The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-02-25
FOR AN EXTRA SESSION
REPUBLICAN SUBCOMMITTEE PRE-
sENTS MEMORIAL TO GOVERNOR.
Promises to Make a Formal
Reply.


ernor should call a special session OF the
Legislature to pass legislative appnrtion-
ment law. The memorial was presented yes
terday morning. The Governor went to his
farm Saturday to look after the planting
Of the early crops and missed the train
by which he expected to return to the city
Sunday night. After several telephonis con-
nections had been made yesterday morning
between the office of the Governor and that
of the State committee it was arranged that
the committee should call at IL O'clock. AT
that hour the committee, composed of Chair
man Gowdy and Committeeman Fesler and
McCulloch present I'd itself, and was warm
ly received by Private Secretary King. Gov
ernor Matthews had just stepped out to
have removed the three days growth of
whiskArs through which the Vermiilion
county zephyrs had been romping, and ten
minutes later he appeared and shook hands
with the visitors. Secretary Mansfield ac
companied the committee ard there were
also present representatives of the daily
papers. The committee was given the right
OF way over numerous visitors who were
waiting for a go at the ear of the Gov
ernor and they and the representatives or
the press were invited into the private
plsasantries and an exchange of remarks
about the weather, and then Chairman
Gowdy said that as the time of the Governor
was valuable they would proceed at once
to the business in hand. The Governor in
Dictated that he was ready and Chairman
Gowdy said that Mr.. McCulloch would pre-
sent the communication of the committee.
The latter thereupon arose and produced
,-iv
He prefaced the reading by the remark that
by reason Of the enterprise of the news
papers the Governor was in all probability
advised as to the character of the COM
munication that the committee was there
to submit. He assured the Governor that
the committee was there in all sincerity, and
considering the Importance Of their mission
they had deemed it advisable to put what
they had to say i'm writing. The Governor
listened attentively to the memorial which
was delivered with good evolutionary effect
1t read as follows:
"Hon. Claude Matthews, Governor Of In
diana:
Under the recent decision of the Supreme
Court in the Denny case, the acts of the
for ieeis,atiye aS1ortionment. were were alluded
to be unconstitutional The same adJudica-
lion had been Heretofore made by the Su-
ments enacted in 1879 and 1891. in the Parker
case, the correctness Of which was re-
affirmed in the Denny case, in which it is
suggested by the Supreme Court that the
validity of the act of 1885 was not presented
by the record, and it was also minated in
the Denny case that, as the act of 1885 was
the last act on the subject OF legislative
apportionment that had not been held to
be unconstitutional, the ensuing elections
would take place under it unless lin the
meantime the Governor should see fit to
call special session of the Legislature to
pass ar apportionment law.
THE act of 1886 is subject TO each and
every objection adjudged in either the Park
er or Denny cases. Indeed, the specific OBJ
lection on account of which the act of 1895
was held to be unconstitutonal-the double
Senatorial district composed of Clinton,
only in principle. but dentically the. same
counties composed double district in the
act of 1856, as we'll as in the act of 1895.
1t Is, therefore, self-evident not only that
the act of 1885 must be set aside as uncon-
stitutional whenever the machinery to test
it is put in motion, but that all of the people
humhlest voter, have actual direct personal
knowledge that the act of 1885 is unconsti-
and, therefore, nullity, and unless
there are overwhelming reasons OF a COM
vincing and satisfactory character, no cleo
ton under what has heretofore supposed to
have been valid law, but is now known TO
be an absolute nullity on account OF its un-
should be considered as
withn the bounds of possibility. Not only
was the act of 1885 unconstitutional at the
time of its passage, and therefore still so.
but tx was fiagrantly unjust ana unfair, and
the growth of the State since 1883, when the
was made showing a voting
population of 494. go. as consrasted with 62l,-
ening its harsh and unjust features, has
only emphasized the unfairness which was
there.
OTHER OBJECTIONABLE LAWS.
without going into detail we beg to
suggest that it is reasonably certain. to say
the ,least, that similar objections may be
made with reference to the apportionment
laws enacted in 1867 and 1873. 1t is not at
all extraordinary that the one party coming
into power after having suffered under
those appointments, should have swung as
far, if not further, on the other side in the
made by it in 1879. 1885. 1891
and $685. nor should it be entirely unex-
pected that when a change was again made.
the apportionment then made should not
have been absolutely and entirely satisfac-
tory.
THE principal objection to the act of
1895 was the formation of double districts
This principle, which existed in the appor-
tionment act of 1851, which was recognized
and continued in the Constitution itself
and then disappeared from the apportion-
ment laws to appear again for the first
time in the act of 1885, could be so applied
if il were permissible, as to circumvent
every other constitutional safeguard and
perpetuate the power of the
minority Nelln6r we NOT loe party We rep
resent, nor you nor your party, will de-
fend any such principle, nor will any party
uphold il, but there has been in the past a
great temptation 10 legislators, through a
process that has existed for long time In
this State, to attempt to continue in power
by what was supposed to be judicious legis-
lation within constitutional limits, the par
ty TO which they belonged and in whose
principles they believed Whatever may
have been the feeling with the people in
times past, a quickened conscience and a
broader feeling of fairness among the peo-
pie as a whole repudiates this method of
politics as unfair and unjust.
1--WE are not prepared to suggest that the
respect to the acts of 1879. 1885, 1891, 1893 and
1895 are also contained in the act of 1851,
but we respectfully submit that an election
under an apportionment made near.y forty
years ago under which the county of Scott,
with an enumeration of less than 2C00:
Brown and Warren, each with less than
I. 900; Crawford, Orange, Martin, Owen and
Vermilion, each with less than 4,0C0, and
Perry, Dubois, LAGRANGE. Jennings, Steu-
ben, Franklin, Fulton, Hancock, Morgan
is accorded one Representative. while Van
derburg, with 16, 40; Madison, with II 96s;
Grant, with 13,765 st Joseph, with 1854;
with 1857, and Delaware. with.
tive, and Jefferson. with 6.2i6; Putnam,
with $3.50; Dearborn. with 5,97i: LaPorte,
with 94S2. are accorded two Representa-
tives each, while Marion, with 46021; AEen.
but two each, and Wayne, with an enumer-
alton of but 10.Sl9 is accorded three Repre-
sentatives, would constitute such a gross
and grotesque caricature on equal represent
tation, although the law may have been en-
tirely constitutional when enacted, and
remains SO, that no officer
or person or association of persons would
accept the responsibility there