New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-10-19
CROKER AND THE CONSTITUTION.
CHAIRMAN oDELI. CALLS ATTENTION TO 4 FEW

CHAIRMAN ODELL CALLS ATTENTION TO FEW
MEASUREMENTS FROM THE ROSS
Chairman Odell. Of the Republican State Com
mittee said yesterday that ne surprised at the
Ignorance displayed by Richard Croker in making
the following statements in published interview
MIR. Choaie : chairman Of the constitutional
ecutive were responsible for the apportionment
which denies the city Of NewYor It's proper legis-
lative representation IN the Assembly and Sena-e
Notwithstanding the fact that the population of
Greater New-York is 27looo more than all The rest
oe Stafr " have a representation Of -
OF 80 in the Assembly and 20 out Of 30 in the Sen
ate. one section Of the Constitution declares that
~ matter how great might be the increase in the
ponulation OF greater New York its legislative rep
reSentatcn should never exceed one-haf the total
representation in ell other States is based on popu
Is ba sed unon POPULATION The apportonment az
not afford the CITY Of New-Nork the proiecti ~
Choate and Mr.. Root ar much interested in the
prosperity and welfare Of our city. they never
should have permitted such an outrage against The
people Of the city
1T is true" said Mr.. Oden. that the Con-
sti;utonal Convention Of 1894 was responsible
for the apportionment under which greater
New-York has 50 out Of ;he 80 members or
the Assembly and % out of the 80 members Of
the Senate but it Is not trae that this appor;ion-
ment was made upon different basis from that
which applies TO the other districts Of the State
II Mr. Croker had stopped 10 think. he would have
found that the Constitution provided for least
one representative from every county and that the
other members were apportioned according TO the
population. The greater New-Yort had at the
time of such apportOnment. under the census
under which the apporuOnmcEt was made about
one-third of the population Of The State ana
he would also have known that under this
Constitutional provision. apporiionment could
again be made until the year 1876. This Constitu-
tonal provision ratified BY the people Of the
State and even New York City voted in favor OF IT,
The cry. therefore. that The rest Of the State is
being benefited at the expense Of New-YOrk City
III is also untrue that this system is dissimrar
from other States. While there is other State
New-Iork state yet IN Fcnnsy !vanla. Maryland
and OHIO the same provisions rs 10 The representa-
In New ork State on!i that the restriction Is car
RED TO a greater extent, ana denies 10 the cities
even the representation that New York enjoys
There is Constitutional provision against al
Increase Of representation from NcwYork city
and after me next census should ii develop that
Newly IS entitled to the same, there will be
given them such representation they are en-
titled 10 under the Constitution. The only rcstric-
ton based upon population a. 10 representation IN
branch thereof and In the Senate New-York City
Is consttutionally prohibited from having n greater
number Of Senators than oue-third. This was con-
sldcred wise AT the time by both Democrats and
Republicans, who believed thai NewYork cry
should not dominate entirely the legislation OF the
STATE Of New-York This frank statement how
THAI If he had the power ana he would undoubtedly
arrogate 10 himself the power should TamInany
Halls tickle, be successful this fan he would take
steps 10 change the basis Of representation that
The country districts would be left I'm the minority
IN tho Senate also. This question Is OF vial i'm
pOrtauce 10 those people up the slate VINO belieV"
mar 'rammauv Han should not lie permitted o
extend its influence over the STATE. The only
thing about the statement 81 Mr.. Croker that IS
LIS k yg,dge OF the CJnatitLfJN 81 3D.. S.atc. ana
L.s determination 10 transfer from Newton" city