Nevada County picayune., 1891-07-16
THE BATTLE GROUND.
Col. Asa Morgan So Denominates
 the Third District.
From the Camden Beacon.

Prom the Camden Beacon,
 It being known that by the act of the late Legislature that the Third Congressional District, so long the Democratic stronghold, among the five, was, by the new apportionmcnt and the creation of the Sixth District, unfairly treated, its former magniG- cent majority curtaiIed by Demo- crate counties being taken from it and those with Republican procliyi- ties added, and it also being known that many of the voters are unaware of the new condition, and it might be said, danger that will con front them at the next election, at the request of many friends through out the District ColoIel A $. Mor- gan, than whom no one is better posted on the facts in the case. con tributes the following able and eX- hanstive paper on the question and handles it with the grace of one per fectly conversant with the subject in hand. He says:
 A joint apportlonmcnt committee of the Senate and House of Represen- tatives of the last Legislature, after weeks of patient labor and thorough investigation of all the facts bearing on the Democratic, Republican and opposition vote in the State, arranged six Congressional Districts, and unanimously y reported a bill which SO distributed the counties as to make all six of the districts safely Demo- cratic. But this was set aside by an amendment in the Senate. which the House concurred in, thereby depriv- ing the Third of the Democratic vote to which we claim it was in fairness entitled and making it the closest district, and as consequence, the congressional battle ground of the State. To prove this. let the facts be submitted which show the relative voting strength of the Democratic, Republican and opposition partic, in the counties composing the now Third District since the apportion- ment in 1883.
 In the Presidential election Tn 1881, in the counties composing this dis trict as now arranged, the combined Republican and opposition majority over MT. Cleveland was D votes.
 In the Presidential election in 1888 the Democratic pluraliality over the Republican and opposition ticket was 75O votes.
 In 1886 Hughes majority over Gregg in these counties was 353 votes.
 In 1888 Eagle carried them over Norwood by l296 votes.
 Take Dunns vote in 1884 in Chi cot and Desha counties which were then in the First district. Add this to the vote of the other counties com posing the now Third, and Jones would have carried the district thus arranged, by the narrow margin of 34 votes.
 From this it will be seen the Dem cratic party had an opposition major lty against it in this district in the election of 1884, which it reversed and carried the district by a small majority in Presidential elec- tion in 1888. That it carried these counties by q smally majority in the GubernatOrial election in 1886. which was increased in 1888, and these Gu- bcrnatorial and Presidential elections are unquestionably the basis upon which in a spirit of fairness to the Democratic party of the district, the apportionmcnt should have been made.
 The committee so regarded it, unanimously reported q bill upon which it had spent weeks of labor and care, just to the Third and fair to the other five districts, but it was rejected by both the Senate and House, they seemingly determined to see how close they could run a district to the color line and call it white.
 Now, as the Third. starting with an adverse majority in 1884, and al- most even in 1886, had in 1890 made itself unquestion1bly safe, perhaps it is the district to which the test could be most safely applied. Nor do we wish 10 be understood as stating this in censorious or fault-fnding spirit. The Senate and House naturally, but unfortunately for the Third, took the Conyressional elections since 1SS6