In the second and third columns of Table II the old method is followed; in the fourth column of that table the new method is followed, and the differences between the two will be pointed out.

The last column has been made under the old method, using 194,346 as the basis of representation; this being the largest number which will allow each State to retain at least its present representation.

The present number of representatives in Congress is 357, with a basis of representation of 173,901. Under the recent census, if the basis of apportionment be placed at 200,000 and the number of representatives be not limited, the total number will be 375, an increase of 18. If the representation be limited by the elimination of Indians not taxed, aliens, and illiterates, as above, from the constitutional population, the number will be 348, a reduction of 9 from the present House, and a reduction of 27 from that given by an unlimited representation. The number of representatives, computed by the new method, as shown in the fourth column of Table II, has been made on the basis of unrestricted representation, and is, as by the old method, 375.

Comparing the present constitution of the House of Representatives with that obtained from an unrestricted representation, by the old method, as shown in the second column of Table II, we find, among the States which gave a Republican majority at the recent election, that Maine, Nebraska, and Kansas would lose 1 seat each, while Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Washington would gain 1 seat each, and New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, two each; making a total gain of 14 seats, and a net gain in the Republican States of 11 seats. Among the Democratic States, Virginia would lose 1 seat, while Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Colorado, would each gain 1, and Texas would gain two seats; making a net gain in the Democratic States of 7 seats. Hence, under this scheme of apportionment the net result would be a gain to Republican States of 4 seats.

Now, comparing the present representation in Congress with that under restricted representation, as shown in the third column of Table II, it appears that Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Michigan, Nebraska, Kansas, and California would each lose a seat, while New Jersey, West Virginia, Illinois, and Minnesota would gain 1 each. The net loss to the States which gave a Republican majority at the

On the Democratic side,

recent election would therefore be 3 seats. Virginia would lose 1 seat, Louisiana and South Carolina each 2 seats, and North Carolina and Mississippi 3 seats each; while, on the other hand, Florida, Arkansas, and Colorado would each gain 1 seat, and Texas would gain 2. The Democratic States would therefore sustain a net loss of 6 seats, and the net gain to Republican States under this system of apportionment would be 3 seats.

Comparing the results under the old and the new methods, as shown in the second and fourth columns, it is seen that fourteen States are differently affected by the two different methods, while in all the others the results are the same. Vermont, Connecticut, Florida, Arkansas, Colorado, North Dakota, and Washington each gain a representative under the old method, while under the new method none of these gains, but the gains are given to New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Texas. It is easily seen by the enumeration of these States that the populous States are the ones which gain under the new method, at the expense of small States. It is to be noted, furthermore, that while the basis of apportionment by this new method is not reduced in any State much below the assumed basis of 200,000, it is in some cases allowed to run far above. Thus, by the new method, the basis of representation in Vermont becomes 343,641, and in North Dakota, 319,040. It seems, therefore, that by adopting the new method we should be imposing greater hardships on the small States than were imposed under the old method upon the other States, and involve even greater inequalities. These inequalities may be summed up easily. If we multiply the basis of apportionment, 200,000, by the number of representatives assigned to each State, subtract the product from the population of the State, and then add up the remainders without regard to sign, we find that the sum total of these differences, by the old method, is, in round numbers, 868,000 less than by the new method.

Comparing the last column with the first, it is seen that the gains in the Republican States, under unrestricted representation, and on a basis of apportionment of 194,346, number 20, and in Democratic States 10, showing a net gain in Republican States of 10 seats. Summing up the results in detail, classifying the States politically, as shown at the recent election, the following appears: In the present Congress the representatives from Republican States number 236; from Democratic States 121—a total of 357. The representatives from Republican States in the present Congress form 66.1 percent of all.

Upon a basis of apportionment of 200,000, with unrestricted representation, computed by the old method, the number of representatives from Republican States will be 247; from Democratic States a total of 375. Under these conditions the representatives from Republican States will form 65.7 per cent of all.

128.

Upon the same basis of apportionment, but with restricted representation, and by the old method, the number of representatives from Republican States will be 233; from Democratic States 115a total of 348. Under these conditions the representatives from Republican States will form 66.9 per cent of all.

Under the same basis of apportionment, with unrestricted representation, but computed by the new method, the number of representatives from the Republican States will be 248; from Democratic States 127 a total of 375. Under these conditions the representatives from Republican States will form 66.1 per cent of all.

Finally, on a basis of apportionment of 194,346, with unrestricted representation, computed by the old method, the number of representatives from the Republican States will be 256; from Democratic States 131-a total of 387. Under these conditions the members from Republican States will form 66.2 per cent of all.

From the above it would appear that of the various conditions illustrated a basis of representation of 200,000, with restricted representation, computed by the old method, would give the Republican States the greatest advantage, while upon the same basis of apportionment, with unrestricted representation, computed by the old method, the Democratic States would reap the greatest advantage. It would appear, however, that the advantages in any case would be but trifling. HENRY GANNETT.

THE FALL OF PEKIN.

EVER since the coup d'état in the autumn of 1898, when the Dowager Empress resumed the direction of the affairs of state, China has drifted with startling rapidity, inconsistent with ancient conservatism, into chaos, intrigue, catastrophe, war. The declaration of war against the whole world made by the Imperial Central Government in Pekin was the outcome in large part of the anti-reform movement and the plot to overthrow the Emperor.

movement.

The occasion for a collision with foreign Powers was the Boxer This movement originated among the turbulent people of southwestern Shantung. The official friend of the organization was a Manchu official, who last year was Governor of the province. The cause of the movement was spite against foreigners; first, as due to dependence of Catholic converts on German protection; secondly, as due to German territorial aggressions; and thirdly, as due to the ambitious designs of nearly all countries to acquire territory.

The claim for the recognition of the Boxers was their aim at selfpreservation, being organized as a kind of local militia. Another reason for dealing leniently with the Boxers was their motto, "Down with the foreigners; up with the dynasty.". People who for many years had been noted as insurrectionists against Manchu rule now stood forth as models of loyalty. This impressed the Manchu rulers at Pekin, and made them hesitate to offend their professed friends.,

Furthermore, the Government, as well as the Boxers, had become more and more suspicious of foreign designs, and at heart was eager to expel foreigners and wipe out all vestige of their presence. When the Boxers became threatening in the province of Shantung, they were merely guilty perpetrators in incendiarism, pillage, assault, and intimidation. They seldom demeaned themselves to the crime of murder. They also contented themselves with attacks on Christian converts as a sure method of weakening the foreigner's power and inducing him to withdraw to the ports.

As the Boxer movement swept like a torrent nearer and nearer

to Pekin it became more and more fierce and relentless. For the first time the capital itself was in danger of one of these "little local disturbances." To other crimes was added wholesale massacre. Not only Chinese, but foreigners were attacked and killed. Not only Christian missions, but railways, the telegraph, foreign machinery, foreign goods, and foreign learning were objects of the Boxers' wrath. The surging mass of excited fiends, becoming more bold, defiant, superstitious, as success was added to success, at last rolled in on Pekin.

The foreign ministers stormed, threatened, plead, argued, but to no avail. Certain Manchu nobles believed in the mysterious strength of the Boxers and their loyal professions, and, with honest hatred, they hated the foreigners. Many others of high standing were actuated by the same error. Prince Tuan was father of the newly selected heir apparent, and was anxious to overthrow the Emperor. On June 17 occurred a full meeting of the princes and ministers. Only three dared to criticise the Boxers and recommend peace with foreign nations. These men failed to convince the throne, and were beheaded on August 11, just three days before the allied forces rescued the besieged foreigners in Pekin.

The Dowager Empress did not dare to oppose the Boxers and favor foreigners. Her advisers were against such a policy. Her soldiers were in sympathy with the Boxers. She had, in the final crisis, none to carry out a better plan. Henceforth, Boxers were recognized as good allies, were placed under command of an imperial prince, and were fed, clothed, paid, applauded, honored.

War was declared and war was begun, with a determined spirit, though the United States tried to hold to the dream of "continued peaceful relations." On June 16 came the casus belli in the ultimatum from the foreign admirals to surrender the Taku forts. The Chinese commander at Taku accepted the challenge and began war by opening fire on the 17th. The Viceroy at Tientsin at the same time accepted the challenge, and the well-trained Chinese soldiers, with finest modern guns, poured shot and shell into the foreign settlement. The soldiers up the river began to join the Boxers in attacking the relief force under Admiral Seymour. All this was in harmony with a secret edict issued months before, that in case of any foreign aggression the provincial authority, without waiting for further orders from the throne, should proceed to resist and fight.

The central government, as dominated by the Dowager Empress,