Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1881-04-28
The Judicial Apportionment.

10 De CONSIDERABLY troubled In mind
about the judicial apportionment bill
reported some days ago by the Senate
Committee for the action of the legis-
lature. That this is the case is very
evident from the tenor of an editorial
article which appeared in the columns
of that journal last week. From the
article to which wc refer we make the
following extract:
The new judicial apportionment
bill, as reported by the Senate Commit.
tee, Is not such an one as will meet the
approval of the people or deserve com.
mendaiion We take for
instance the counties running through
the centre of the State, beginning with
Potter on the north aud including Elk,
Cameron, Clinton, Centre. Union, Sny.
der, Mi'iiln, Huntingdon, Juniaia,
Perry aud Dauphn. These are made
into five districts with six judges"
The editor, himself once member
of the legislature with large expert.
ence in the manipulation Of things,
admits the difficulties that legislators
have to contend with in making
fair appointments, but at the same
time charges that ANY one can see
that no effort to do justice to the tax.
payers has been made in apportioning
the counties referred to-" The astutc
editor would have made an entirely
iiierent arrangement OF the counties.
See how nicely he would have done it.
Let Centre and Huntingdon be made
district, aud MifFlin which is now
proposed to be joined to Centre, be put
with Union, Snyder and Juniata in
Judge Buchcr's district; attach Perry
to Dauphin aud let Pearson and Jun
kin do the business of these Courts.
This would save an additional law
judge in Dauphin and the consequent
expense Of 5000 year to the people
of the State"
We quote thus largely from the
Udichman in order to show more clear
ly the iailacy of the writer's reasoning.
his lack of knowledge of the subject
about which he writes, or his evident
purpose to be a mere fault.fnder. We
find upon the apportionment commit
tee of the Senate the names of such
able, influential, just aud reputable
Democratic Senators as Alexander,
Hall, ,Wolverton, Schnatterly, Cochran
and Beidclman. and we deem it n cru.
el, gratuitous and an unwarrantable
assumption for n Democratic newspa.
per to assert that Democratic leaders
like the gentlemen named would act in
their representative capacity upon any
public question with "no effort to do
justice to the taxpayers" of the State.
In order to show the power of the
legislature over this subject let us see
what the requirements of the Cons:i.
tuition are. We quote from Sec. 5, of
Art. >, which reads as follows:
Whenever a county shall contain
forty thousand inhabitants IL shall con.
stitute separate judicial district, and
shall elect one judge learned in the law
and the General Assembly shall pro.
vide for additional judges, as the busi.
ness of the said districts may require.
Counties containing "a population less
than is sufficient TO constitute separate
districts shall be formed into convenient
single districts. or, II necessary, may be
attached TO contiguous districts as the
General Assembly may provide. The
Office of associate judge, not learned in
the law, Is abolished in counties form.
ing separate districts"
The first proposition contained in
this section of the Constitution is that
counties containing forty thousand in
habitants shall constitute separate judi
cial districts. This provision of the
fundamental law Of the State is man.
datory; from it there is no escape,
and it must be believed that in the pro.
posed apportionment the mandate has
been scrupulously followed. The sec
ond proposition is that counties contain
ing less than forty thousand inhabi-
tants shall be formed into convenient
single districts and this has been done
by the committee, as we understand.
without the increase Of single judge
in any of the counties containing less
than forty thousand inhabitants, and
it is only fair to presume that the