The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-05

admonished his friends from the North that
they did not live among the negroes and
did not understand the problem 70 De
solved I'VE OF the South, ne said. ad-
messing the majority. ARE trying TO solve
T. fairly TO both races. and / appeal TO
YOU II you are in favor or upbuilding the
negro race. IL you are In favor OF protectlns
the investments which the North has made
there. 10 send this resolution to "a commit
tee and let IL die there
Mr. McDermctt insisted that there was
not a State IN the Union which had not
added TO or subtracted from the constitH-
tional requirements. He pointed out the
qualifications added by the State OF Penn
sylvania. He denounced the resolution as
an attempt TO stir up sectional strife.
Mr.. Williams. OF Mississippi. said that
I'm recent years some Of the people or the
South had listened TO the siren voice OF
III e North that sectiOnalism was dead This
resolution would pluck from the eyes of
those who had been partially deceived the
veil that had been placed over them After
declaring that the resolution was stupid
and impracticable. and citing the Votng
requirements of various other States ne
made an ardent defense OF the course OK
Mississippi and other Southern States.
There is no man who loves American
civilization" he said. who Is not glad in
his heart that by constitutional and Legal
Observation-Disclosures TO those adopted IN
Massachusetts,, Rhode Island and other
States-the South has solved this trouble
some and almost unsolvable problem
Mr.. OImstead. the author OF the resolu-
ton. said he did not want the resolution
to die. and would move its reference 10
the census committee IL the chairman or
that committee would agree 10 call the
committee together to consider IL within
one week
WILL DO ITS DUTY.
Chairman Hopkins said he was not in
the mood TO make bargain" to-day. but
assured Mr. Olmsted that his commit
tee would do its duty.
Mr. Olmsted then made the motion to
refer. and fl was carried without division.
Mr. Hopkins Immediately called up the
reapportionment bill. He sought to make
an agreement to vote on the bill on Mon
day. but Mr.. Mann objected. Mr.. Hop
kins opened the debate IN a careful expla-
nation of his bill He stated that the ma
jority of the census committee favored
keeping the membership down TO the pres
ent number. 357. from consideration of
economy and intelligent legislation.
Mr.. Shafroth wanted M. Hopkins to ex-
plain how ii was that Colorado would gain
one representative under the system
adopted IL the total number was 356 or 35S,
but would not II il were 357.
NJ. Hopkins replied that the fact which
Mr.. Shafroth cited was what was called
years ago the Alabama paradox" Any
system, he said. would not deal exact JUS
;ice to every State. The membership was
arbitrarily fixed at 357. which made the
basis of representation POS, sos. Dividing the
population OF the States by this division
3e5 members were assigned. The other
1hirty-two were assigned to those States
having the largest major fractions. The
States which were opposing this Dill, he
said, were those which lost representa-
fives under its operation. He claimed that
the bill of the minority showed favoritism
TO Nebraska and Maine, each of which
would lose one representative upon the
basis of the figures prepared by the di-
rector of the census for a House of $50
were deliberately flched by the Burleigh
bill from New York to Pennsylvania He
declared that more unfair bin was never
presented to the House than that fathered
by the gentleman from Maine. IBurleigh-
The Burleigh bill, he said, gave Maine
a representative for each 1851 inhabi-
tants. If this ratio were taken in New
York, Pennsylvania and Illinois. New York
would have five. Pennsylvania three and
Illinois three more representatives than
the bill allows them
MIR. Shafroth followed, citing the case
of Colorado which would get an addi-
tional member IL the House were to con-
sist of $50 or 35S. but would lose the addi-
tional member at 357, TO show that the
system upon which the bill was predicated
was unjust.
He contended also that a larger House
was not a menace to legislation and cited
the popuar assemblages Of European par
liaments to show that larger House would
not be cumbersome.
At 5 o'clock the House adjourned.