Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 22, Number 26, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 December 1900 — Crumpacker’s Stand On The Apportionment Bill. [ARTICLE]

Crumpacker’s Stand On The Apportionment Bill.

The Valparaiso papsrs, both Democratic and Republican publish dispatebep, purporting to be from Indianppolis, in which Congressman Cri. mpacker is oredited with, and greatly lauded for killing the Hopkins congressional apportionment bill. Mr. Crampacker refused, it is said, to go into or be bound by, a Republican caucus, on the bill. His opposition is on the grounds that it the Hopkins bill passes Indiana will lose one Congressman, and 4iave only 12 instead of 13. as at present. For onr part we see nothing in this alleged stand of Mr. Crumpacker to fall down an<T shout Hosannah! over. In our judgement it would have been a much more statesmanlike act to favor a bill which aims to prevent the evilof an excessively large and and unwieldy house of Representatives than to raise a factious opposition and bolt the action of in congress on a wise proper legislative measure, merely because Mr. Crumpaoker’s own state happens to be one of those which will suffer a little apparent loss. A big unwieldy congress is a decided disadvantage to the country. It is more expensive and less efficient than one of moderate size. It is, in some measure, an}’evil to everybody except a few politicians and office holders. On the’ other hand, who is it that will be hurt even right here in Indiana, except politicians'and office holders, by reducing the number of our members in Congress to one less than at present? It will harm no one whose interests are entitled to consideration; while it will be worth a great doal to the majority of the people, not only in Indiana but throughout the country generally, to establish right now the principle that the lower house in Congress is not to be permitted to increase and keep increasing, beyond its already unwieldly membership, simply because every time a new census is taken, a few selfish politicians in a few states, happen to be disgruntled because under the operation of a fair and reasonable apportionment law, their states will lose a member, If the Crumpacker idea that no congressional apportionment shall be adopted which reduces the membership of any state, is right now, then it always will be right, and every ten years 50 or 60 new members must be added to the House of Representatives. A Congress unwieldly inefficient and expensive beyond all reason would very soon be the result.