The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1880-06-24

EDITOR INDEPENDENT:


the 9th inst, l desire through your
columns to defend the action of said
committee in relation to the appor-
tionment of delegates to the next Re-
publican Convention, against the i'm
putations of unfairness east upon it
by an unknown correspondent to the
daily Oregonian, writing from New
Tacoma the 18th inst.
The correspondence alluded to APP
peared in the Oregondan of the 18th
inst, and was headed
"A Crooked Proceeding. clergyman
dering' in the Interest of the De Func-
ito Governor of w. IT,
While it is true that the Sound
members of the committee We're in the
majority at said meeting, it is also
true that they were disposed to and
did treat other sections of the Terri
tory with fairness, as an impartial
study of the apportionment, and the
selection of the place of holding the
convention Vancouver would indi-
cate.
The basis for the apportionment
was identical with that adopted by the
Central Committees heretofore, to-
wit: The vote east for the republican
candidate to Congress at the last cleo
| ton. The plan being-one delegate for
each county at large; one delegate for
each 100 votes cast for Brents III 1873;
and one delegate for each fraction of
fifty or more. To illustrate its work
ing:-Thurston county casts 1873 votes
for Brents and gets 5 delegates, King
casts S7S votes for Brents and gets 10
delegates. 1t is republican represent
tation based upon republican votes,
and yet the Oregonian correspondent
says, at seems that Thurston should
have about nine (?) instead of five
when compared with King county's
delegates" Could anything be more
absurd when you consider that Thurs
ton east but 1873 republican votes
against Kings SIS?
How said correspondent will recon-
ellie the head lines of his article, Ger
rymandering in the interest of the de-
functio Governor of w. IT, and his
complaint that Thurston (the home
and headquarters of the GOVERNOR has
been defrauded, "bull-dosed' might
say, out of her just representation, |
am at loss to know. Is not the effort
to connect Gov. Ferry with this APP
portionment a silly failure?
The unknown complains that Co.
lumbia county has not been fairly
treated as compared with King. Look
at the vote: King casts for Brents
SIS votes and gets 10 delegates, Co.
lumbia casts So and gets 7-where is
the injustice? What had been the rel
alive gain, if any, of Columbia over
King in republican votes since the last
election the committee had no means
of knowing.
The Oregonian correspondent con-
cludes the subject by saying: "If
Spokan county had been assigned rep
resentation, which she was entitled
to, nothing would have been said re-
garding the Others The course pur-
sued by the committee relative to Spo-
kan new county carved out of Ste
vens) was the only one, in my opinion,
it could consistently have adopted.
The committee was furnished with no
statistics of republican votes, or other
wise, included within the boundar-
les of Spokan county upon which to
base intelligent action. They could
not intelligently do otherwise than
to represent Spokan i'll the conven-
ton by delegate at large, which was
done.
Eastern Washington suffered no in
| justice through the apportionment to
Spokan. Spokan's gain would have
been Stevens loss, vice versa. If
Stevens and Spokan cannot reconcile
the matter between themselves, let it
be referred to the convention when it
meets. Wahkiakum and Pacific are
similarly situated, the last legislature
| giving to the former several precincts
formerally belonging to the latter.
There being no official statistics in that
case either, nothing could be done.
| The convention should have an OPP
portunity of passing upon the Wahkia-
KUN and Pacific case also.
What those two muddles have to do
with "Gerrymandering in the interest
of the defunctio Governor of w. t."
or the clark horse' ! cannot imagine;
but if the aforesaid "dark horse" can
squeeze any consolation out of these
muddles he is welcome to it so far as !