as we have men in Congress or in the legislatures we ask them to be representative of the particular ideas o£ their constituencies and to carry out the leading principles for which the different factions of their constituencies may stand. I take it that the great merit of proportional representation is that it enables us to more nearly approximate that theory of representa- tive government in which we all are supposed to believe but which is at present in a very largely undeveloped stage even in this country, which ordinarily stands in the forefront in that particular. But we find that we do not altogether stand in the forefront. We find, as Mr. Hoag has said, that there are other nations whose governments are more purely representative than ours, and I think we ought not to hesitate to extract a leaf from the good books, if you please, of nations other than our own, whether they are of our form of govern- ment, or whether they be labeled "Monarchial," as in the case of Belgium, or whatever label they may happen to bear. Mr. Bailey. Mr. Chairman, I take the liberty of acting on the suggestion so kindly made by you and ask that the following letters and telegrams relating to the subject of the present hearing be incorporated in the report: APPOBTIONMENT OP BEPRESENTATIVES. 23 Prom the Governor of Massachusetts. Boston, February 16, 1915. Hon. William W. Rucker, Chairman of the House Committee on the Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir^ I regret that pressing duties prevent me from attending the meeting of, the Proportional Representative League on February 16, and there expressing in person my hearty indorsement of the important governmental reform which the league is doing so much to bring about. I have examined with interest the Bailey bill, and fail to find any reasonable grounds of opposition to it. Certainly Congress would depart very widely from the , principle of home rule if it should refuse to the several States the option of adopting the just ana simple plan of proportional representation which it provides, and which, if adopted, would make the popular branch of the national legislature much more nearly what it should be a reproduction in miniature of the entire constituency that it; js intended to represent. . The system of electing by district pluralities has had a long trial and proved itself incurably^ unjust. In Massachusetts, with our three sets of supposedly represehta- * tive districts^— congressional, State senatorial, and State representative — we obtain at each election results irreconcilable with one another and all subversive of the prin- , cipleof majority rule. In 1912, 14 of the 16 Congressmen elected received less, than , h$Lf the vote? cast in their respective districts. Taking the vote for secretary of the. Commonwealth in 1914 as most nearry representing the strength of the several parties in the field,, the State senate of 1915 on a proportional basis would have contained 19 ' Republicans, 18 Democrats, and 3 Progressives; It actually contains 33 Republicans, 7 Democrats, and no Progressives. Many such extreme instances might readily be selected; but it.is safe to say that no instance can be found in', which the present ays? , tern does not operate adversely to the wishes of a majority of the voters, and to the practical disfranchisement of independent groups who theoretically are entitled to a voice' in Government proportional to their numbers. t 1 hope that the Bailey bill will pass, and that its passage will inaugurate a move- ment in .the. several States that will make both Congress and the State legislatures rdore responsive than at present to the will of the electorate. Yours very truly, - David I. Walsh. George Burnham, Jr., 1421 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. , r It seems to me that the system proposed in this bill is much fairer than the present system, and I trust the bill may pass. There is no doubt in my mind that under the present system the real representation of' citizens in Congress is faulty, and could be much improved by some system of proportional representation. Charles Francis Adams. "This matter is one in which I feel great interest; but I fear I shall be unable to appear in behalf of the measure. None the less, I feel very deep interest in promoting it. The reason of my interest is easily stated. At present I am practically disfranchised. Erving Winslow, Secretary op the Anti-Imperialist League, 40 Central Street, Boston. I wish to urge in the most earnest manner the favorable consideration of bill H. R. 20737. The preservation of democratic institutions depends upon the freedom of expression that is denied by our present system of voting, whieh crushes the minority under a machine, formed in any case by a kind of accident, if it is not a resultant of corrupt agencies. The proportional system's friends comprise the most thoughtful - and patriotic elements of our citizenship, and it is most strongly recommended by the. quality of its enemies. 24 APPORTIONMENT OP. REPRESENTATIVES. George Foster Peabody. February 13, 1915. Hon. William W. Rucker. Chairman Mouse oj Representatives, , Washington, D. C. My Dear Sir: I beg to address you respecting the bill before your committee, authorizing an optional measure for the election of members of the House by the States. This bilfis H. R. 20737. I am confident that very great advantage would be gained in due time if we could have provisional representation. It is one of the great needs of our country that we should have a more effective expression, as well as recognition of the public sentiment cf the day, as it is found that the minorities of one year easily become the majorities of the succeeding years. It would certainly tend, therefore, to a more intelligent and more effective education of public opinion to have the representation of minority views, as well as the majority views from every section of the country. The great experiment in democracy which is being made under our form of government needs to have every advantage given to the popular expression, and every encouragement possible to thought upon political issues. It is doubtless desirable that such, proportional representation shall be supported by the popular sentiment in each State, which would justify the optional character of the bill which is before your committee. I venture, therefore, to urge a favorable report by your committee at an early date. I believe that such report would be. of advantage in helping to educate and determine public sentiment. I regret that I am unable to accompany others who will appear in person before your committee to recommend the cause supported by this bill. Prof. R. W. Kelsey,' Department of History and Political Science, Haver- ford College, Haveeford, Pa. I consider this the next great step toward real democracy in the United States. Daniel L. Powell, Jr., 522 Ash Street, Detroit, Mich. I know of hundreds in this city who favor proportional lepresentation, and I per- sonally know dozens of well-known voters of Detroit who would write you as I am doing if they knew and realized how necessary it is that you be convinced of the wide- spread sentiment among educated people iu favor of this form of voting. Rev. Charles F. Dole, President of the Twentieth Century Club, 3 Joy Street, Boston. What measure to promote honest voting and just representation can be fairer or more truly democratic than this? I can not see how anyone could question the fact that it is right and wise. George H. Duncan, Secretary of the New Hampshire Direct Legislation League, Jaffrey, N. H. I am writing to give my heartiest support to this measure, and also to express the hope that it may receive a favorable report from your committee. This measure, if enacted into law and adopted by the States, would I believe aid much in making the choice of Congressmen more truly representative of public opinion, an end which, should be sought in a democracy. APPORTIONMENT OP REPRESENTATIVES. 25 [Day letter .1 Cincinnati, Ohio, _ „ _ T „ February 16, 1915. Hon. WIIXIAM W. RuCKER, Chairman Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives, Washington, D. C: I hope that your committee will report promptly and favorably on Mr. Bailey's bill for proportional representation. Until such a measure will be adopted, Congress will not be a truly representative body. Genuine democracy requires that each party he represented in Congress in proportion to its popular strength, and this bill insures such representation. Daniel Kiefer. Westoveb, Md., February 14, 1915. Hon. Wm. W. Rucker, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: As it will be impossible for me to be present at the hearing before your committee on the 16th proximo, at which will be considered the Bailey bill (H. B. 2Q737), I take this method of presenting to your committee my convictions as to the very great importance of the objects this bill is intended to secure. Fundamental! -, a republican form of government implies majority control. Actuall; ", under the present practice, minority control is and has been the" rule. In- stitutions ostensibly calculated to develop and express the forms have been pre- vented to establish the latter, under which abuses of the powers and functions of government have flourished. It is inevitable that a party system develops party lo; alties that become more imperative to partisans than the objects for which govern- ment exists. Unless we are prepared to continue the t, rannv of party faction, through which a majority cf a minority or the minority of a majority ma;/ determine the policy of the whole, measures must be adopted that will automatically register the will of the whole, which, registered, becomes the controlling force of government. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that executive or legislative discretion affords no securit" against abuses of fractional authority. I would urge upon \ our committee the earnest consideration of the Bailey bill, as a practicable instrument, one that has, in principle, been tried out and demon- strated to be adequate. Once the principle is established, it will be perfected as a working program by actual experience. , The limitations imposed by this method of communication forbid a presentation of the broad argument in support of the Bailey bill. The arguments in opposition to practices this bill is intended to correct are fully present in every thoughtful mind. Very respectfully, Western Starr.