The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-31

quirement is quite as binding as the
injunction that a district formed Of
two or more counties shall be COM
posed OF contiguous countless or that
no county, for senatorial apportionment,
shall ever be divided One mandate of the
Constitution must be respected as well
another, and, as Webster said, If the man.
date cannot be absolutely obeyed. ii should
be observed at least nearly as may be.
The nearest approximation to exact truth
or exact right, when that exact truth or ex-
act right cannot be reached, prevails in
otner cases, not as matter OF discretion.
but as an Ineligible and definite rule, die
tated by justice and conforming to the COM
mon sense of mankind
While it is true, therefore, as already
said, That the Legislature has, and In the
nature OF things must have. large discretion
in making an apportionment, yet. as held in
Parker vs. State, supra, it cannot be sue
cessfully maintained that the incumbents of
any department of the government have a
discretion TO disregard the Constitution of
the State. 1t is safe to say that
partments is in violation of the Constitu-
ton of the State such act is not within the
discretion conf1ded to that department.
Considering, then, the act of 1895 in the light
OF these principles, the main objection urged
against 1T is what are called the double
districts-that is, the grouping of two or
a voting population equal to the ratio for
Senator or Representative, and giving
TO the district so formed more than one
Senator or Representative. The court will
take notice of a census or other enumera-
ton made under the authority of the State
or of the United States; also of the location,
boundaries and Juxtaposition of the several
counties of the State. State VS.. Cunning
ham, supra.)
by the act of 1895 the counties of Ran
dolph, Delaware and Madison are grouped
into one district, which is given two Sem
ators. BY the enumeration of 1889, under
which the apportionment OF 1888 was made,
male inhabitants over the age of twenty
one years; in Delaware, 7,13S, and In Mad
ison. SOLO. The ratio, or average number
entitled to be represented by one Senator
in the General Assembly, was II, O20. None
of the counties in this double district, there
fore, had voting poulation equal to the
ratio, for a Senator, and yet each of them
was said in Parker vs.. State.
s y and in a peakn s of Bro cark soun
ty. in relation to the apportionment OF 1891.
each Of those counties having voting pop
When county of that size has been as
signed tic a senatorial district and given
voice in the election of one Senator, 1t.
ceases. in our opinion. to be a factor in
for senatorial purposes That, in the act
of 1895. the scheme of apportionment by
cured, differed from the scheme or plan
adopted In the act of 1891, can make no
difference. The, end attained is the same.
by two single districts. In either scheme
a county having less than the ratio en-
fitting it to be represented by one Senator
is nevertheless given voice in the elec-
ton of two Senators.
UNJUST DOUBLE REPRESENTATION.
Indeed. the scheme adopted in the act OF
1891 is the less Objectionable. In that ap-
portionment the counties OF Clark, Scott
and Jennings, meme of them having pop
ulation equal to the ratio, were joined in
one district and given a Senator. So the
counties of Clark and Jefferson, neither
with population equal to the ratio, We're
formed into another district and given a
Senator If the four counties were put into
one district and given two Senator's, as
they might have been according to the
scheme adopted in the act of 1895, the re-
suit could have been no more unjust than
it was, the four counties controlling the
election of two Senators by either plan.
of 1891 is the more nearly equitable tor
districts. instead of one double dis
district sl to eject Senator iO of eaE ts
choice, Notwithstanding the vote of the
common county thrown in to control each
thrown together the combination would be
sure to carry both Senator'S The plan of
the act of 1891. condemned as ii was, and
rightfully so, by this. court. in Parker VS.
State, was yet nearer to the constitutional
standard, local county representation, than
Is the double district system of the &C.
of 1895. So odious, indeed, has this double
district system been regarded that in the
constitutions of many of the States it has
been sp ecifically forbidden and the single
district system alone authorized even so
far as to REQUIRE that a county entitled to
more than one member should be divided
into as many districts as there are men,
bers. The observations made in regard to
the double senatorial district of Randolph,
Delaware and Madison, apply also 10 the
district made up of the counties of Clin-
ton, Boone and Montgomery, and likewise
to that composed of the counties Of Miami,
Wabash and Huntington. None Of those
counties had a voting population equal to
yet each Is given a voice in the election of
two Senator's What is said Of the double
senatorial districts is likewise true Of the
double representative districts. The ratio
for the election of a member Of the House
of Representa- tives, according to the enum-
eration of 1885, was $500 The county of
3,454 None of these counties, therefore, had
voting poulation equal to the ratio for
one Representative; yet by throwing the
three into district each county was
given voice in the election of two Repre-
sentatives. The same may be said of the
double representative district of Brown,
Johnson and Morgan, and that of Monroe
Lawrence and Martin.
1T may be replied that by thus throwing
counties into double district, equality of
proportional representation is more nearly
secured, and the fractions of population
over and above even ratios are reduced in
number and amount If this argument were
good. 1t should be nusned further The
greater the number of counties grouped
into one district. the fewer will be the frac-
tions of excess in population. and the more
exact will be the proportionate representa-
ton of the people in the General Assembly.
If the number of counties in senatorial
district, and likewise in a Representative
district, were increased TO ninety-two being
the whole number in the State. the perfec-
ton of equal proportionate representation
would be attained.
But If the Senators and Representatives
were thus elected by the people at large,
and on one ticket for the whole State. there
would, as We have already seen, be a total
loss of local representation, the most
precious right of free government The
have also seen, the Constitution provides
for county representation, quite the same
for prOpOrtionate representation. The
words used in Section of Article 4, as al
ready quoted, are: The number of Senators
and Representatives shall be fixed
counties, according to the number of male
inhabitants above twenty-one years of age
in each Local representation was deemed
by the trainers of the Constitution to be as
necessary proportiOnate representations
so the members of the General Assembly
were not only to be apportioned according
to the number of inhabitants. but were to
be apportioned among the several counties
and according to the number of inhabitants
in each
1.-The rule, as stated by Pinney, j. in
State VS.. Cunningham, supra, citing Sedgw.
Stat. and Const. Law, 200, and Endlich
Interp. Stat, Section g. is. that effect is to
be given to every clause or word of stat
ute. and no word Is to be treated as I'M
meaning if a construction can be legitimate