The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-11-19

its own dissolution" So no con-
stitution was ever formed with the
idea OF possible wrongs without remedy.
How can the Legislature" he asked. If
this law be sustained, ever reach amend
mentf How can q constitutional conven-
ton be called except through the Legis-
lature itselff If the Legislature cannot be
brought TO correct the wrong itself, when,
then, and how cen il DO induced TO order
the means taken for the correction of the
abusef"
Qnotlng the constitutional article relst-
ing to spportonments the Judge said. II
tho words. according to the number or
males over twenty-one years of age IN
each" were not restrictive. they meant
nothing At all. Senator Turpie. he said.
had talked eloquently and learnedly about
county Identity, but the idea was not IN
the Constitution. The words according
to the number of males" meant something
and were q limitation upon the method OF
epportionment
TURPIE's PET THEORY SMASHED.
The Senator had said the county iden.
tity must be regarded. If so, this could ,
lead to but one thing. the county must
have its representative. The counsel then
went into specific cases " here the principle
announced By Senator Turpie had not been
followed in the provisions of the law. He
commended that these instances were viola
TONS not only of the letter. but the spirit
OF the law. Taking the counties of Clinton.
Upton and Madison. he said Clinton had
1881 votes; Upton. 4. $3.50, and Madison. 1000
The unit of representation was $50. Tip
ton was given n separate Representative
with 1,1OO votes short OF the unit. bue
nevertheless 1t was included in q joint dis
trict with Madison and Clinton, in order
10 make these counties contiguous llp-
ton was already over-represented. Was
not the power of the county then exhaust
edf Bv what constitutional right was 10
" m n
Leave Upton out and none would be so
bold as to say this was constitu-
tIonal. In the district of Montgomery,
Putnam and Clay. Putnam was used TO
connect Montgomery and Clay and 10 rob
other counties of representation. This was
not the work of inadvertence and inno-
cence. 1t was done knowingly and wrong
fully for the perpetuatfon of the Democrat
ic control of the Legislature. Similar in
stances OF wrong ana disfranchisement
were exposed in the district composed of
YermillioD. Vigo and Sullivan and that OF
Ripley. Franklin and Union, and also Law.
renee, Dubois and Martin.
The advocate next discussed Senator
Turpie's contention that moieties are
not to be considered. He said this
controverted the whole idea Of the
Constitution. and wac uDrepublican, un-
democratic. The whole idea animating
the constitutional convention was equal
ity-to give every citizen the same power
in the franchise. But how did the sppor-
tionment of 1881 bear out this pur-
posef Nineteen counties having sep
arate representation had on average
number of voters of 4,277-1.S00 below the
che unit of representation. These elected
nineteen Democrats and nine Republicans.
Sixteen counties having separate repre-
sentation. elected fifteen Republicans ana
eight Democrats, but had an average num-
Der of votes of 6.s05-1.2g0 more than the
unit of representation. With these in
equalities patent and manifest. with ooun.
ties already over-represented used to
make other counties contiguous, and thus
nullify the suffrage power OF citizens.
could anyone say the Legislature had APP
portioned the State according TO the limi-
tatlon of the Constitution
MR.. WINTERS ARGUMENT.
Judge Forkner having concluded. Mr..
Ferd Winter took the floor with sixty-two
minutes of time to his credit The ques-
ton of jurisdiction, he said. he believed to
be settled by the authorities in law. In
proper case, he said, and between .he
proper persons there was no Law not re-
viewable by the courts. The same doctrine
had been settled by the courts in
other States. There was only one
case. and that was in the Virginia
was asserted. but this was opposed to the
otherwise uniform current of authority in
all the States. Mr.. Winter instanced Ohio,
Wisconsin, Michigan and In New York,
WucIc tuc COuIt uhu DO QucbtlUu VI UOtn It's
right and duty TO consider the question.
The rule az Co such laws did not differ from
the rule as to laws of other character.
Mr.. Winter then advanced the proposition
that the apportionment of the State was
not left TO the discretion of the Legislature.
but the Constitution laid down certain
fixed rules for guidance and limitation,
The opposing counsel, Mr.. Winter said, i'd
an express inhibition was violated. The
rule. he contended, held good where im-
Piled inhibitions wore violated. There
were four limitations in the Constitution.
he said, and as to two of these he contend
ed they had been violated by the law OF
1881. In the first place. the Constitution
directed that the Legislature should not
consist of more than fifty Senators and
the Legislature should so district
Senators and 10 Representatives, would
the gentlemen on the other side then con-
Secondly, the Constitution provided that
NO county should be divided for q sena-
torial district. Were a district divided by
the Legislature, would the act be held con-
stitutional and beyond the Jurisdiction Of
the courts! The third limitation was that
counties must be contiguous in the forma-
tiOn of senatorial and representative
Districts. Mr.. Winter insisted that
there wero three districts, which had
been already mentioned. in which there
were positive violations of the express IN
hibition. If the over-represented county
had been left out it would have been no
more unconstitutional. than to connect
nOn-contiguous counties. IL il were poper-
" maintained that counties could be made
contiguous in this way. it were well to
pause and consider to what this would
lead If maintained, what became of the
constitutional Imitation If this was
possible. the limitation was not worth the
paper upon which IL was printed. The
Legislature was not prohibited from doing
directly what il might do indirectly. The
counsel then showed how Vermillion aud
Sullivan counties might be- made so by
means of the Illinois county across the
line with as much show of constitutional
right as in the three cases of Harrison, Put
nam and Upton.
THE NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
The fourth limitation was then consid-
ered and when Mr.. Winters time had ex-
pired his argument had swept away every
ground of the opposition. He was aroused
to high point of eloouence. and was heard
with the profoundest attention both by
the court and those in the seats for specta-
tors. The limitation referred to was that
directing the apportionment among the
counties accoring 10 the number of males
in each. The gentlemen on the other
SIDE" said the speaker argue upon the
necessity of compromise. of CONNER
cIal rivalries. of local Jealousies.
These phrases appear in one of the
opinions in the Court of Appeals of
Naw Norir in this kind of n case and fhev