New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-10-18
MILLS FAULTY LOGIC.

To the Editor OF The Tribune
Sir I, anpcars from the public press that Senator
U,l dcvo,es a good part OF his speeches this year
10 n discussion o, the proposed Constitutional
amendment known as the "Apportionment Article
The principal point made by him Is that uhaer
,h,s rronoscd amendment the Democratic party
might carry the state by n majority or V'V" OF
ovcn II 90 and yet not elect majority o' t"'
ncn,bers OF the Legislature This Is very SUPER
na,oI and curious argument. Does not Senator I'M
know that the majority by which poltlcaI party
carries the state may have little or nothing /" 40
,,h tho eIection OF members OF the Legislatures
7, IL true that under the present or the propoSeu
apnortionment either OF the great pohtlca' parties
may carry the State by majority o' "'"0 VI
100 OO and yet the other party may eject " III"
,or,,v q, the members Of the Legislature. N"'
can this be prevented by any reasonable apporton-
ment which It is possible To make Whatever -
,r,o I'm this respect regarding the proposed APP
portonment is also true of the existing one "''O"
was made under the special direction Oh N'''''"
Hill II requires but a moments reHec''"' W nv
that this is true. Take. for instance the nine
senate districts in the city OF Ne~-York. AS they
o,. .x,st II the Democratic majoritics In these
,,s,rcts arc sufficient to ovorbalancc that or the
DcnubIican districts outside OF the city. assumihs
for instance that the Republicans shouli carr
every district In the state outsl'e OF the '''5 ="
New-York then the Democratic party wou" nave
q majority in the state and yet the Republicans
would have more than two-thirds or the senators
Tho election OF Senator's and members OF AS
son,bIv DEFENDS upon the distribution OF IN" NocS
NJ the respective parties. Take as an Illustration
tho With Senate District In the city OF Ne"> orN
no fixed under Mr.. INNS management In lS'-. IN
the election of 1873 there was Democratic ma
ioritv in this district Of 2l.Oil. Now. suppose "A
norton OF this immense vote had been distributed
among some OF the Republican districts. rake
for instance the following, which gave Repuohcah
majoritics as follows: , So ,,,.,,, rt,
XVIII District 90. Nv TN us
2 rps: XXIVth District 2.s79. making tohl OF
lT6iS Thus IL will be seen that there can De taken
from the Democratic majority III one senate uiS-
trct enough votes change the result in SIX Ike
nubiican districts and yet leave 1885 Democratic
majority In that district The result OF this DIS
tributon OF the votes would be, II applied To tne
election OF 1898 that the Senate would stand twenty
DEMOCRATS and twelve Republicans; and. although
the Republicans had "A majority IN me state on
m. state ticket OF about 10000. yet, had the t1n-
Iority in n single Senate district been distributed
40 Indicated the Democratic party would have
been In a ajority ~ the Senate. This argument
ia olso applicable 10 the Assembly. 1t Is. however.
useless TO repeat 1t here. The above rs sufficient
To show that the argument made h senator nm
is Illogical and that the very argument when ne
uses can be applied with precisely the same force
10 the apportionment made under his dlctatlon
i'm 1870 IL will be seen, therefore. that there does
not necessarily exist any relation between the ma
humber OF candidates elected In prescribed DIS
tricts and, In fact. 1t would be most remarkable
coincidence Il any such relation appeared hS sen
ator HI claims should exist. ,..,,,,
Utica y. Y. oct. u. 1894