Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1844-02-20
NEW sERIEs,-voL. Nv. No. 30.

bad majority in both branches of IN,
General Assembly. The law of 1885,
was passed in House by vote of 80 yea,
TO 10 nays; among those who voted il
The affirmative, were many shining light
in the gentlemen's party. If the float
ing system is unconstitutional, then die
their friends violate the Constitution il
'32 and '36, and the Senator from Lake
violated il or last night, when he vote,
for the Substitute offered by the Senate
from Carroll, for il provides for thirteen
floating members for each Of the fou
years. Such are some Ofhe beauties o
the gentleman's consistency. He voteC
to strike out the bill under cOnsidera
ton, because it contained thirieer
floats, and 10 substitute the amendment
Of the Senator from Carroll, which con
tanned thirteen floats" It was unc0n.
sttiutiOnal TO vote for bill presented bJ
democrat containing foats,' but il was
constitutional TO vote lOr bill present.
ed by whig, which contained The same
number of floats There is something
mysterious about this; but by sxamina
lion, 1t can be explained. The two bills
contain the same number Of floats, but
the one the gentleman wished to
strike Out gave the wings, for the pres
ent year, seven, while it reserved 10 The
democrats six; and The one be wished TO
substitute, gave TO the wings, for this
year, ten, while it allowed the democrats
three. This isa great difference, ard
materially changes the provisions Of the
Constitution.
Much has been said by gentlemen on
the other side about the political effects
of the bill, and we are charged with de-
sigh of so shaping it as TO perpeluale
democratic ascendency in the Legisla'
ture. Let US look at the facts. The
Senator from MuskIngum seems to have
but one idea, but one aim, and that is to
get the ascendency in this branch of the
General Assembly. He says they have
majority in the State, and, therefore, are
entitled to a majority in the Senate. To
prove that his party has majority he re
fers to the vote of 1870 As he has ap
pealed TO that vote, let us try the bill un.
der consideration by it By the vote Of
1910, this bill gives the gentleman
twenty one senators, while it gives US
fifteen-a clear majority of six By his
own text, his party would not be entitled
to a majorityof2.The most justice could
claim for him would be nineteen to our
seventeen. Ali he would have a right
10 claim in the House would be major
ty Of four, and this bill gives him teu.-.
Here, by his own test, we allow him six
n the House, and four in the Senate,
more than the vote of 1910 would enti-
lie him 10. May not adopt his own
language, and inquire Sin Gods nGme,"
S that not enough? Sir, it is enough,
md more th an enough. He is con.
Itantly prating about their majority in
he State, and their right to majority |
lere; and when asked for an evidence
II their maioity, he points US TO lS40-
Now, that election was fair, or il was
fraudulent. If it was fair and honest, !
his bill gives them both branches when
,ver they choose TO exercise their pow
n; if it was fraudulent, they are the
in the State, and not entitled |
o majority here. Here, then, is d.
emma, the gentleman may select the
Iorn which he prefers. The very fact
hat he is dissatisfied with this bill con,
'inces me that he we'll knows that the g.
ection Of 1910 was fraud, and that
hey have not now, or ever have had, a
majority of the legal voters in the State
He tells US that, by former apportion-
nenrs, we have had majority in the
legislature, while they have polled
majority OF votes. When was lhis?-
When did they poll majority of votes?
Did former apportionment bills effect the
election Of Governor? That is not pre-
ended. Sill, in 1888, we elected a
democratic Governor and maj jority in
he Legislature. In 1910, they elected,
,r proiessed to elec. Governor. and did
hey mol also elect a majority TO the
Legislaturef Sir, our ears were stun.
ned in 1910, by their pitoous cries OF
fraud in disiricling the State, while that
very law gave them an advantage, taxing
four years, and under il, in lS4O, they
elected fifty out of the seventy Two mem
bers of the House, and would have had
a majority IN this branch but for the mem
bers that held over from 1889. If they
have not had majority since, tits not
because the law is against them, but be-
cause the people condemned their reck-
less spirit and reckless measures That
is no fault of ours. The peoPl le always
have, and always will condemn their mea-
sures and their acts,
But this member from MnsEingum( Mr..
Chambers) says tn in ls42 our major
ity was moi large--that If his abolition
brethern had not deserted them, they
would have had as many votes for Gov
ernnr as had the democrats. This may
be true; but if they, by ytheir duplicity-
by their violation Of pie ges and want of
good faith, drove the abolitionists from