Show APPORTIONMENT ARGUMENTS I Is expected the House may vote upon the pending apportionment bills today the debate being practically closed yesterday The debate has bean characterized by an amount of lame oratory that Is surprising For example exam-ple the supporters of the Hopkins bill have rested their case against an Increase In-crease of membership upon the pica that the House has grown so large it has ceased to be a deliberative body celbrlve Ignoring J the plain sequence that a further S fur-ther Increase can make it no worse while it may improve it as a nonde liberative body Mr Hepburn of Iowa i argued this nonsequitur at length and Mr Grow of Pennsylvania drew upon his personal experience to prove the inferiority of the present House to the smaller bodies he had known during the past sessions Do these statesmen expect that 0 House of inefficient numbers will become be-come efficient by preventing an increase in-crease I not why do they not present pre-sent the logical alternative in the form of n bill to reduce the total membership member-ship to their Idea of goodworking proportions pro-portions There Is nothing convincing about a denunciation o a institution accompanied by a proposal to continue its existence unchanged The opposition to the Crumpacker measure for reducing the roduclnS representation tion of Slates which have disfranchised f large portion of their former voters presented no argument There Is room for none The constitutional mandate Is too plain Yet the prdspect is that no reduction will be made Not even the gentlemen who that the gentemen argue present pres-ent House Is too large appear to favor a reduction from the Hopkins bill standard by cutting out representation nonconstitutional population Near lyal arc more intent upon nolitlcal availability than fair avalabIJt tall apportionment Plttsburg Dispatch |