Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1848-12-20

cate. 1t is matter of recital, and may be
falsihed. 1t is borne out by no footing up.
1t is palpable non sequitur, and avaiIs
nothing. The fact certified absolutely, is
that Pugh and Pierce have each Of them
nearly two thousand votes more than Spen-
Ger ard Runyan votes returned as legal
bN the Jud ges Of election, being cast by citi-
zens of the county, who are entitled by the
constitution to vote for Representatives.
These the Clerk and Justices were bound to
takesand count as legal votes, because by
law they are forbidden to decide upon the
validity of the returns; and they did take
and count them. Who should say that any
portion of the votes thus returned were lille
gal and should be rejected, when the Judges
had returned them as legal, and when the
law forbade tie board of canvassers to dis
pute such matters. The Clerk, therefore,
seeing upon his abstract that much the
counted and certified to Messrs. Pugh and
Pierce, very properly made his certificate
follow those facts.
As to the supposition that all votes cast
for Pugh and Piercs outside the eight wards
were illegal and should have been rejected,
in ava, ding the certificates, l have already
given one answer, namely, that neither the
Clerk nor the Justices, nor all together, had
any power to reject them. Another answer
is that nowhere in the apportionment scheme
is il assumed to be said that such votes are,
in point of fact, illegal. Look the scheme
through there is no declaration in it that
citizen Of the county, living outside the eight
ward, ,shall not vote for the two, as well as
the three, Representatives of the county.
To this it may be answered, that such is the
intent and construction Of the scheme. But
I rejoin, that intent and construction are
lighter than chaff before the wind, compared
with the specific declaration Of the constitu-
ton, that Representatives shall be chosen
by the citizens Of the counties respectare-
H." That is the guarantee of suffrage to
every citizen of Hamilton county, to vote for
his Representatives-an and it is not to be IN
tended or construed away,-NO, NOR
SURRENDERED EITHER, whatever
may be the cost of upholding it.
What effect, therefore, is to be given to
the direction as to the manner of electing
Representatives in Hamilton county in the
apportionment scheme? "to- be elected as
foHoms," &c. l answer, very little,-
scarcely no effect, can be given it. 1t may
be taken as indicating location and par
ticular character for two of the candidates,
and as directing distinction in the polling
and returns of the votes cast in those wards.
But that the clause creates Representa-
tive district, as a constitutional anapossi-
balaty,'-that it clothes the citizens of the
eight wards with exclusive power to elect
two out of five Representatives of the coun-
ty, in deregation from and denial of the con-
stitutional rights of all the citizens of the
county, who happen to live outside the eight
wards, is monstrosity equally Hagrant
and inadmissible. We have not yet come,
fancy, to the rotten boroug h system which
even England has rejected, and cast off with
loathing. For my own part, | care not to
waste time in devising ways by which the
clause in question can be reconciled with
the constitution, and so enforced. I have
no notion of paltering about it. 1t was de-
signed to disfranchise, to certain extent,
every citizen of Hamilton county, by the
creation of election districts, and the cloth
ing of each of them with the exclusive right
Of electing a portion of the county's Repre-
sentatiyes. That was the object,-but the
ingenuity of its concoctors was not equal to
their inieuity. Thanks to the noble de-
mocraoy of Hamilton county, it has failed,
and must now be purged from the statute
book, which it disgraces, as it does those
who put it there. To that complexion it
must come, sooner or later,-for never will
this assault upon, and attempted tramping
down of, our right Of suffrage, be submitted
to. The primary fault of the difficulty in
the House now, is with the men who de-
signed and foisted upon the statute book the
iniquitous apportionment which now exists,
the secondary wrong is with those gen
tlemen who think they must stand out and
insist upon effect being given to the iniquity.
Ours is the right-theirs be the responsible
ity.
am not sure, Mr.. Editor, that | have
not confounded you with the upholders Of
the apportionment scheme, and of the &C
ton of the minority members, who are
standing out and reuse to make up the quo
rum. do not intend so to be understood. On
the contrary, I acknowledge your liberality,
and am confident that thorough under
standing of the case will make you as warm
an advocate of the right as is
Yours, truly, C. H. BROUGH.