The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-05-10
The Fifth Congressional District
Both Sides.
HON. o. R. srSaLErox's LETTER.

HON. o. r. sINGLEToS's LETTER.
= To the Voters of the Fifth Congressional D;s
triet Of the State OF Mississippi
FELLOW-CITIZENs You have not failed
ID to notice in the late act of the Legislature
: OF Mississippi providing for new Congress
:. sional Districts, a plan of reorganization
r under which You were to be separated from
Il your present Representative in Congress
d In this address my object viii be not to
If show that the Legislature, in passing this
:, bill, was aetuated by corrupt or improper
! motives, but that it was passed without due
i consideration, or proper analysis OF its
\ features, having been gotten up aud pushed
t through the Legislature not in the public
j: welfare, but for other purposes, Of which
4 you can judge as well rs myself | think
this conelusioni is clearly deducible from the
circumstances, facts and figures which |
will proceed 10 lay before you.
/ If the change III your district, By which
r Madison county was cut off from her old as
sociates, was at all necessary, It must have
: arisen from one of three causes, namely:
either to secure contiguous territory, or to
equalize the inhabitants of the several dis
tricts, or to subserve party interests. If
upon a careful examination OF these points
it shall appear thar the friends of this dis
!
any OF all OF these considerations, then We
must look elsewhere for the motives whiah
prompted the act.
First, then, IS to the territorial necessity
for the change.
A glance al the map of the district shows
that neither its contiguity, compactness, nor
symmetry was improved by leaving out
Madison county; but, on the contrary, by
its removal Yaz1o aud Holmes counties
were entirely cut off from the remaining
counties; ana to bring them together again |
and secure right of way around Madison |
| from the counties east to the counties west, /
AttaIa county was detached from her old /
| district and placed in the Fifth.
| By this move the contiguty of territory |
was restored; but who that can trace the !
! lines of 4 map will not say that this terrific /
| rial connection could have been more prop
| erly maintained by leaving Madison in the
| district, which is actually nearer its center
| than four of the other counties composing
it?
No sensible man can for moment believe
that this change was necessary TO meet the
requirements of the law as to contiguous
territory, or that it was done to give better
form to the district It's trainers and man .
ipulator5 dare not offer these as an excuse
for the act. A glance at the map would
confound and put them to shame
In hesecond place, let US see if the change )
was necessary to equalize the population of
the several districts.
This aspect Of the case much more nearly
concerns your interest than the mere ques-
tion whether you will continue your pres
ent representative in Congress or choose
another.
Section 30 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, as well as the late act Of Con- )
gress giving us an additional member, re- =
quire that Congressman shall be elected by | :
districts composed of contiguous territory, ;,
and containing as nearly as practicable an "
equal number of inhabitants" -
Why this requirement Of law? Obvious =
ly for the reason that a like number of peo- y
pie in one district should have the same q
voice in Congress as like number in an =
other. Equality of rights is the great cor .
ner-stOne olour government, and any viola :
ton Of this principle strikes at the very ~
foundation ofour institutions =,
Keeping in view, then, the law on the :,
subject, and this great fundamental princi- -
pie of government, let us see how far the
friends of this,district bill have respected -
the one or the other. "
Take, for instance, your new Fifth dis -
triCt, aud the late census shows that it con- ''
tains 1872, ,642 inhabitants, while the Sixth
district adjoining it one side has only l25,- ~
$50, a difference of G6,7S2, or nearly one "
.hird less and the Third district on another ~
side, and adjoining, has only a population O..
If I29. .9lO, a difference of 62,732 Under III
his bill then, two persons in the smaller 81
districts, the Third and Sixth, have the -
ame voice in Congress as three persons III pr
he Fifth, your district. ~
Why this inequality? Are they better 20 20
citizens or more cheerful taxpayers than u
bt, |
Dfared why one out OF every three citizens a.. a.
II two districts should be virtually disfran- u
hised Is it fair or just that your repre-
entatiVe, with 1872, ,642 people at his back, :"
hould only have the same voice in Congress sIo
5 the men who represent only 125,S60 peo- '1'
lie in one district, and 129,9l0,in another? VI
The law of Congress says not. The spirit of w. ~
our institutions forbids it, Justice scouts LIZ
he idea. Yet the friends and manipulators 10
f this bill say yes. ~, 'I
Felow-citizens, are YOU willing to ac- cII
this implied inferiorty by in ., u.
orsing the provisions of this bill? From wy
az knowledge Of your high sense Of justice gre
nd love Of fair play, l believe you will Il ~.
nswer as with the voice Of q trumpet, No !. I"'
thousand times, No t''
But the Fifth is not the only district i'l
'hich has been grieyously wronged i'll this -.''
aspect. W
The late census shows that the Fourth col
istrict has a population of I95, 743, making %
O e. - ,r -, ti'irJ d;frroo the
y looking little further into figures It ~
ill be found that the Fourth and Fifth 'lI
istricts only lack 6 sos Of having as many Pg3!
eope in them as three Others, namely, | ..,n
le First Third, and Sixth, and that the va
Ourth, Fifth, and Seventh, three in num- y"
er, have more people in them by 4,045 than ltt me
re to be found in the other four districts, ~
IT,, the First, Second, Third, and Sixth. ma "a
Now, my fellow-citzens, with these u
CURES before you, appeal to your candid 20 20
idgment to say whether the friends Of this osi
i'll had any regard to the law Of Congress "lt'
the claims Of justice in framing the dis % %1i
lets? Indeed, have they not grossly and i'H
lexcusably violated both? They have vir- POI
Ially disfranchsed one-third of the people
two districts, and yet they are called ;;ii!
pom regularly to pay their taxes. Ius
Our fathers went to war with England ioi
ecause they were taxed without being al las
wed representation in the British PaTlia- ~; ~;
ent, and when they had achieved their in wa
spendence they carried the principle for "i'
hich they had fought into the Constitution OsiI
the United States, and there expressly - !
divided that Representatives and direct CoU
.xes shall be apportiOned among the sever On
Otdtes aCCOIuIl5 W lHtIE Iesp1Cblh6 HuH- /.
srs." If this principle was deemed by our ~ ~
thers to be sound one and worth fight 07
g for, why ignore it SO entirely in forming
congressional districts, and that, too, in the
cry face of the law of Congress enacted to
TRY out this principle?
But you ask, could this great inequality DC
ave been avoided A? I answer unhesitating- OF
i, Yes. While Congressional districts
ever have been, and probably never can be, 7
ade exactly equal as to population, be- ton
luse they are made up of counties, yet ann
-ery sensible man knows that there need his
n have heen more than few tbouzaud o.,