The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1877-02-07
THE AppoRTIoNMENr ACT.

what defense could be made of the
infamous apportionment act, concern
ing which Governor Williams has re-
Gently sent a special message to the legis-
lature. The Journal having already COM
mitted itself to the kindred rascality of the
southern returning boards, it gravitated as
naturally to the defense of the rascally APP
portionment act as a duck to water. In
somewhat lSbored column article it stirs up
enough dust to almost obscure from sight
the rsscally features of the bill. There are
only two points in it that even APP
proximate to the dignity of argu-
ment. One lacks absolutely the
essential quality of truth, and the other is
technical question. First, the Journal
virtually admits the rascality of the bill as
to localized representation" but asserts
that it does not "work inequalities in party
representation in the aggregate" 1t is
therefore in relation to this proposition that
we say it lacks the essential quality of truth
Now let us look at it '-in the aggregate" and
see if the same rascally inequality does not
obtain. The democracy cast at our late state
election 213, 164 votes, and the radicals 20S,-
$50 votes. Now, for these POS, 900 voters
the apportionment act gives the radi-
Gals 81 representatives, and to the democ-
racy, with her $4,000 voters, this in
famous bill gives only 46 In other words
this bill gives representative to about
every 1900 democrats, while it gives one to
about every $500 radicals, or in still other
words 3, 800 radicals are equal TO 600 demo-
Gratis. Now the Journal can not escape this
conclusion. that with a larger vote the dem
ocracy have smaller representation than
the radicals. With delicious sang froid it
says, with a vote only 5000 less (than the
democrats) "the republicans have an excess
of but six members" Just so, and with
10000 less votes in Louisiana than Tilden
received, the radical rascally quartette
counted Mr.. Hayes in. If 5000 less votes
than the democrats received give five more
radical representatives, why is not Mr.. Ben
Harrison governor? 1t iss Ske most success
full piece of rascally political machinery that
we have seen at work in this country.
We take now the senators and representa-
tives, and find that the democrats have only
II members and the radicals rs; or one to
every three thousand democrats, while the
radicals have one to every twenty-six hun
dred Thus looking at the bill from any
reasonable standpoint. we find chicanery
and fraud woven into and through it in
every portion.
We pass now to the only other point in
the Journals article which is OF any especial
value. The constitution says that 'appor-
'tionments shall be made once in every six
years" The Journal pronounces the gov
ernor's suggestion that it may be made of
tener as 'puerile'-"too puerile to need re-
'ply"-and then proceeds heroically TO
reply through a quarter of the col
umn which it gives to the message.
Notwithstanding the opinion of our radical
contemporary, we agree with the governor.
If the word only had been inserted, so
that the clause would read that ''the appor-
'tionment shall be made only once in every
six years." then our high constitutional
Journal authority might pronounce our
good governors argument "puerile," but as
it stands we think the governor has the better
of the argument.
Ex-Governor Hendricks showed up the
mean features of the apportionment act in a
speech he made one night on the Circle in the
summer of 1874, and we add portion of the
main points:
The entire vote of the state 81 Sl9, apportion-
ed among 100 representatives and % senators,
would give one representative to 3,77S, and
Lake county, with a vote of 2,444, which is
,S2i below the representative ratio, has one
representative.
Porter, with a vote of 2,s77, which is sol be-
low the ratio. has one representative.
Steuben. with vote of 2,793, which is 9S5 be-
low the ratio, has one repre- sentative.
Lagrange, with vote of 1857, which is Gil
below the ratio, has one representative.
Jennings, with a vote of 1884, which is 333
below the ratio, has one representative.
Vermillion, with vote Of 2,2ij, which Is
l,5S3 below the ratio, has one representa-
tive.
Warren, with vote of 2,49O, which is / ,2SS
below the ratio, has one representatives.
Lawrence, with vote OF 1863, which is 200
below the ratio, has one repreS NATIVE.
Monroe, with a. vote OF 3.2l6, which is 562
below the ratio, has one representative.
And Benton and Newton together, with
vote of :, 935, which is S43 below the ratio have
one representative.
These IL counties are strongly republican,
giving an aggregate republican majority of
1882, but they lack S,799 votes to entitle them
tn the 10 representatives given them.
There are seven other counties which fall
below the ratio in their vote, and are allowed
each representative, but the aggregate def
cheney is less than one representative appor-
tiOnment.
Bartholomew is q democratic county, with
a population of 4 ,76l, which was 9S3 more than
enough for representative but she was al
lowed none. Brown county is democratic,
with a total vote of ,633. She was allowed no
reprepresentative: but she and Bartholomew
constitute one representative district, with
an entire vote of 1884, being an excess of
| 2.6l6 over the ratio OF representation, and
| such excess being more than the en-
| tire vote of either Lake, Vermillion or
Warren, each of which has representative
The ex-governor gives other instances of
this infamous apportionment as it effected
the lower house, and then takes up the SEN