Evening Republican, Volume 15, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 February 1911 — TWELVE REPRESENTATIVES HEREAFTER IN INDIANA. [ARTICLE]

TWELVE REPRESENTATIVES HEREAFTER IN INDIANA.

Bepabllean Caucus Decides on Basis That Will Beduce Number of Congressmen From Hoosierdom. The state of Indiana will lose one representative in Congress as the result of the decision of the republican party caucus Thursday night to pass a congressional apportionment law at this session, limiting the House membership to 311. which is the present membership. The decision was accomplished after a lively session, in which Representative Crumpacker was constantly on the firing line in an effort to induce the caucus to “save the faces" of the various representatives. Because of this action the Indiana legislature will be called upon to pass a congressional apportionment act redistricting the state into twelve congressional districts. The loss of one member in Congress from Indiana probably will fall on tin southern section of the state, since the gain in population during the last decade has been mainly in the northern end*or the Hoosier commonwealth. The Indiana democratic representatives, however, will now take up the apportionment issue as a matter demanding immediate attention and naturally each trying to save his own “bacon." The sentiment of three-fourths of the republicans at the caucus was that the House is already so large as to be unwieldy and that it should not be made any larger. The resolution fixing the membership at 391 was offered by Representative Phil Campbell of Kansas. Representative Crumpacker spoke in favor of a House of 433 members, as provided in his bill, but CampbeU’3 resolution carried by a vote of 70 to 55. Representative Crumpacker said just after the caucus adjourned that he would abide by the decision of the caucus, even though Indiana loses a member, and that he has no reason to doubt that the work of the caucus will be ratified by Congress. This puts the question of a congressional reapportionment of Indiana up to the state legislature. It is assumed that Governor Marshall probably will bring the matter to the attention of the legislature in a special message as soon as Congress formally ratifies the work of the caucus. There was some talk that enough members may bolt the caucus and line up with the democrats to defeat the will of the caucus, but Representative Crumpacker does not expect such an outcome and he will not be a party to it. The oaucus was to decide two con*' troverted propositions: First, whether any apportionment legislation shall be enacted before next winter, and, secondly, if it should be decided to proceed with such legislation, whether the toi&i membership of the House should be left as at present, or whether it should be increased to 433 members, so as to save all of the states from loss of representation. At the outset of the caucus Representative Crumpacker, chairman of the Census Committee, introduced the following resolution: “Resolved: That it is the sense of this caucus that a law fixing the basis of congressional representation s) ould be enacted at the present session of Congress.” The Crumpacker resolution was bnterly opposed by the representatives

'from New York state, who explained in detail how any action by Congress at this time would be prejudicial to the interests of the republican party in that state, where the democrats now have coqtrol of the legislature with full power to enact a congressional gerrymander. Representative Crumpacker combatted the idea that legislation should be deferred to serve the ends of the republicans in a single state. Crumpacker won first blood and his resolution committing Congress to ae tion at this session was adopted Ther tion at this session was adopted. There were eighty-nine votes for .t. and forty-eight against it. Representative Bennett of New York then brought up ‘the southern disfranchisement bugaboo by moving that states that disfranchise the negro should have their apportionment in Congress decreased accordingly. Crumpacker opposed this motion as wholly impractical and again Crumpacker W»n. Several propositions were pending, including the Campbell proposition, leaving the House as it stands today; - proposition of Mr. Evans of Missouri, "favoring 402 members; a proposition of Mr. Stafford of Wisconsin for 397 members, representing views said to be held by Speaker Cannon and some other House leaders from the larger states, and the Crumpacker idea of 433 members, urged at the outset by its author. The Campbell plan was first taken up and finally put through, the details of carrying out the scheme being left to the Census Committee, which will prepare tile way for action at this session of Congress. The caucus developed into a rather ,'stormy one when the Bennett antidisfranchisement plan was proposed.. The proposition directed the preparation of a bill to carry out Sec. 2 of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution so as to cut down the representation of any state exactly to the extent that the negroes were disfranchised by such state. This proposition was defeated after considerable speechmaking, 72 to 48, the same number of representatives voting against it as voted against the consideration of reapportionment at this session., when the vote was 89 to 48. About 150 republican members of the House attended the caucus.