The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-02-02

The Question Of AppOriiOnment.
The judiciary committee, on Saturday,
presented to the House the majority and
minority report in regard to the constitu-
tionality of a bill redistricting the state.
The majority report is signed by the
democratic members of the committee, and
the minority report by the republican MEM
bers, so that, thus far, the question appears
to be a strictly partisan one. AS the point at
issue is strictly legal one. each side of the
question is, of course, sbundsntly able to
put forward the best of authorities to sus-
tain its position, and, strange to say. the
same author is quoted by both parties in the
course of the argument.
The point of difference between the demo-
cratic and republican members of the COM
mittee is easily stated and easily understood.
The constitutional provisions affecting the
question of apportionment are as follows:
SEC. A. The general assembly shall. at its Sec
ond sefsion after the adoption of this consiitu-
ton, and every six years thereafter, cause an
enumeration TO be made of all the white male
Inhabitants over the age oftwenty-one years.
SEC. 5. The number of senators and represent
atives shall, at the session next following each
period of making such enumeration,
among fSe several Counties. according to the
number OF white male Inhabitants above
twenty -one years of age in each provided that
the first and second elections of members of the
general assembly under this constitution shall
be according to the superintendent last made by
the general assembly before the adoption OF this
Now it is conceded by all the members of
the committee that the enumeration provided
for in section four was duly made in 1872 and
that an apportionment was made in accord
snce with the provisions of section five dur
ing the session of 1873. But the majority
and the minority differ merely on the law
of constitutional Interpretation. The former,
contrary to the traditions of the democratic
party, contends for loose construction, and
maintains that, although the constitution
provides for new apportionments at the next
session OF the legislature succeeding the
enumeration commanded by law, yet there
10 nothing to prevent one or more new APP
portionments within the period OF six years.
The latter, contrary to the traditions Of the
republican party, contends for strict con-
struosion, and maintains that the pow
ers of the legislature are severely
limited by the constitutional provisions
and that the clause in regard to making each
new apportionment at the next session of
the legislature after each new enumeration
is mandatory, meaning that 1t shall be made
then and at no other tine. 1t is useless to re-
capitulate the learned arguments and author
tiles by which each fragment OF the COM
mittee sustsins its position. The Sentinel is,
however, inclined 20 say frankly, that, pro-
ceeding on the supposition that the
enumeration and apportionment of
1872 and 1873 were duly made in
accordance with the law, the minority
report is based upon the soundess legal
doctrine. and there would be no shadow of
an excuse for new apportionment.
With all due respect to the learned and
able committee. however, the Sentinel is in
clined to think that neither of the reports
presented touches the cardinal point
in the 4nestion. What is the
object of the periodic enumeration
and apportionment provided for by
the constitution The design is simply to
secure to every part of the state that repre-
wealth to which its importance entities it.
Where representation is based upon popu-
lstion. as is the case with US, and in a COM
munity of rapid grown like Indiana,
the census must be taken frequently, and
the apportionment must be made to corre-
spohd with it, in order to preserve the pro-
portion of representatives in different Sec
tons. The constitution therefore provides
for periodic enumerstions and apportion-
ments, and, by that very act, prevents
their recurrence except at the intervals
stated. The gist OF the present controversy,
however, lies In the question whether the
of 1873 was really any APP
portionment at all, In the sense contem-
plated by the constitution. That sppor-
tionment ives not made with the design |
Of securing a fair representation to tn |
different parts OF the state, but with the de-
sign of securing preponderance to certain |
localities for partisan purposes. 1t
was not made with the slightest |
regard to the enumeration which had |
proceeded it and on which the consti- |
tuition provides that it should be based but |
was governed almost entirely by the pecu-
liar distribution OF party strength. 1t was
not made to carry out the law but to frus-
trate it. The constitution declars in ex- i
press terms that the number of |
senator's and representatives shall be
'APPoRTIoNED AMONG THE SEVERAL CoUN- !