The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-03-10
THE DEMOcRATIC DEVIL.

When the devil was sick, the devil a monk
would be. Democracy in is very different
from Democracy out. During the last past
campaign, as in every campaign from 1860 to
that of 1884, the air has been filled with Dem
ocratic professions of earnest desire for re-
form. 1t was to be reform for breakfast, for
dinner, and for supper, with reform luncheons
early and late, when Democracy came into
''her own" Democratic Governors had talked
like missionaries among the brethren, point
ing out a better way, and shifting their breasts
and bemoaning the general unrighteousness
of those in power. In his inaugural address,
delivered Jan. ID, 1873, Gov. Hendricks said
'I wish to call attention to representative
reform, which, during the last ten years, has
been advocated by some of the best minds,
both in Europe and in this country, and is
now undergoing the test of experience. l de-
sire to make this the more emphatic, because
in this State it seems yet to be regarded as
right and proper for the majority to deny to
the minority even that representation which
an apportionment based upon population and
contiguity of counties would give. Represent
alive reform rests upon the proposition hat
minorities OF constituencies should have a
representation as nearly. in proportion to num-
bers as as may be practicable. All the citi-
zens contribute to the burdens of government,
and should yield obedience to the laws, and it
is just, equal and fair that all should be repre-
sented."
The context shows that the great reform
err was not content with an ordinarily fair
apportionment, such as could be made by re-
tanning the political boundaries Of representa-
tive districts. His great, warm, honest Dem
ocratic heart bled in the presence Of the then
Republican Legislature and refused to be
comforted unless the minority had not only
a fair representation, but one exactly proper
toned to its relative size. If a certain county
polled fifteen thousand Republican votes and
ten thousand Democratic, then must the Re
publicans be awarded three representatives
and the Democrats two. In counties polling
a Democratic majority, the same rule must
obtain, the conditions being reversed. 1t was
a touching scene-this great, honest-hearted
patriot pleading for justice.
But political conditions have changed since
then. A Democratic Legislature soon gerry
wandered the State in q manner that shouM
have driven Mr.. Hendricks insane, though it
does not appear to have worried him in the
least. The minority-now Republican-was
obliged to get along as best it could. But the
noyo oorotio hor sooroa;o~ nth ~
and feeding at the public crib, has devel-
oped an appetite that demands more.
The beautiful theory of the rights
Of the minority has been relegated to the past,
and the practical Democratic trait of inherent
r~ascality is brought to the front. Not only
have the representative rights of the minority
been despised, but the Democratic plurality
has actually disfranchised a third of the legal
voters Of the State. Considering both
branches of the Legislature as a whole, the
Democratic plurality, with a most shameless
exhibition of partisan insincerity and dishon-
esty, has taken to itself no less than 10
members, equivalent to one for each 1919
Democratic voters in the State. To the re-
naming $50, 900 voters, not Democrats, they
allow forty members, or at the rate of one for
every $3.50 voters. A just apportionment,
made without regard to partisan ends, would
give to the Democratic party seventy-four
members and to the opposition seventy-six.
1t is evident, therefore, that the law passed
by this constituencies Democratic majority in
the Legislature, approved by the Governor, is
for the purpose of stealing thirty-six seats,
equivalent to DISTINGUISHING 1880 legal
voters in Indiana. If this isn't partisan
scoundrelisln, it would be interesting to have
some Democratic legislator defend it at
length.
IT should not be FORGOTTEN that whila tba