Washington Kept Dodging Its Own Congressional Map

Olympia, Jan. 20.—Special. The state of Washington has been neglecting an important duty ever since the United States census of 1890. It was ascertained that this state was entitled to an additional congressional representative, and this was granted to the state. The United States laws require that when an additional representative is granted to any state, he shall be chosen by that state at large until such time as the state shall have had time to apportion the state into districts—districts each consisting of a ticket in territory, and districts each containing no more than any other district. Thus the duty of a state is clearly defined, and if it is not fulfilled and the general elections have been held since the opportunity referred to has been given, the state has failed its duty.

In the legislature of 1891 Mr. Meany, who had been elected from the Forty-second representative district on February 11, 1891, introduced a bill which was identical with the bill he had introduced in the previous session. Several other apportionment bills were introduced at this session, but none seemed so near right as the Meany bill. However, it was concluded best to elect the congressman at large again, and the requirements of the United States laws were again evaded.

As the additional congressman was apportioned to Washington on the showing of the United States census of 1890, so the apportionment of the state into two congressional districts must be made on the same figures, which show the populations of the two districts to be as follows by counties: [table omitted]. It is thus seen that by this arrangement all the requirements of the United States laws are complied with. The dividing line runs east and west as nearly straight as can be without dividing the several counties. There is no other possible division of the state that will result in a more fair arrangement. There being two-thirds of the state's population in Western Washington, the Cascade mountains could not be made the dividing line except by taking a tier of the Columbia river counties or a tier of the northern counties and attaching them to the Eastern Washington district. One other possible division is to follow the example of Oregon and make the eastern portion of the state with either Pierce or King county one district, with the balance of the state as the other district. Objections would be raised to such a division, and, inasmuch as it is apparent that the state should be apportioned without further delay, it is altogether likely that the legislature at the present session will enact a law conforming in essentials to the Meany bill of the past two sessions.