Daily Republican., 1882-10-21
SATURDAY. OCTOBER al Issa.
Cannrl1uttonal Refornn.

ConsUltHt1Onal Reform.
1t is true that both parties in Della
ware profess to be in favor of Constitu-
tional reform, and propose to effect
it by amending the Constitution, but
what, we ask, can be expected of par
ty that has been in possession of t. e
State for thirty years and has made o
effort whatever to amend the Consti ~
tion, and only now favor it beca use
the Republican party is pushing g.
prous campaign in favor Of 1t?
The present Constitution has been r
force tor fitty.one years and has under
gone no change whatever SO far as State
Legislation could effect any. The only
change was adopted by Natioual legis
lAtion conterriDg franchise upon col
ored citizens, and was made imperative
upon all the States, whenever three
fourths voted in favor Of it. This
change was made in the face Of indig-
nant protests from the Democracy OF
tho State. An effort was made to
change the Constitution in 1851, just
twenty ears after the adoption o. the
present Constitution. In that year the
Legislature passed an act providing fol
q vote to be taken on the first Tuesday
of November, whether a Convention
should be called or not. That being
the year for general election, wher
the people attended the election th'
vote showed a Bjority for aConventior
and in three months afterwards an &C
was passed providing for an election o
delegates in November, these delegates
to meet at Dover in December. Th'
Convention met and adjourned unit
March 1853 and sat continuously unit
it had formulated constitution to g
before the people. This Constitution
was submitted to vote on the secont
Tuesday of October, 1858, and was de
feated. The State then passed into tn
hands of the Democrats, where 1t ha
practically remained ever since and N
further efforts have been made to amenC
the constitution by that party. thougl
the inequalities that existed were grow
ing larger and more burthensome ever.
year.
The same question that agitated th
people OF The State, is the one that agi
tates them now-:hough unequal repre-
sentation is hea vler burthen now thaI
at that time. The preceding Constitu
tion to 1881 was adopted i'll 1891, haV
ing been in force 40 years; when it wa
adopted the population of the thre
cou mites in the State was about equa
Kent having pOpuiation of 1894
New Castle 1866 and Sussex, 20, 4SS
Owing to this equality Of populatio
our forefathers can not be blam ed fC
providing equal representation for eac
county. What more could have bee
expected of trem? At that time tt
town of Lewes bid as fair to become IL
metropolis of the state as did Wilmin
ton. When the Constitutional Conve
ton of 1881 met the relative position
of the counties in regard to populate
had changed. Kent then had %, 81
Sussex, q, 1856 and New Castle 42,76
A vigorous effort was made for an 1
crease of representation for New Cast
County, but the Convention being u
der the control of Mr.. Clayton, continue
the old system Of County representatlt
by equal NUMBER three Senators al
seven representatives for each. Ho
James A. Bayard, father of tue prese
U. s. Senator, was a member OF t.
Convention and contended with all Il
intellectual force he possessed for rel
TeSentation according to population al
when it was defeated in the Conventit
he withdrew as q member, and VIII
1he new Constitution was put b0fo
the people to be accepted or rejected,
entered into a vigorous campaiI
against 1.-THE son ably seconding t
efforts OF his father and through thu
efforts and the efforts of others the Co
stitution was defeated. Every deca
since has shown still greater inequa
ty, until by the census of 1880, Kent
shown to have population of 1873
Sussex, 36,O1s and New Castle, 77,7
the latter having 1924 more than bt
the other two combined. Yet the n
resentation is the same, 6S,S92 Peo
electing twenty members OF the Lag
laturs and 77,716 electing ten membe