The act has caused a major problem in the long term, vastly increasing each member of the House's constituancy thus limiting the power of ordinary American citizens in voicing their concerns. What were the arguments at the time arguing for and against the measure?
Small sidenote to help refine the question: The 435 number was actually fixed in 1929, this was because congress had failed to adjust apportionment after the 1920 census as had been done with the preceding ones. 435 representatives was simply selected in 1911 to accommodate the increased population since the 1900 census as had been done, in some form, after every census since the civil war. It seems your question might be more about the political situation in the 1920s which caused the house to no longer increase in size along with population, something I'm curious about myself to be honest, unfortunately I'm not an expert on the nitty gritty of American legislative history in that era, but I am trying to help refine the question a bit so that a better answer might be delivered by one who is if that's what you're interested in.
Source: general knowledge from lots of US History classes, school tours, etc. Double checked my memory and all is correct according to the US house clerks office website.