The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-03-13
THOSE "GERRYMANDERS."

A downtown sheet fills two columns Of
its local page with an attemptto show some
Mormon gerrymanders and attempts
thereatn
The first sample is the apportionment
for legislative districts by the Legislature of
1880. 1t appears that with basis of 5,99S
for each representative there were ex
cesses and deficiencies, in one case reach
ing 2,262, as the census of 1880 afterwards
showed. But there is no sign of gerry
wandering in this apportionment. The
only thing done was TO unite contiguous
counties that were separately not large
enough to be entitled TO one member. In
no case was there any joining Of counties
in such way as to give an unfair advan-
tage to the party in power. Nor can
anyone point out an superintendent
that would have given the Liberal
party any additional members at that time.
And the same remark is true concerning
the council districts. The population re-,
Quired for one councillor was IL 1885, Salt
Lake county exhibits greater discrepancy
than any other. 1t was given two mem
bers and thus had an excess of S,005 in
county to two members. If another mem
Der had been given, there would have been
a deficiency of nearly four thousand, and
the Peoples party of this county would
have elected one more member to the
council. The wonder is rather that the
legislature came so near in their estimates
Of the population, ten years from the time
the only available census, that of 1870, was
taken; for the census of 1850 had not been
taken when the legislature for that year
was in session.
The next sample of Mormon gerry
monders" is the apportionment bill of
1856, which was vetoed by Governor
MURRAY, and hence did not become law.
In this apportionment the excess or de-
ficiency in each case was very small, 1882
being the greatest. But the Liberal organ
complains that .'by this apportionmentP Park
City was taken from the other precincts of
Summit county excepting Camas and was
tied on to Wasatch and Uintah counties.
The Mormon vote in these counties was
sufficient to have showed under the
Gentle vote of Park City"
This is direct statement. Let US de-
termine its truth or falsity. The vote of
Summit county IN 1856 for FERRY (LiberaD
was GA, of which Park City cast fully Co.,
(The vote of Park City in 1889 was S1S).
The vote of Wasatch county in 1886 was
3O4 for GAME and 5 for FERRY
That of Uintah county was 90 for
GAME and 2 for FERRY. The total vote
of Camas in 1889 was 90, and was of course
less in 1856. This sample of Norm on
gerrymanders'' would thus have insured
the election Of non-Mormon from that
district by safe majority of about 200 as
against the former precarious majority of
%. BY no possible circumstance could
Park City have been prevented from elect
ing its member If this Mormon gerryman-
der' had prevailed.
Another charge is that 'tSevier and
Emery counties were joined together in
one district, though separated by noun
tain range These counties adjoin each
other, and together had large enough pop
ulation to entitle them to one member.
What more natural district could have
been created out of them?
The third charge is that bingham and
Tintic were placed in districts where the
Gentle strength could never be made
available" Like the other two charges,
this one is simply untrue. These two
towns could not have been placed in any
natural district so as to make the 'Gentile
strength more available.
These are the charges Of mormon ger
rymanders." They fall fiat, being unsup-
ported by facts. There was no ''gerryman
dering' that we know of by any Utah leg
islature. The Utah commission .gerry-
wandered" the territory, however, in e
most remarkable manner. Of this we shall
soon have something to say.