The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-12-12
MR.. KETCHAMrs FIGURES.
He Shows the Great Unfairness Of tn
Act of 1893.

Act Of 1893.
Mr.. Ketcham was glad, he said, to find
his esteemed opponent the ex-Attorney-
general, had been able to find anything
good in the writings of so eminent an au-
thority as the late Governor Morton, and
much as he regretted this controversy had
arisen, he was glad that much good had
been accomplished, at least. He reviewed
the case. giving history of the proceed
ings up to the time he was requested to
appear before the court and help it to a
solution Of the questions involved. Mr..
Ketcham had no personal interest in the
case. he said, and was not there as the
representative of any person, but as the
representative of the Commonwealth. He
said the question arose upon the con-
struction of the Constitution. He reviewed
part of the ground covered by Mr.. Bynum.
but confined himself more particularly to a
discussion of the rank injustices and in
CAPABILITIES of the act of 1893, which appellee
asks to have restored.
''If the court" he said, SHOULD be of the
opinion that the Constitution, in terms or
by implication. forbids the making of new
apportionment within the discretion of the
Assembly exert at the sextennial period.
then the court must decide whether the act
of 1893 is within the requirements of the
Constitution. for unless 1t is. 1t was not
only the right but the duty OF the Fifty
ninth General Assembly to pass an appor-
tionment act. An unconstitutional law is
no law; 1t is void-mere waste paper"
He said he recognized the difficulties pre-
sented by the record: First, the unwilling-
ness of courts to adjudge the act or CO.
ordinate body as unconstitutional. But
necessity OF upholding the act of 1885 or
setting it aside because the. act OF 1879 Is
constitutional II recognize" he said That
while there were Objectionable apportion>
ments before the act Of 1891, no applica-
ton had ever been made to the courts Tor
relief until the case Of Parker was pre-
sented." If the court should hold that the
Legislature is restricted in making appor-
tionment laws to the sextennial period.
then he thought there would remain for
it's consideration the question, Was the act
Of 1893 constitutional? DID II comply win
this question:" he said, ct am well aware
that the game Of politics is game of war;
but 1 insist that the war shall not be
fought with poisoned arrows. / 90 insist
that the standard shall be that OF the
Golden Rule or the Sermon on the Mount;
neither am prepared to Sonceoe IL snouid
tionment according to the number OF male
Inhabitants above twenty-one years of age
is not made by giving to each OF twenty
of less than the unit, ranging
from 3.7A to 1884, separate rep
resentatiye and denying one to Jay
with an enumeration or o,olo, Slo IN excess
when 1t is found that after being accorded
separate representative, six OF them, Wild I'D
enumerations of 1885, 1851. 1913, 4:Ss7, SZSI
and 5.493. respectively, are tied to other
comnties with the result of throttling an adj
verse majority. constitutional apportlon-
ment is not made by taking the auaori a
Orange and binding then, together SO ina.
Dubois shall dominats EbAth Lawrence and
Orange and return two representatives
when ii has not enough Inhabitants to equal
the unit by 1179 nor Is II attained by CIV
ing to twenty counties with an enumeration
of 50, 592 twenty-one representatives, pesloes
double representation, and giving TO twenty
counties with an enumeration OF l25.324 but
nineteen representatives. In the first case
the counties were only entitled TO seventeen
titled to twenty-three. There is an instance
of forty-three counties winch nave only an
enumeration of 22l.339. but they are given
the right to elect mfty1ms reRrse noanties
with an enumeration OF S2g66l elect put
forty-nine. If this be honesty, commend me
to tH Wsen f ba Ss # in and
shame The Constitution provides that
counties for the purpose s, of ap.
portionmenr into districts nnn,v sh ia n oe
contiguous with Madison, but Upton. al
ready represented, is used to constitute ar
tificial contiguity between them; Union
county is not contiguous with Ripley but
Franklin serves the same purpose with Kip
lev, already over-represented. Jay, already
disfranchised is Knocked by putting IL into a
district with Adams and blackboard to swell
their representation. This court, in the
parker case, has said what constitutes con-
tiguity with clearness and precision and
held that such pretended contiguity was
unconstitutional"
Continuing along this line. Mr.. Ketcham
showed how Marion county might be linked
with other counties to the north or south
nd depriVad SeDd-
rate representation by being compelled TO
submit to unnatural majorities created by
an unlawful combination. He showed the
relative degree of fairness that existed as
between the acts of 1893 and 1895. and gave
figures to prove that under the act of 1895
the party electing State officers since about
1880 would under 1t have corresponding
majority in the General Assembly.