Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1871-02-23

G26 1876 81
At a glance this table demonstrates the
propositions which constrain our dissent. 1t
is no apportionment according to the num-
Der of inhabitants" to assign one Senator to
1887 people, and only one to more than
twice that number. There is no justice in
leaving out of account such ponderous frac-
tions, including 20 ,079 in three contiguous
counties where the formation of an additional
Senatorial district would not nearly exhaust
their numerical claim in the apportionme nt
The curious results which the table exhibits
originated in no purpose of the committee to
do injustice to sections or populations, but in
the invention and application of an inflexible
rule. The rule originated and applied was to
constitute each county Senatorial district,
giving to each as many Senators as 10000 is
contained in its enumeration, and distributing
the Senators not so apportioned equally among
the largest remainders resulting from that
division.
Obviously the rule admits of but one appli-
cation. 1t excludes discretion. To establish
it is to make the apportionment. If it had
been incorporated in the Constitution the
work of apportionment might properly have
been confided to a clerk. If the rule shall be
perpetuated, it may sometime work the
absurdity Of Senatorial districts without SEN
ators.
But the rule of the Constitution, intended
to govern the apportionment, is: ''The dis
trcts shall conform as near as may be to
county lines, and be apportioned according to
the number of inhabitants" The words las
near as may be-" modify the direction as to
county lines. The words ''be apportioned
according to the number of inhabitants" are
not modified, and can properly have no mod
itication in application, except such as is
imposed by the moral necessities of the case.
The rule, therefore, ordained by the Consti-
tuition, subordinates the use of county lines
to the principle of numerical equality, while
the rule constructed by the committee treats
the principle of numerical equality as infe'
rior to the convenience of county lines.
The rule of the Constitution has twice re-
ceived authoritative exposition.
The Convention which framed the Consti-
tuition caused an Address to be published, with
a view to intelligent action by the people.
This authorized Address set forth, substan-
TALLY, apportionment according to numbers as
primary principle. The only words relat-
Senate as predieated upon population"
Upon questions submitted to the Supreme
Judicial Court by the Senate in 1912, all the
Justices declared, in substance, that as be-
tween equality of popular representation and
integrity of county lines, the last OBJ
ject should be subordinated to the first.
Justices Whitman, Shepley, and Tenney
Composing the Court at that time),
although differing on other points, agreed
in this. The following extract from the opin-
ion of Judge Shepley, interprets the mean
ing of all three of the Justices:
"The intention appears to have been to
make it obligatory upon the Legislature to
arrange the districts in such a manner that
their boundary lines should vary as little as
might be practicable from the established
lines of the counties, and not to restrain it so
as to prevent an equal apportionment accord
ing to the number of inhabitants"
If our history as State furnishes pre-
cedents which exhibit carelessness in contri-
vance, and inconsistency with the rules main
tanned by the authorities referred to, it can
not be affirmed of any of those precedents
that they accord with this report. The most
exceptional embody errors fewer in number
and less in magnitude than those of the plan
under consideration.
The history of proceedings which resulted
in the apportionment established by the Con-
vention which framed the Constitution is in
structive. The Convention had no census to
control its apportionment, and no data to
facilitate departure from county lines. 1t
was obliged to adhere to them. The first
plan of apportionment reported to the Con-
vention was based upon the estimated popu-
lation of 1919, and involved two cases of
considerable inequality according to the
adopted estimation. The Convention was
law unto itself, but the remonstrances urged
against this first scheme caused change to
be made in the number of Senators selected
for apportionment, and another plan to be
adopted more in conformity with justice.
The rejected plan, although characterized in
the debates by Judge Preble, as "monstrous,"
ycaa N q
ported by your committee.
The undersigned are unable to conceive Of
any reason in justification of the resolve APP
portioning Senators stronger than that
founded in consideration of convenience to
the counties, or, rather, to the political par
ties within the counties when they shall as
semble in their annual conventions. This
consideration is not within the scope of the
constitution, and SO is no law to the Legis-
lature. If, however, reasons of con-
venence should ever be made to outweigh
those of duty, it would be difficult to see the
convenience resulting to the county of Aroos-
took, when she comes to vote in the Senate
on questions of valuation and expenditure,
from balancing her population Of 29,579 by
1888 in Androscoggin, or the convenience
to Lincoln with 1884 people, or Knox with
&c, $50, in ofisettng either with l6, 1888 in Ok
ford, or the convenience to Kennebec in
matching ZO,olz against lf,ovt III IlScutd-
quis.
1t is not the object of this statement to
urge a scheme for adoption as substitute for
the resolutions reported; but it may proper
ly be suggested that they can with facility be
amended, SO as to be deprived of their hugest
irregularities-those which, if not dismissed,
will operate during ten years upon two coun-
ties, as the equivalent of Acknowledgement of
one-fourth of their population, and, for the
same period, upon one county, as treating
third of its inhabitants as of no account