The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-02-25

The memorial which the subcommit-
tee OF the Republican State committee
presented to Governor Matthews yes
terday relative TO the apportionment
difficulties is unanswerable in argument
and admirable in tone. If argument
were needed to make the duty of the
Governor clear in regard to calling the
Legislature together to enact an appor-
tionment law which shall be in har-
mony with the decisions of the Supreme
Court, the memorial presents 1T. In
deed, it may be doubted If in any other
State of the North an executive would
hesitate to summon the General Assem-
bly, under similar conditions. The ap-
portionment laws affecting the elections
of the legislatures for the present
period of six years have been declared
unconstitutional Furthermore, 1t is
generally admitted that the apportion-
ment law of the preceding period is un-
constitutional. Under such conditions
the obvious duty of the Governor is to
call the Legislature together to make an
apportionment for the next Legislature.
In condemning the appointments of
both parties in recent years because
they have been so shaped as to give the
party making them undue advantage,
the committee expresses the best senti-,
ment of Indiana, and in declaring pur-
pose to make a constitutional and equit-
able apportionment and a desire to unite
with other parties in such a work it de-
clares the wish of the intelligent ma
jority regardless of party. The intelli-
gence and the patriotism of the people
are hostile to a legislative apportion-
ment which violates the fundamental
principle of popular government-fair
and equal representation in the body
which makes laws and lays taxes. The
memorial makes it very clear that those
who presented it and those for whom
they assume to speak are anxious to
unite with all parties or their representa- |
tives in making a constitutional appor-
tionment.
The decision is now with the Governor.
If he refuses to call the Legislature and
to accept the overtuIes made by the
representatives of the Republican COM
mittee he declares to the people that he
prefers to hold the election under an
apportionment act which would be dead
If subsequent laws had not been declared
unconstitutional on grounds which
would place the revived act in the same
invalid and unconstitutional list. If he
refuses, he declares to the people that he
will not unite in an attempt to secure
fair apportionment, but prefers to fall
back for party advantage upon a law
which his own leaders have boosted was
gerrymander, and which every intelli-
gent man who has informed himself be-
lieves to be unconstitutional.
The memorial, it may be added. on the
other hand presents an unanswerable
argument against the proclaimed pur-
pose of the State committee to bring an
unconstitutional. This argument ar-
pears in that part of the memorial which
sets forth so wildly the injustice which |
would follow if no constitutional appor,
tionment can be found to have existed |
since that which went into effect with |
the adoption of the Constitution or the |
next following it. While one of those |
quirements of the Constitution as set |
forth by the Supreme Court, 1t would de- |
prive half of the people of the State of |
fair representation and double the rep |
resentation of the other half. Infamous |
as is the gerrymander of 1885, it would |
not involve such gross inequality and in |
justice as would one of those early ap- |
M hrin n w iah
might involve such injustice would cause |
the committee to share the blame which |
will fall to Governor Matthews alone if |
he refuses to call the Legislature.
There is one other point in the memoir
ial which seems not to be in harmony |
with its general tenor. Allusion is made |
to the declaration to the effect that the |
Supreme Courts decision. based upon |
the suit in Sullivan county, simply sets |
tional law SO far as they relate to that |
county, and that the decision does not |
affect the status of the apportionment |
in other counties. If the decision SIM |
ply sets aside the apportionment act of |
1895 so far as Sullivan county is con-
cerned, why does not the committee in |
sist on holding the election in the other |
counties under that act, instead of pro-
ceeding to have the act of 1885 declared |
null? Pursuing the argument in the |
memorial, and assuming that suit will |
be brought and the act of 1885 declared |
unconstitutional as to the county in |
which the case may be tried. will not |
the decision, if the committees reason
ing is sound. leave that act in force in
the other counties?