The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1890-07-03
CENSUS LEGISLATION.
A REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE
STATE SENATE.

10 the editor OF tho News and
Courier Capt Tillman has Oh sew
cral occasions seen fit ,tp denounco
those members of the State Senate
who voted against the census and
reapportionment bills. We havo
waited to see whether any one, other
than ourselves, would give thercasons
for such action. We are unwilling
longer to have such reasons unstated,
especially i'll view Of the recent at
tack on that upright soldier and
gentleman, Judge Izlar, whose po
sition necessarily forces him to keep
silence.
THE FACTS HIRE AS FOLLOWS.
The General Statutes of the State
contained and now contain the gen
cral provisions for taking the census.
About two OF three days before the
close of the session of 1884 a bill
came over from tho House to the
Senate, amending i'll certain particu-
lars tho general law, on the subject
of tho ccnsus--principally as to the
rate per capita to bo paid and in
other minor points. While, however,
is left the duty on tho Governor of
having an enumeration made, neither
this bill nor TIE general law appro-
priatedany money to enable him to
have tho work done. The bill, there
complete, upd would have effectedno
result.
On inquiry it was, ascertained that
the probable expense of n State cen
sus would amount to some $5O,OOO
or $60,009. This WAS the estimate
made by careful men, who were
supposed to be III position to
know.
The majority of the Senators, nearly
all of whose counties wero unaffected
by the result, did not feel justified in
putting upon the people this heavy
expense. And as the House, which
was the body whose membership was
i'll question, had not deemed it prop.
CT to take the responsibility of max
ing the appropriation necessary for
tho work, these Senators, acting on
the bill sent them by the House, re-
jected it.
The counties whose representation
would be affected by the census
were about equally divided. The
very largo majority of the Senators
were entirely disintcrestcd, rs it did
not aifect their counties in any way.
A majority of. these disintercsted
Senators voted against the bill, and
by their votes it was defeated.
In 1885 the amendment of the
Constitution was proposed allowing
rcapportionmcnt on the basis of tho
United States census of 1890 and
thereafter. This was adopted by the
vote of every Senator present except
one, Mr. Reynolds, Of Beaufort. 1t
was proposed and passed rs n fulfil
mcnt of the requirement Of the Con-
stitution providing for reapportion-
ment, but as saving the taxpayers of
the State the heavy expenses of tax
ing the census by the State.
At the Same session, 1885, the
House again sent over bill for tax
ing the census by the State authori-
to tho Constitution had been passed
providing tho other method for re-
apportiOnment, as u measure of
economy to the State, the Senate
did not feel called on to pass this
bill.
There was another serious objec-
ton, to wit: Whether an extra ses-
sion of tho Legislature could legally
be called to reapportion in time for
the election in the fall of 1886 This
had due consideration. But that
which determined tho matter was that
another method of rcapportionment
had been provided, by which the
taxpayers were saved some S50,OOO or
100000.
Tho matter then came before the
people of the State at the general
election in 1886, when this amend
ment was submitted for their dccis
ion. 1t was adopted by an over
whclming popular vote. The people
Of tho State thereby ratified and ap
proved the action of tho Legislature
i'll substituting this means of reap
portionment, and saving them the
heavy tax and expense Of taking the
census by the State. And the pco-
pie themselves having thus acted
on the question, it was settled fin
ally.
During tho session of 1886 the bill
to ratify this constitutional amend
ment came before the Senate. It was
passed. by the vote Of every Senator
except one.
In 1887 and again in 1888 billswero
INTRODUCED into the Senate to reap
portion on the basis of the census of
1880. These were opposed as not
being within the scope of the amend
lnent, which provided that the first
rcapportionment should be made un-
der tho census of 1890. There were
also practical difficulties, as for in
stance with Charleston county, which
had been divided since that census
into Charleston and Berkeley. This
prevented any accurate or proper re-
npportionment on the basis of tbe
census of 1880. The Senate, there.
fore, by decided majority, rejected
the bills.
This is n simple statement of the
case. Who do not propose to in
dulge III incorporate language or to
hn drawn into