The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-11-18
Representation by Population.

W VP"f""sV"e
Hon e. p. Walton asks us, in an article
elsewhere quoted II we would have repre-
sentation in the United States senate based
on population. We would not We have
no desire to see the small states 90 to the
wall-and the small states exercise a whole
some influence over the larger ones. That
| the same principle is not needed in the COM
position Of state legislature, is evidenced
| by the experience of many states. If we
were to model our state legislature as the
national legislature, the way would be to
district the state by population for members
of the assembly, and give each county two
senators. We should not object to that ar
rangement. Our fathers started out by CIV
ing. the larger towns two representatives
and the smaller towns one. What was just
and right for seven years might well have
been continued indefinitely. The SUISSE
| quent compact" that each town should
have one representative, was not a perpetual
agreement that each should have only one.
If we were now to give each town a repre-
sentative and every one having more than
thousand voters representative for each
additional thousand, the compact would be
unbroken, for each inhabited town would
still have the right to choose one represent
alive. We do not expect to live to see the
time when each town in Vermont will not
have its representative. But when the
proper time comes we shall try to advance
some very good reasons, having relation
solely to the public good, why larger town
very small town.-Burling,on Free Press.
The Free Press opens admirably: it
would not have representation in the
United States senate based on popula-
ton, for the reason that it would not
have the small states 90 to the wall
This is one of the reasons that COM
PEELED the convention to award equal
representation TO each of the states in
the senate. The small states demandedit
for protection against the large states
demanded one legislative body in
which the states should have equal
power, while they conceded the co-or-
dinate legislative body to the large
states, in which population would have
the controlling power. 1t was COM
promise made in terms for all future
time, inasmuch as the Constitution in
terms provides " that no state, without
its consent, shall be deprived of it's
equal suffrage in the senate" The
main reason, however, for equal suf-
frage of the states in the senate is that
the several states were free and indie
pendent of each other, and equal in all
their rights and powers. The states
declared their independence and vindi-
Gated it; the states formed the conven-
ton which agreed upon the federal
Constitution, and in that body each
state had but one vote on every ques-
ton; the states adopted that Constitu-
ton, voting by states, and of course
each state having an equal voice. The
last article of the Constitution declares
that the ratification of the conven-
tions of nine states shall be sufficient
for the establishment of this Constitu-
ton bet,oeen the states so ratJying the
same" and that settles the question as
to the equality of the states in rights
and powers.
Now as to Vermont: the several
towns stood to the state precisely as the
several states did to the United States.
The towns declared the independence
of the district in which they were To-
Gated, and from that moment the towns
were, politically, free and Independent
of each other and in possession of equal
rights and powers. These towns formed
and adopted the Constitution and put
it in force, without asking the consent
of the people at large; and in that Con-
stitution fixed the right of representa-
ton in the legislature IN the tOlcns. My
answer to the suggestion to district
the state by population for the election
of representatives is that it blots out
the towns, politcally-the towns to
which we are indebted for the indie
pendence and Constitution of the state,
and which are to-day, as they were in
1777, little republics, equal in rights
and powers, and nurseries for freemen
and legislators.
To the other suggestion, that "the
subsequent compact that each town
should have one representative was
not a perpetual agreement that each
should have only one," l reply that the
facts that the large towns were assigned
two members for seven years, and that
"after that " the Constitution says each
town was to have zone representative
forever thereafter" seem to leave no
possible period of time for any town to
have more than one representative.
Such is the construction which has been
put upon that clause of the Constitution
for one hundred years, and not only
that, for the same rule has been OBJ
served in all the constitutional conven-
tons. To permit any town to have
more representatives than other towns
is to destroy the political equality of
the towns-thatfu fundamental fact, which
is as certain as is the equality of the
several states of the Union.
The large towns have the predom-
nance in men of talents, political infiu-
ence and wealth, and are in no danger
from the small towns. 1t cannot be
said that the small towns and states are
in no danger from the predominance of
the large. The Free Press comedies
this as to the states; think it should
as to the towns also. +. Z. W.