The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-12-24

passage of the Bill to take census OF
the inhabitants Of the State, and argues
the question as follows:
We will suppose, for the sake of argu-
ment that the Legislature will order a
census to be taken, and that this census
will be completed early next Spring.
What then7 The Constitution (Article
II, Section 4, provides that the "Repre-
sentatives shall be assigned to the differ.
eut Counties by Act of the General
Assembly at the session Immediately sue
ceeding every enumeration" 1t is con.
tended that the words "tLe session." in
the Constitution, mean the next regular
session, and that, therefore, if the census
be taken in the way proposed, the reap:
pointment cannot lawfully be effected
until the meeting of the Legislature next
winter. If this view is correct, the next
Legislature will be apportioned as the
present body is, and there can be no re-
apportionment that will take effect eari-
er than the general election of 1883. It
is the belief that the census, as basis of
reappointment, cannot DOW be made
effective for the general election next
year that induces some of the Senators to
oppose the census Bill. They are not
opposed to the census itself, but think it
unnecessary to take the census, at this
time, because it can not produce the
effect desired.
There is another view to consider.
Suppose. for the sake of argument, that
the Legislature shall provide for the
census and that it shall be taken, and the
Legislature, in extra session, shall reap.
portion the representation in accordance
with the new enumeration of the inhab.
itants of the State. Under that reap.
portionment, the general election will be
held next winter, aud under its provis-
ions the members elect of the Legisla.
ture will present themselves at the State
House at the appointed time. Who can
question their right to be there, or raise
against them any question as to the
constitutionality of the law under which
the representation was reapportioned,
and they themselves were elected? By
the Constitution of the State, the House
of Representatives "shall judge of the
election, returns and qualifications" of
its members, and there is no other tribu.
nal, so far as We know, that has any
jurisdiction in this matter. The mem.
bers elected certainly could not object to
the law under which they had been
elected, and the Counties which lost
representation would have no standing
before the Legislature, if they were dis.
posed to complain.
1t strikes US that there is room to
doubt both the law and the propriety of
the course which our contemporary sug-
gests. The Ne,os cnd Courier is arguing
for the census because it is a. constitu-
tional obligation resting on the members
of the Legislature, and yet it seems to
advise the Legislature to override the
Constitution in the mode of apportion.
ment because there will be no power that
can review their action. This same
reasoning would excuse them for not
taking the census, or would equally sus.
tain them in making new apportion:
ment without taking census. If the
Legislature were to reapportion the
members without taking the census, and
the election were held under such reap.
portionment, the next Legislature could
declare itself properly elected and go on.
This would be more economical aud no
more arbitrary. But we apprehend that
the election would not in either case be
permitted to come Oft under an unconsti.
tutional Act, for the Commissioners of
Election could, aud almost certainly
would, be enjoined from proceeding
under the new law, and compelled to
proceed under the old Act. The Courts
would not allow an unconstitutional
usurpation of power by the Legislature
if the matter we're brought before them.