817.00/5147a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Nicaragua (Munro)
195. Your 314, November 2, 2 p.m. Dodds states
“In the report upon the 1920 election figures which I prepared for General McCoy I pointed out that within a given department there are the widest inequalities in the number of voters apportioned to the various congressional districts although the number of congressmen elected from each department is reasonably fair. As you know, the constitution provides that there is to be a congressional district for each 15,000 inhabitants within a department and one additional for any remaining fraction over 8,000.
The census of 1920 has been much criticized by the Liberals and I can hardly believe that a new census at this time would be any better received. It would be purely for the purpose of redistributing congressmen within departments for, assuming that the 1924 registration figures are a fair indication of population, the apportionment as between departments is about right.
[Page 379]Personally I believe that the 1924 registration is a better indication of population distribution than the 1920 census and probably better than any census which can now be taken. A new census therefore appears to me to be unnecessary. The congressional districts can be revised, if desired, in accordance with the census of 1920 or (by adopting an agreed ratio of voters to total population) in accordance with the 1924 registration.
I anticipated that this question of congressional apportionment might be raised but I advised General McCoy to avoid it if possible. I am sorry that it has come up because both sides will doubtless try to gerrymander if a new distribution is attempted, and the effort will only increase our difficulties.”
General McCoy also feels that it would not be advisable to undertake a new census at this time.