Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-03-14
(F'rom tie Compiicr. J


C"mprler-but whoever he BE-, we otct htm He
strikes deep in the cause ~ Truth
(from he Compiier)
Messrs. Edltors-l notice your paper of Friday,
that Won have taken up The note of complaint, which
the Wing press OF the State, and particularly the
gan of 'sthe DartY in this CITY, have been ringing
aga inst the Apportonment Bill recently passed That
the Richmond Wing should indulge in denunciation
Of the of the Legislature, is much a matter
of course, that every body expects II; but that the
Richmond Compiler should, without due consde ration,
charge the gfosscs Injustice Ly Implication, upon thrt
body contrary to the usual Of that paper,
thai l. for one, be permitted TO express my asto
nishment at 1t.
Now il is no part Of object at this time to enter
upon a labared defence oil he Appor,ioument Bill
Will say in passing, however, that it is objectionable
in some of lis features: but Tint II is more even
much So the superintendent of le30, utterly deny.
Hive you ever looked 10 the appnruonmen, Of tina,
year: Ii you have not, beg you 10 do One of
your prominent objections the bill the ex.
cess of 5000 in the Richmond district. 1t would seem
from the tenor of your remarks, that you look upon
this not only highly Objectionable, but unprece
cened
Now, sirs, If you will look TO the apportionment of
ls3u, ynu will find that the excess in the Albemate
strict was FIJI tight thousand over the ratio The
ratio that year was 800, aud the Federal numbers
the Aheuarie district something orer % 900, So that,
while the ratio then was less by % 900, the
prraier hy tco M0usaad, than that of which you
district The disparity still greater; the Federal
bers ha wing been about Oh Goo of 1880
over the ratio. Do you not even at this distant
day, feel ind gnant at this gross injustice? ! forget,
however, that the metropolitan district was not The one
injured.
Wan, of compactness, also, is subject of mpaint.
This most certainly, does not apply 10 the Richmond
District and am, therefore, surprised that it should
have been urged BY the Richmond press. 1t applies
10 the Albemara District with more force than To any
hat Is mn In form
perfect scheme and that the recent bill makes
an approach perfection any Of its and
perhaps, as any that could be adopted Compare with
the scheme OF $780, and you will find It lar preferable
to that Take, for example, the Augusta District, and
YOU will by looking at the rar see that that District
under the apportionment of 1880 vas some twenty or
thirty miles longer than the Aibema'e District now
is although the ratio has been raised more than 22oU0
It, (ihc Augusta District extended from Augusta to
The county of Floyd, inclusive, and iha', ,oo' IN
and Bedford region. ! say, my dear Srs, ook at the
map-uness, indeed, you afraid that you would be
SO much Mortified that your agreeable phz would not
its usual good -humored expression until there
was new apportionment-(not OF your lace out oil
the State.
The next complaint commonly urged by the Feds
Il beg pardon, for your sake will say Whgs s, that
they been gerrymandered out OF 'heir ar proper
ton of the Congressional representation do not see
that there is any Justice in this complaint According
to the Presidential election land that according 10 the
Wings TIE only proper test of public sen,imsniJ We
have allowed them sr certain Districts and doubt
iul. Liberal enough should suppose
There is one other test which ask yon to apply TO
the bill lately passed viz: compare it with any of the
schemes submitted to the Legislature by The Wings,
including The very liberal understood to have been
from The hands of that most liberal and magnanimous
gentleman the Hon. NJ Bolts, and you VIII lind that
IN all respects except in political complexion, 1t pre-
ferable 10 any one of them. Mr. Lacys scheme, for
instance, ex,ended the Richmond district from The coun'