Equitable Apportionment Research Articles

The Method of Equal Proportions

The Constitution provides that the members of the House of Representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective members. Not only the representation of the several states is concerned, but an inequitable apportionment has an effect on the vote in the electoral college, as the vote of any state is equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which a state may be entitled. It is thus apparent that an equitable assignment of representatives to the several states is of paramount importance, as in a close election the result may be decided by the electoral votes of a state or group of states which had representation out of proportion to the population. At first glance it might seem that with a given membership the population of each district would be determined by dividing the total population by the total number of members. Thus if the total population is 5o,ooo,ooo0, and the membership of the House is fixed at 435, there should be one member for each 344,827 population, and the apportionment of each state would be its population divided by 344,827. But no state is likely to have a population equal to an exact multiple of the apportionment base. Fractions of various size would be left over, and it is the determination of the weight to be given to these fractions that constitutes the problem of an equitable apportionment.

Rationing as a Proper Wartime Governmental Function

THE magnitude of the present global conflict has already outstripped the scope of all past wars. As a result of this, the public is being inconvenienced in various and sundry ways and is likely to be more than merely inconvenienced before the existing war is terminated. Against this somber backdrop of a rather foreboding future, the trials and tribulations of the last World War seem insignificant by comparison. Two things seem to have contributed to insuring that the inconveniences of the present war will develop into hardships of major importance, involving every segment of our civilian population. First, our enemies have acquired territories which contain substantial sources of supply of some of our basic raw materials. Second, the scope of unrestricted submarine warfare by our enemies has imposed severe shipping limitations upon certain imported consumer commodities. It has therefore been necessary for our Government to impose controls to prevent the reduction of existing stocks of materials below a point which might endanger this country's ability to successfully prosecute the present war. Certainly it has been necessary to husband drastically this country's basic critical materials so that its war production can be properly geared to full and complete utilization. War production control has thus been essentially a problem of cooirdination of the element of time so that the more important war plants can get first call on the most critical materials. On the other hand, so far as consumer's necessary goods are concerned, the problem is one primarily of an equitable distribution of the available stockpile. The priorities system is therefore used to effect war production control while an equitable apportionment of consumer's goods is obtained through the medium of rationing.'

Relative Priority of Maritime Liens

is a plea for the adoption of the broad generalization laid down in The Bold Bu ccleugh7l that all maritime liens, from whatever source arising, are to be paid in the inverse order of their accrual. It was said in that case that This rule which is simple and intelligible, is in our opinion applicable to all cases. Yet though The Bold Buccleugh has been approved in principle both by the House of Lords2 and by our own Supreme Court,3 the generalization logically deducible from that principle has not been formally adopted by either of those high tribunals. The result is that much uncertainty still exists in the decisions and the textbooks as to the underlying principle controlling priorities among maritime liens. An exception to the above generalization should probably be made in favor of liens for mariners' wages, not only for the traditional and sentimental reasons intimated in the John G. Stevens,4 but on the more solid ground that such liens cannot be treated as secret liens since everybody knows that mariners are not paid in advance. Local rules for arbitrarily determining what liens for supplies and repairs shall be deemed contemporaneous, and so of equal rank, are also excepted.5 It would not be easy to trace with accuracy the development of the modern law of maritime liens. The opinion of Mr. Justice Curtis in The Young Mechanic6 exhausts the subject of its relation to the Roman Law. He points out that while the express hypothecation of the ship by bottomry was recognized as creating a j]us in re, the privilege or preference accorded to claims for advances to build, purchase, or equip the ship, or to provide for necessary repairs and supplies in the course of the voyage, was a mere personal privilege to be paid in preference to general creditors. If that be so, the preference was merely incidental to an equitable apportionment of the fund among attaching creditors. On the other hand, the doctrine of tacit hypothecation based on benefits conferred was well established and is apparently as applicable to the building or repair of a ship as of a house; but no doubt the weight of scholarship is in accord with the conclusion expressed by the learned justice. Reddie says that the preference was given inspection of priority in date. on the ground that such advances preserved the fund for all creditors.7

The multiple plant method for the equitable apportionment of fixed charges

It is the intent of this discussion to present, as simply as possible, a logical and fully reliable method for computing the “fixed charge” portion of commodity rate schedules. The hypothesis that the Service plus Quantity principle in rate-making is widely applicable, even far beyond the field of utility rates, emphasizes the necessity for an equitable basis for the computation of both portions of this dual rate structure. Moreover, since the billings of many customers, if computed strictly according to the cost of service, would be only negligibly affected by their Quantity use, the Service portion of their charge becomes of prime importance. The widely-used Peak Responsibility method, while undoubtedly a first approximation to the correct procedure, leads at times to gross inequity. The Eisenmenger method, while technically exact, is tedious in application. The Multiple Plant method, here presented for the first time, is believed to combine the virtues and eliminate the vices of both these methods. Moreover, since the Service plus Quantity principle was found to control in so remote a field as the freight schedule for car lots of logs, it is entirely possible that the simple and equitable analysis outlined below, may, with proper adaptations, become standard in a wide variety of commodity rate-schedule computations.

On the Equitable Apportionment of a Fund Between the Life Tenant and the Reversioner

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On the Equitable Apportionment of a Fund between the Life Tenant and the Reversioner

If any excuse be wanting for once more bringing this question forward for your consideration, it is not because the question itself is unimportant. The frequency of the cases involving it upon which the opinion of actuaries is sought, and the magnitude of the interests concerned, will be allowed by all to furnish ample grounds for the utmost possible care and pains in determining the principles by which the advice given should be regulated. Upwards of 15 years have elapsed since Mr. Jellicoe's well-known paper on this subject was read before the Institute. How far the practice of actuaries has been influenced by the conclusions laid down in that paper I do not know; but from the fact that (so far as I am aware, at least,) the subject has not been reopened since, it would seem that these conclusions have been accepted by the profession, and that in the opinion of those most competent to form a judgment there is nothing more to be said about them. If this be so, I am afraid that I shall incur the suspicion of rashness when I say that the excuse I have to urge for reopening the question is, that the conclusions laid down by Mr. Jellicoe do not commend themselves to my mind as perfectly satisfactory. I propose very briefly to state my reasons for differing from him; and should I fail, as I well may, in convincing others of the correctness of my views, I shall be consoled by the reflection, that however firmly established, and apparently beyond discussion, any truth may be, it is a profitable thing for most, perhaps for all of us, if a rash sceptic now and then compels us to review the grounds of our confidence, and to restate to ourselves, if not to others, the reasons for the faith that is in us.