The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1877-02-07
RADICALIsM IN APPORTIONMENT
ACTS.

law are drawing dangerously near TO III, 10
distract attention by shrewd devices of va
rious kinds The Journal, in discussing the
apportionment act, is adopting the same
tactics. In yesterdays paper it skipped
away among the southern states to show
that some of them had not given the radicals
a fair proportion of representation III the
southern state legislatures. 1t did not seem
to have much to say about the Indiana APP
p0tionment act except to Teaflirm Its fair
ness, or as il put it, 'its substantial JUS
'tice" If this is true, we again ask the
question, Why did not Governor Baker sign
the bill? We think we demonstrated beyond
any doubt that the billwas unfair, Infamous in
its attempts to disfranchise large bodies OF
citizens, and is part and parcel OF the same
rascally class of legislation which the Louis
lana returning board is specimen OF. The
Journal makes no attempt to answer our ar
guments, simply because they are unan-
swerable, Neither does it pretend to give
any reason why Governor Baker refused to
sign the bill The radical party leaders and
all who are conversant with the facts know
why he refused to affix his signature. 10 'cds
a miserable partisan, rascaty superintendent,
and we have the reason why the bill was
pocketed Morton would have signed it, and
his only excuse would have been it gives
us sure thing" and not having any con-
science, it would not have interfered with
his eating or sleeping a moment, nor his
standing with the party, and this sort OF
appreciation 1T is that makes man like
him more popular among the radicals than
Mr. Baker. If Baker would have signed the
bill and aided VIII Cumback in his frantic
bulldozing efforts to reach the United States
senate, he probably would have been repre-
senting our government at the court of st.
James in place of Pierrepont Instead,
however, ne has retired to private life with
the approval of his own conscience and the
respect of the better element of his party,
but we have little doubt that the Journal
Morton wing of the concern have profound
pity for his want of foresight and what they
would call prudence of the simple, bust
neSS-like kind.
As we remarked, the Journal, in attempt
ing to draw attention from this bill, arraigns
the radicals fair representation in the
state legislatures. The southern state gov
ernments are for the most part still labor
ing under the effects of radicalism which
was composed of equal parts of northern re-
publicanism, carpet-baggery and what
we might call hellery or diabol-
ism. The radicals sowed there the
ind nd . IL. 4
SOW the whirlwind. We have no means OF
ascertaining when the appointments were
made, but probably when the carpet-bag
radicals were in full feather and the white
element DISTINGUISHED, and now, matters hav.
ing changed, the two classes have about ex-
changed places.
The Journal gives the ratio of representa-
ton in Alabama as ore to every 9O2 demo
Gratis and one to every !, 412 radicals, which
is good example of the Journals style oil
argument In 1874 the democratic majority
was Just twenty-Seven and the ratio OF repre-
sentation then was one representative e
every 800 radicals and one to every ,70C
democrats. Since which time there ha.
been a democratic tidal wave in Alabama
In Connecticut the Journal is more brilliant
still. Here it scintillates with the glitter o.
the polished diamond. We wonder i
ever went near Connecticut, for in
this state the aPportionment shows as clear
cut piece of rascality as our own STATE
or the Louisiana returning boards. The
Journal says, in relation to Connecticut
that the Legislature contains 1sl democrats
and So radicals. and then figures its ratio O
representation as 342 democrats to a repre-
sentative and es2 radicals to a represent
tive. Instead of this being so, we have tn,
following brilliant illustration of the effect
of radicalism: In a total vote of 40, 96s the
democrats have clear majority of $500
and instead of having any majority in tn,
legislature, the radicals have a majority O
81 on joint ballot, and it takes $50 democrat
to get one representative in the Connection
legislature, while $50 radicals get one,
very different state OF affairs from what tn,
Journal eRdeavors to set before its readers
1t is worse than our own state. Here. will
democratic majority of over 5000
the radicals have six majority oil
joint ballot, while in the Nutmeg state,
with 4 majority of only 1900, the,
have secured legislative majority of 81
We will have to give the red ribbon prenli
um for raseality to the Connecticut radicals
We had hoped to have secured it for Oh
home radicals
The Journal exhauSts itself and its ener
gies in figuring eat the exact ratio of repre-
sentation in many democratic states, barring
the blunders it makes, but il is too much in
hurry when it comes to the radical state
to give the ratio OF representation. There
fore we kindly offer our services. 1t IS al