The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-12-02
Representation by Population.

Hon. e. p. Walton, in reply to some sug-
gestions in this paper, argues in the Watch
man that the several towns in this state
stand to the state precisely as the several
states do to the United States, and that to
permit one town to have more representa-
tives in the legislature than another is to
destroy the political equality of the towns
Without combating at the present time these
premises, we venture to suggest that analo-
gies of this kind may be run into the
ground. The logic of this argument is such
that If the time should come when the town
of st. George has become reduced to a single
voter, and Burlington has become city of
10000 inhabitants, it would compel the city
to be content with a single representative
while the st. George voter would be al
lowed to elect himself to the legislature
throughout his lifetime. If it is political
equality" for one town to have represen-
tative for one voter, while the next town has
but one for ten thousand voters, then little
political inequality might be preferable.
But there seems to be small call at present
for public debate of this question. 1t will
be some five years before proposals OF
amendment to the constitution can be made.
When that time approaches, discussion Of
this and kindred matters will be timely and
the Free Press will not shrink from such
Observation-Disclosures Free Press.
So long as st. George is a town, no
matter whether its inhabitants are many
or few, it will be entitled to one repre-
sentative, and Burlington will be en-
titled to no more. This is fundamen-
tai principle of our state government,
as well as of the national government,
and in both it is a guaranty for the
safety of the weak against the strong.
In the contingency suggested by the
Free Press, there is a remedy without
violating this fundamental principle.
Before st. George is reduced to one in
habitant it will cease to be town, for
lack of material, and the few persons
in it will gladly welcome the privilege
of annexation to an adjoining town;
and this can be done without their con-
sent. That is no new thing in Ver-
mont. There is nothing in the Con-
stitution of Vermont that prevents a
town from being buried when it is
dead. Not so as to states in the Con-
stitution of the United States: no state
can be divided, or annexed to another,
without its consent. Nevada, Della
ware, Rhode Island, Vermont even,
may grow weaker and weaker, rela-
lively to the other states or absolutely,
| puI iO pOWcl Cdu plcNcuI tHcSc oldlcS,
so long as they exist, from having one
representative and two senators each
in congress. That is fundamental
principle of the federal Constitution.
Population is not supreme in either
national or state governments, and
should be. The tyranny of majority
is the most destructive and unrelenting
of all tyrannies.
If the discussion of this question is
premature, it will be remembered that
/ did not begin it on this occasion.
The Rutland Herald and Burlington
Free Press, the organs of the two
largest towns in Vermont, started the
topic and led me into the discussion.
l will admit, however, that uttered
note of warning to the small towns in
the constitutional convention of 1870.
That warning was not needed, and the
constitutional convention, in which the
toocns had the supremacy, was abolished.
That was an advance march against the
supremacy of the towns in the house of
representatives.. But all was not lost:
happily no change can be proposed
without the consent of the towns in
the house. | think the small towns
will take care that no further hostile
movements can be successful. Let
me remind the Free Press that am
walking humbly in the steps of Judge
Prentiss in this matter He was my
schoolmaster. E. p. W.