Volume Vi Part 24 (1/2)
[Ill.u.s.tration: Map]
CENTER OF POPULATION AT EACH CENSUS 1790 TO 1910.
MEDIAN POINT 1880 TO 1910.
[Transcriber's Note: Location is within a few miles of lat.i.tude 39 degrees. The longitude is approximately: 1790, 76.2; 1800, 77.0; 1810, 77.6; 1820, 78.6; 1830, 79.3; 1840, 80.4; 1850, 81.3; 1860, 82.8; 1870 83.7; 1880, 84.7; 1890, 85.5; 1900, 85.8; 1910, 86.5 ]
The rapid growth of our industrial and manufacturing interests during the past quarter of a century is shown by the fact that 22 per cent of the people of the country are ma.s.sed in cities of 100,000 inhabitants and over. In the three largest cities alone--New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia--there are almost one-tenth the population of the whole country. There were five cities with populations between 500,000 and 1,000,000; eleven between 250,000 and 500,000; 31 between 100,000 and 250,000; 59 between 50,000 and 100,000; 120 between 25,000 and 50,000; 374 between 10,000 and 20,000; 629 between 5,000 and 10,000, and 1,173 between 2,500 and 5,000.
The thirteenth census revealed but slight change in the location of the centre of population. In computing its position, no account of the population of Alaska and of our insular possessions was taken into consideration. It had moved west about 39 miles and northward seven-tenths of a mile and was located at Bloomington in southern Indiana. The westward movement from 1900 to 1910 was nearly three times as great as from 1890 to 1900, but was less than that for any decade between 1840 and 1890. This advance of the centre of population toward the West was due to the increase in the population of the Pacific Coast States. The large increase in the population of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other States north of the thirty-ninth parallel served as a balance to the increase in Texas, Oklahoma, and southern California.
During the past fifteen years there has been a steady migration from the rural portions of the United States to the western provinces of Canada, not less than 650,000 immigrants having crossed the border within that period. Most of them have become naturalized Canadians. It has been estimated that these immigrants took with them, on an average, $1,000.
According to the congressional reapportionment act following the twelfth census, there were to be 386 members in the House of Representatives or one representative to 194,182 of the population. The House of Representatives actually contained. 391 members after the admission of Oklahoma. By the census of 1910, several States were ent.i.tled to additional members, but in order that no State should be reduced in the number of its representatives, the House of Representatives pa.s.sed a bill providing for an increase of 42 members. The new ratio of representation would then be one representative to 211,877 inhabitants. Effort was made to prevent this increase, for it was argued that the House had already become unwieldy, requiring great effort on the part of members to make themselves heard. The bill failed to pa.s.s the Senate at the regular session, but subsequently, at the special session, it became a law. Party lines were closely drawn in the Senate, for, on account of this increase, the Republicans would probably gain 32 new congressmen and the Democrats only 10. By this reapportionment the northeastern part of the country and the extreme western and southwestern portions gained in their representation. New York gained six representatives; Pennsylvania, four; California and Oklahoma, three each; Illinois, Ma.s.sachusetts, Was.h.i.+ngton, and Texas each gained two, and sixteen other States each gained one.
The number of farms, according to the thirteenth census, were 6,340,357 or an increase of about 10 per cent over the number reported in 1900.
There was an increase of 63,000,000 acres devoted to farming during the decade. About 60 per cent of the farms of the country were operated by their owners and two-thirds of these farms were free from mortgages. Two million three hundred and forty-nine thousand two hundred and fifty-four farms were worked by tenants and 57,398 were in charge of managers. The tenant system was shown to be far more common in the South than at the North or West. In the south central group of States, which includes a large part of the cotton area, the tenants numbered 1,024,265 and the owners 949,036. In the south Atlantic States there were 591,478 owners and 118,678 tenants; in north Central States, 1,563,386 owners and 644,493 tenants, and in the Western States, 309,057 owners and 52,164 tenants.
Our foreign commerce for the year 1910 amounted in the aggregate to about $3,500,000,000, or over $1,250,000,000 more than in 1900. Our exports were valued at $2,000,000,000.
CHAPTER XVII
THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT
[1911]
From time to time it has been charged that ”government by the people”
has become fiction in our country. Little had been done to remedy this condition until the opening of the last decade. Trouble then came for the supporters of the regular political order, manifesting itself in conventions and legislatures. Laws abolis.h.i.+ng nominations by the convention method were pa.s.sed in some States; and publicity of campaign expenses was insisted upon in others. The movement was widespread and arose from various causes, but generally tended toward a single end--a government according to popular will. The Western States have been the centre of the more radical movement.
The Senate has always been considered as the stronghold of the most conservative element in our country and has often been accused of being the stronghold of privilege. It is interesting to note the success of the progressive or insurgent movement in this body.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Portrait.]
Copyright by Harris & Ewing, Was.h.i.+ngton.
Robert M. La Follette.
The first progressive, Robert M. La Follette, of Wisconsin, appeared in the United States Senate in 1905. He had done much, as governor, to gain the confidence of the people of his own State, and he was sent to Was.h.i.+ngton to carry his fight for reform into the national legislature.
Here his reception was not cordial. He was looked upon as a radical, possibly a visionary reformer, but not exceedingly dangerous, for he was alone. He stood alone until the election of 1908, when nine more progressives took their seats; in 1910 the number jumped to sixteen.
Here a change came which probably caused the conservatives in the Senate some worry. The tariff of 1909 had been pa.s.sed by a Republican Congress.
The results of the elections of 1910 made it appear that the people were not convinced that this act was an honest redemption of the Republican campaign promises, for in the Senate which a.s.sembled in April, 1911, there were twenty-nine thorough-going progressives and five other members who were more progressive than conservative in their views. They represented twenty-five States. Six of the thirty-four came from the South; three came from the East, and the remaining twenty-five from the West. Of the conservatives only eighteen came from the West.
The same changes may be found in the House of Representatives. These changes are not so important as the change which must come in the sentiment of the federal judiciary. From 1901 to 1909 the Executive was in the control of the progressives and the President was able to get some important laws pa.s.sed by a reactionary Congress, but in some instances the courts annulled these laws.
The appointment of justices of the district courts of the United States is to a degree influenced by the senators in the district in which the appointment is to be made. When these senators are conservative it is natural that the candidates recommended by them should be conservative and should entertain no legal theories interfering with the exalted position of property rights. Should the various States be represented by progressives, different recommendations will naturally follow and probably an interpretation of the Const.i.tution which will accord a new standing to personal rights.
In the early part of 1911 the movement crystallized into a regular political organization which called itself The National Progressive Republican League, with the following platform:
(1) direct primaries; (2) popular election of delegates to the national convention; (3) election of senators by direct vote of the people; (4) initiative, referendum, and recall; (5) an effective corrupt practices act.
These points were not new; most of them are incorporated into the body of law of the State of Oregon. Most progressive Democrats as well as Republicans seem willing to support these principles. In almost every State the movement for the direct primaries has met studied opposition.