New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-03-09

cratic State ticket elected that Judge Morris,
even if he did not have an actual majority, had
plurality, and ought to be inaugurated that
the constitutional provision requiring majority
TO elect is Ubiquitous and wrong, and that the
rotten borough system of representation is the
political scandal OF the nineteenth century. They
have discussed the whole question with much
earnestneSS AMI at great length. There is tingc
of sadness In the latest uttcrances of The Boston
Herald the subject as if it were getting
to be really doubtful whether the other States
would tolerate Connecticut in the Union much
longer unless she changed her Constitution and
showed disposition to act more in harmony with
the rest. The present Constitution. it gloomily
remarks, is framed in it's election provisions so
as TO be in practical effect most of the time an
obstacle to the expression of the popular will in
government. The American theory of government
is that the will of the people shall rule. 1t is a
serious question in itself how long State which
has so framed her constitutional laws that a
minority, and not a majority. of the people shall
habitually have the power in her government
can continue thus to be in the Nation, and yet not
of IL in this most essential-indeed, this vital
feature of it's existence"
From this it goes on to say that it is serious
question how long this down-troddcn majority
will submit to such a state of things and that
the State is playing with fire in dangerous
manner"
This MEANS of course. that the people who
voted for Judge MOrris-not yet aSccrtained TO be
a majority; the Republican contention is for
an investigation and settlement of that ques-
tion-will presently rise and upset something. if
the Republicans do not concedc all that they
claim. Now really is that worth while? 1t
may be contrary to the spirit Of our INSTITUTIONS
to require a majority of all the votes cast to
elect Governor. and ii may be great wrong
that in default of an election by majority
vote Legislature chosen under the rotten
borough system" should elect candidate who
received less than a plurality. But as these
provisions happen to be in the organic act and
the fundamental principles involved in them have
been recognized and acted upon for over $50
years. it might be we'll not to act hastily In up
setting them. The whole question turns upon
what is denounced as the rotten borough syS-
tenn" It was with deliberate purpose that the
authors of the original ConstitutiOn-thc Oldest
in the Union and the model upon which thc
Federal system and all our commonwealth organ
izations formed-made the town the unit
and basis of representation IN the Lower House
of the General Assembly In Connecticut the
towns were little republics" controlling their
own affairs They sent delegates TO the LeSls-
latule to represent, not certain NUMBER Oh
voters, but the corporation, the town 30 the
towns hold the same relation to the lower Dranch
of the State Legislature that the States hold 10
the United States Senate in Congress. In the
latter case we have become accustomed 10 seeing
Rhode Island equal in voting power to New
York. and Delaware TO Pennsylvania. In Con-
nectcut the Senate is based on population, ana Is
accordingly the popular branch. Perhaps Ii Is
fhat afng
fusion in some minds.
The theory of the Constitution thus being that
the State Government sprang from the towns. in
stead of the towns being creatures OF the STATE,
was it unnatural to provide, in the event Of no
person receiving a majority of the popular vote
for Governor, that the towns should resume
control OF the matter and through their repre-
sentatives in the Legislature make choice Tor
themselves? In n word, Connecticut is a com
monwealth of towns rather than OF INDIVIDUALS
The absurdity of requiring majority vote 10
elect has been dwelt upon. Sui peneFe thc
persons who complain most loudly OF thS pro
vision continue TO require not only majority puC
a two-tbirds majority, for the nomination Oh IL
candidate for President in their national CON
ventions Besides. if the requirement Is so OUT
raseous and absurd, why have they not maze
an effort to repeal it when they have pcch i'll
power in the State, as they were from 1910 u
1879? The truth is that the majority require
ment and the system Of representation are, Ill
the popular belief, if not in actual lact' so
intimately connected that one cannot tie changed
without the other and as for changing the sys-
TEN of representation the towns Will not con-
sent to it, and neither party darcs propose H.
As to the present muddlc 1t seems to me the
most interesting feature Of 1t is the probability
that Connecticut will have 10 get along I'll ls9=
without further legislation. There Will be 1our
wears free from legislative puttering ana TINKER
| inc. II will be a mighty fine object lesson. Ana
| if she stands it, as doubt she Will, VINO KNOWS
| but that il will lead some time 10 quadieh'li'l
! sessions of Congress- and what boon that would
l., l. ii. i.