The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-04-23

similar In Character to those set out above
act OF issDb but in view OF the conciusiJn
We have reached in this case we deem Il
unnecessary to set them out In this opin-
was held to be unconstitutionai.
The following are some OF the gIari.ts
faults of the act of issS. the SENATORIAL ra-
Bile senatorial districts are created. Boone.
with 6.H3 male inhabitants. over y. to-
Monteomery. o las male inhabitants. were we're
made one senatorial district and given two
ssnators- This II always condemned- ~
allowed, five or ten Senators could be put
In the same district.
SOME GLARING EXAMPLES.
I'm another instance, Hancock. with but
4.lS7 voters. IL placed in a senatorial dis
trict with Rush. which has 5.1sl voters. and
the district Is given one Senator. While the
district is short ss4 votes. yet Hancock is
joined in a second district with Marion and
Shelby. Union county is completely dis
franchised by being joined with Ripley and
FRANKLIN county in a representative district,
Ripley and Franklin being first given one
Representative each, although they were
short of the unit OF representation 2S and
24S votes. respectively. These counties, hav-
ing no excess. joined with Union, a lesser
county. and the three were given one Joint
representative. thereby disfranchtsing
Union county. Hancock. .1s votes short. is
put In a representative district with Shelby
titled to elect the fictitious Representative
given to Hancock. Sullivan county is made
contiguous to vermillion by being put into
the joint district composing those two coun-
ties and Vigo.
by the enumeration of 1883 Marion coun-
one. The State had 1880 such male inha6i-
fants. Marion county was, therefore, entit-
led 20 three Senators. but Is given two only
and Shelby, which counties were already
fully represented. In Denny VS.. The State
az N E. 1850. the court approved the con,
demnation of double districts as expressed
In Parker VS.. The State, and continues: so
odious. indeed, has this double district sys-
tenn been regarded that in the Constitutions
of many of the States 1t has been specifical-
ly forbidden and the single district system
alone authorized, even so far as to require
that q. county entitled TO more than one
member should be divided into as many dis
tricts as there are members, The observa-
lions made in regard to the double senator
ial districts of Randolph. Delaware and
OF the counties of Clinton, Boone ana Mont
gomery; and also to that composed OF the
counties Of Miami, Wabash and Huntington.
tion equal to the number fixed for one Sen
ator and 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
And the system is unhesitatingly condemned
as unconstitutional.
DIOnH JUL w lC 4t1l q
only $3.50 male inhabitants. 1t was put into
a senatorial district composed OF Bartholo-
new. Brown and Monroe, and into a second
district composed OF Morgan, Johnson and
Brown. Marion county was entitled TO six
Representatives, but given fve only and one
joint with Hancock and Shelby. Jay county
had 5,067 male inhabitants. The representa-
tive unit was 1916. This county. was denied
under the law Of 1891 and under the law or
1885 alike. a Representative. although under
representative unit or ratio, but put In dis
tricts with adjoining counties of Adams and
Blackford.
speaking to this subject, 1t was said:
Under this law Q89D the unit for a Rep
rssentatrve is Pol, ' isso county; s ss s masn ; py
habitants over the age OF twenty-one years.
It is denied a separate Representative. AS
We have seen, IT Is agreed In argument
out were intended to secure the integrity
of the counties. Jay county having more
than the representative unit. was, We think.
It was not within the power of the General
Assembly to deprive Ii of such Representa-
tive. This would seem too plain Tor argu-
State. BY the act of 1885 Dubois had a vot-
Ing population of 1857 and was placed In
two representative districts. to wit. Dubois;
Martin and Lawrence; and Dubois and
Orange. which has but 3.09. In Denny VS..
The State the court says:
The ratio for the election of a men,
Der of the House Of Representatives, ac-
cording to the enumeration of 1889. was s.
$40. The county of Perry had 4,152; Craw-
ford, 3.G6: Orange, 3.EA. None of these
counties. therefore,, had a voting population
equal to the ratio for one Representative,
yet by throwing TIE three into one district.
each county was given a voice In the cleo
ton of two Representatives. The same may
be said of the double representative district
of Brown. Johnson and Morgan. and that
of Monroe. Lawrence and Martin p. s96.
Also, by the law of 1855, Adams had less
than the representative unit. VIZ, $500, and
was placed in two representative districts.
viz, Adams and Jay; Adams, Jay and
said:
"'The three representative districts COM
rcsed respectively Of the counties Of Clinton.
Harrison and Crawford. and the counties
of Putnam, Clay and Montgomery cannot
be sustained. Each Of the counties Of Tip
unit of representation. and each is given a
Representative. They are not en-
titled to other consideration or representa-
ton. The formation of those districts was
not be done directly. viz, form districts OF
counties not contiguous. BY the same pro-
cess. il it were permissible, the county OF
Marion could be made contiguous to the
county Of Vanderburg, and that. too. not
withstanding every county intervening be-
tween the WI has full representation. Coun-
be used for the purpose Of joining counties
which are not otherwise contiguous
CRIMES AGAINST CONSTITUTION.
These crimes against the Constitution so
often declared make the unconstitutionality
of the law Of 1885 ~self-apparent and call for
but one judgment.
THE people have a right to know what
law. if any, is in force. In Parker VS.. The
State, 1873 Ind. 25. We read: II the relator
has a right to a decision upon the constitu-
tionality of the act of 1891. and if that act
be adjudged void, then it is necessary TO
determine what one of the apportionment
acts enacted since the adoption OF the pres
ent Constitution Is valid In People VS.
Rice. 81 n. E., 92i-932) several cases were
tried together involving this subject.
I'm discussing these matters. Judge Peck
ham. now Of the Supreme Court or the
United States. said: The people are en-
titled 10 know what law they are living
under and where the apportionment Is to be
found which is legal, and under which they
could proceed to elect members. If the act
Of 1892 is void, the act of 1879 Is also plainly
void and no election of members Of Assem-
bly, should be tolerated under IL. This might
relegate the people TO the act OF 1866 and
thus we might have an attempt at an eiec-
ton for members of Assembly under an act
more than a quarter OF a century old and the
legislative representation OF the people at
that time. This would be a travesty upon
the law and upon all idea OF equality, pro-
rriety and justice The Michigan Supreme
Court said the same. ~ y. W., 95-
The law of 1885 going down.. the court
should now say il there Is any other ap-
portionment law in force"
Mr.. Harris showed clearly that. IL the
act OF 1885 is declared unconstitutional. there