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

The Contestant IN this case has never pub
lished, nor authorized the publication of one
word on the subject of this controversy. He
preferred to leave the question with the tribu-
nal appointed by law for IFS decision. The re-
cent circulation in large numbers of paper
entitled ssSynopsis of the argument delivered
by the Hon. Walter Forward" (who by the
way is long since deceased,) s'counsel for the
sitting member IN the contested election case
of Cessna against Householder" has rendered
it necessary that the position taken by the cisi-
zens OF Bedford county should also go forth to
the public.
A reply TO this printed argument is unnec-
essary, inasmuch as il is based throughout upon
Misrepresentation oil the position of the Con-
testapt. The Contestant does not deny the
constitutionality of annexing county which
has neuer attained the Constitutional right OF
separate representation 10 one which has, but
merely alleges that after this right has been ac-
ouired II can never be lost. The very table
published in the "Synopsis of the argument Of
Hon. Walter Forward, !" establishes the correct
ness of the position contended for in this argu-
ment. 1t Is contended that in no case prior TO
1880, except the single one before mentioned,
fMiflin in lS36l was there departure from
maintained. His own table proves that the
counties of Carbon, Clarion, Fulton, Lawrence,
Venango, Forrest, Wayne and Potter, never
bad acquired representative ratio. An ex-
animation of the several apportionment bills
and lists Of taxabes, will establish the fact that
at no time, with the exceptions before stated,
was any county which had ever acquired ratio,
attached TO any other such county in the cleo
ton OF Representatives; but those that have
never acquired such ratio have been and are
temporarily attached to those that have.
The idea that the provision 10 regard to new
counties is merely directory, is based upon The
mistaken notion that new counties, having ac-
quired a ratio are not embraced within the
first clause of the Nv section of article l, Const.
When it ls remembered that In the Convention
of 1870, the motion to confne the right of
separate representation TO counties then organ
lied was rejected, and that all counties with
out regard to the daIe CT their erection; subject
only to the restriction "uati" they should
reach the ratio, were guaranteed the right OF
separate representation, the Interpretation claim
ed by the sitting member is clearly inadmlssi-
BILE. The act of 1895 erecting The county of
Somerset, directed The Commissioners appointed
by said act 10 rake an enumeration OF the taxa
BILE inhabitants, and transmit the same to the
Legislature forthwith; and in 1897, in pursu-
ance OF thrr return, by special act, the Leg
lslature gave to the county Of Somerset sep
arate representation.
Mr.. Forwards first legal position, that the
action of the Legislature in euacting the appor-
tlonment act of 1887 cannot be inquired into or
corrected, is IN direct conflict with the legal
maxim sIhat one Legislature cannot bind a
subsequent one," and also with the constitution
al provision that "each House shall be the
Judges OF the qualification OF its own MEMBERS
as well as that other well established doctrine
that ssthe Constitution is the fundamental and
paramount law of the land"
The Constitution says that each county shall
be entitled 10 one Representative to be elected
BY the citizens thereof. Bedford was at that
lime one of,he counties OF this Commonwealth,
and is therefore entitled TO her separate repre-
sentatlon But, says Mr.. Forward, the word
county means territorial extent, and not muni-
cipal authority. Conceding this TO be true,h
would have been strictly constitutional for the
Legislature of 1857 to have allowed bul TWEEN
ty-one representative districts tor the entire
Commonwealth, and TO have limited those dis
tricts by lines oil the original counties as they
existed in 1870.
The folly ofthis position IS clearly shown by
The action OF the convention OF 1890 in refusing
to con6ine this right of separate representation
to the counties as then organized. II anything
more were needed by way OF illustration it could
be had in the exhibition OF a district embracing
all the territory included in the county Of North
cumberland ip 1890, or IN either of the counties
of Cumberland, Westnoreland, Luzerne, or AL
.egheny at the same time. The charge against |
the Contestant relative TO his eminent lawyers
and judges is gratuitous and the insinuaton that
adverse opinions have been received IS fiction,
dream, or something worse.
That the disregard OF an unconstitutional act
ofthe Legislature will be met BY greater