Though it was possible that Huntington-Hill would not have been used. While they were resisting an apportionment at all, there was also an argument over whether Webster's or Huntington-Hill was superior. Had Webster's method been used, as it had following the 1910 Census, the following apportionment was used:
California +3
Michigan +2
Ohio +2
Connecticut +1
New Jersey +1
North Carolina +1
Texas +1
Washington +1
Indiana -1
Iowa -1
Kansas -1
Kentucky -1
Louisiana -1
Maine -1
Mississippi -1
Nebraska -1
Rhode Island -1
Vermont -1
Missouri -2
Winners under Huntington-Hill were Rhode Island and Vermont, which would have avoided losing a seat, and New Mexico, which would have gained one.
Winners under Webster's were North Carolina, which would gained a seat, and New York and Virginia, which would not have lost a seat.
In 1929, Congress finally passed a law providing for automatic apportionment. It said that Congress would choose between Webster's and Huntington-Hill, and if they failed to choose, the last method used (Webster's) would prevail.
In 1930, there was no difference in result. In 1940, the difference was whether Arkansas or Michigan would get the 435th seat. In 1941, on a party-line vote, except for the Democrats from Michigan, Huntington-Hill was chosen. Congress has used Huntington-Hill ever since.