The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1874-07-16

1 OOuBklullOu DY kcucIdl
! there is but little, ahything, TO be found
in it, according 70 ~ teachings, either of
pure democracy or Hpublicanism.
Q-These, then, az your general objec-
tions to the broad sneralization which
you have quoted iron Gen. Ewing7
A-Perhaps not 81 clearly stated as I
might desire.
Q-Wll. you now Hate some of the sa-
lient points in the pteposed Constitution
violative Of these great principles
Al can state some of them but not
systematically, perhaps. regret that l
have not even prepared any memoranda.
The legislative or law-making depart
ment of the Government Is the most i'm
portant of all. The principle embodied IN
the twelfth section Of the fourteenth arti-
Gle is so directly in conflict with the gen.
eral principle have stated, that l should
feel constrained to oppose the Constitution
for that, if for no other reason. In appor-
tioning the law making power among
the people of the State, a rule is mex
orably laid down for the people of the
counties of Hamilton and Cuyahoga which
is not applicable to any other portion of
the State, l refer TO the cumulative vo-
ting, or minority representation. 1t has
always been the democratic idea that
majority of the people should govern. By
this provision the minority is not merely
secured its proportieu per capita of the
Jaw making power, Dut st least 80 per
cent. more power than is secured thereby
to the majority. Simply as one illustra-
tioni of this let Us take the county of Ham
ilton. The aggregate vote of Hamilton
county at the last Presidential election for
Grant and Greeley was As, ,024. To that
county there are now appOrtioned four
Senators and ten Representatives. By the
twelfth section referred to it Is provided
that leach elector may cast as many votes
for one candidate as there are Represent
atives or Senators to be elected" Let US
suppose that a combination or 'ring"
be formed in The county of Hamilton, with
view OF obtaining balance Of power in
the Legislature, composed of 9,005. a
'rIng" which may control with money or
otherwise 9.005 votes. By casting that
vote for a single candidate of its choice,
would receive sc, ,020 votes. while the bal
ance of the voters, 36,019 in number,
would only effect three Senators, or one
Senator for every Il, 2,006 voters. The fig
ures show, therefore, that this "ring" mi
nority get 33 per cent. more of the law
making power than under this objetiona-
bic section is secured to those who are so
unfortunate as to be in the majority This
same demonstration may be applied TO the
election of Representatives.
just here let me refer to some illustra-
tlons of the force, of balance of power"
that have occurred in the history of the
General and State Governments, showing
the influence exercised over public affairs
The resolution annexing the Republic of
Texas to the United States was only car
red, If my memory serves me right, bv
majority of one vote. l remember well
that, pending the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise. by which act the seeds of the
late rebellion were planted, another forci-
bic instance occurred. Without egotism,
may say of that conflict, call of which l
saw and part of which | was" At a crit
ical period a motion was made TO suspend
the rules to enable the House to reach
that bill, out OF its order, which prevailed
by only one or two votes more than the
necessary number. But for that, in all
human probability the Missouri Compro-
mise would not have been repealed. There
are many instances to be referred TO In
State legislation showing the importance
of one or two votes. in 1912 Townsend
and Morse, then called "Free Soilers,"
he'd the balance of power as between the
Democratic and Wing parties. By per-
slstenLly adherlng to the support of Salmon
2. Chase they finally forced the Demo-
cratic party 10 unite with them in his
election to the United States Senate. Let
US take one more recent occurrence. Con-
scfeL TfOusfy opposed 20 the raEi hcafion OF
the Fifteenth Amendment of the Federal
Constitution, reluctantly consented to an
election to serve in the Senate of Ohio in
1863. The ratification on the part of Ohio
was only necessary to make that amend
ment part Of the Federal Constitution.
When the Legislature met, the Reform
ticket, composed of part Democrats and
part Republicans, which had been elected
by Hamilton county, held the balance of
power power in both Houses, and con-
trolled their organizations. On the vital
question OF ratifying the Fifteenth Amend
ment, upon counting noses, ii was soon
ascertalned that there were eighteen for
ratification and eighteen against, and one,
who had been represented as doubtful,
holding the balance of power. That man
was an honest hearted, sincere German
American citizen, Michael Cooper, of
ClnclnDati. When the vote was taken
upon the ratifostion, Cooper aye, so that
that, the most important amendment
which has ever been made to the Federal
Constitution, involving the lasting inter
ests OF more people, black and white, than
any other provision of the Constitution,
was carried by the single vote of one SEN
ator, elected on an independent or mixed
ticket. In other words, it NAV be truly
said that the Fifteenth Amendment was
carried into the Federal Constitution by
that one vote, because at that time the
ratification by the Legislature of Ohio
was necessary to give it the requisite num-
ber Of States
can not but regard this new medicine
OF minority representation and cumulative
voting as a dangerous nostrum, grand
humbug, opposed to long recognized prin-
clples of democracies and republics
Why should the Convention, or why
should the people, apply such principle
TO lhe legislative department alone2 Ii it
be good thing, are not the balance of the
people of the State entitled TO taste? If
it be bad thing, what have the people of
Hamilton and Cuyahoga done that they
should be punished2 How can you square
such a proposition with the great funda-
mental idea that underlies the Government
that of the equality of man and the
equality of communities? If il be a wise
thing toeapply 1t to the State Legislature,
why not extend it to the election of other
oIncers! 1neIe are IN every county three
Commissioners. They legislate for and
guard the interests of local county govern
ment. Why has the Convention withheld
from minorties IN counties the right to
elect them oD that Prineiple2 Why did it
not extend it TO the election of Township
Trustees, of whom there are three in every
township. in every township in the State,
who are the immediate guardians of the
interests of the people Of the respective
townships? If 1t be right in the one in
stance, it Is right in the other Ifit is wrong
in the one it ought not to be adopted
THE JUDICIARY.
But for the real or imaginary defects to
the Judiciary system under the old Con-
stitutIUn, no Convention to amend 1t would
probably have been called. Ii was al
legged that the present system was compli-
Gated, expensive and caused unnecessary
delay in the adjudication of cases. Not
having been engaged in the practice of law
for the last twenty-five years, am not
competent, perhaps, TO present in detail
the objections to the proposed system. 1t