The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1862-01-24

" is shown for the junction of counties. The
community of interest is clearly viola!ed-!he
guarantee OF separate representation denied,
and The equality OF representation in no way
promoted. In 1857 the county of Bedford con-
tanned 5,l97 taxable inhabitants, and the coun-
y OF Somerset contained 5,254-as separate
Representative Districts they would have been
more nearly equal in point of numbers than any
districts formed by the apportionment act of
That year. There is therefore in this union Of
these two counties only an open and fagrant
denial Of right.
These general conclusions have been reached
from the plain language Of the Constitution it.
self. They seem 10 be sustained by It's letter
ana its spirit. II is manifest that the Constltu-
tion was SO understood by its trainers. 1t is ev-
ldent tina. any change that might be made in
the boundaries OF county, or in the extent of
its territory, could 10 no way affect its indvid-
uaii,y or indenthy. The Legislature might take
away portion of the territory Of county, or
a part of Its population, but could not destroy
its corporate rights and privileges. nor take a
way the constitutional rights of its citizens. In
1880, The whole territory ofsPennsylvania was
embraced in twenty-one counties. The Con-
'shttoh SSbtehuPiotSu tuC ciVSthoi. Va uC" Nouu-
ties. as appears from the latter clause oi the
fourth section of the first article Of the Consti-
tuition. Such new counties could only be form
ed from the territory of the old ones. An eff
fort was made in the Convention TO confne the
right OF separate representation to each county
Hduring its continuance" BY the rejection of
this proposition, the Convention determined
that this right Of separate representation should
remain with the county, without regard to any
change that might be made in the extent Of its
territory, OF number OF its inhabitants. See Con-
ventions OF Pennsylvania, compiled by Francis
X Skunk, in 1925, commencing or page BIT.
These conclusions are further strengthened
by the action of the Convention of 1887 and
1888 on the subject of representation. In this
body protracted and vigorous effort was made
to all the counties then formed in the Common
wealth, without regard to ratio, and being 6t-
ty-three in number. Alter The failure of this
effort another, OF equal vigor and determna-
tlon. was made to take away from the old
counties the right of separate representation,
and to make equality of taxabIes the sole ba-
sis oil representation. This effort was also un-
suszsessiuh aud the Convention finally, by
large majority, adhered TO the Constitution oil
1890 upon this su9iect. During the discussion
of these propositions, lasting several weeks,
every member participating in the debates lin
cluding such eminent jursts and constitutional
lawyers as VIM. NJ. Meredith, John Sergeant,
Thomas S. Bell, Geo. W. Woodward, James
Madison Porter, George Chambers, Thaddeus
Stevens, CHARLES j. Ingersoll, Walter Fer
ward, and many others) distinctly avowed that
under the Constitution of 1870 sseach county
was entitled to not less than one Representa-
tive, and that the new counties should be rep
resented as soon as they had the required ra-
:io of taxable inhabitants" and that this gh.
could not be lntArfered with in any other man
ner than by constitutional amendment.
Indeed, the idea OF depriying one OF The
original counties OF It's right to seperate repre-
sentation does not seem to have occurred to
the Legislature until the unscrupulous system
known as s'gerrymandering" was introduced.
With single exception, lin 1850 the Leg
islature, since 1890, in enac.ing apporionment
laws, has uniformly observed the constitutional
guaranty, IN strict accordance with the views
adopted 10 this Argument, until 1850 and
1857. IN the last two appointment acts, two
or three departures were made from these gen.
eral principles. The first ol these caused for
a time the withdrawal OF nearly a quorum OF
members from the House of Representatives,
and threatened seriously the utter disruption OF
that body. A lew OF the provisions of the Sec
ond were evidently adopted without proper
consideration and reflection. The only other
that of 1886, was the junction OF
the counties of Mf6in, Union and Junlata IN
one Representative district. This was denounc-
ed by Judge Porter in the Reform Convention
(see Debates, Vol. XII, P. 1917 as violation OF
the Constitution, and the error was corrected al
the next appo.iionment, and separate repre-
sentation has ever since been given to the county
of Mifiin, although greatly below the ratio.
In order TO verify The statements herein
made, the Contestant has prepared rum6ers0f
statistical tables, which are submitted, and mark
ed Papers ga" "B," and &C." the first being
a list Of the several apportionmsnts of this
Commonwealth for members OF the House OF
Replesentatves-the second list OF the taxa
BILE inhabitants upon which said apportio nments
were based, and the third list OF the counties
of this Commonwealth, with the respective
dates of their erection, and the time when they
severaly attained Representative ratio.
In addition to these evidences we have the
opinion and judgement OF the Legislature OF
1856. and also Of that of 1857, distinctly ac-
the right Of separate representa-
tion as claimed in this argument BY the adop-
ton ofthe third amendment, which goes into
effect A. D. 1864, and by which thereafter
these rights are either modified or taken away.
Had these rights not been established by the
Constitution there would have been no necessi-
ty for this amendment.
The Legislature of 1857, acknowledged the
doctrine Of this argument with regard to old
counties, by allowing the counties of Mi6iin
and Huntington separate representation al
though below the ratio. The Legislature OF
lS43 acknowledged the same principle in the
case Of Mifiin county, and that of 1850 ip the