The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1902-02-12
Mr.. TOWILL.

of effect.
Mr.. TOwILL
of Lexington opposed the bill vigor-
ously. 1t would be opening the
foodgates for other bills. The house
had made the reapportionment last
year on the census of 1900, and he
thought that that reapportinneut
should etaud. On the ground of
equity it would not be right, as Lex
ington has grown in population since
the census, although this does not
affect the legal status OF the issue.
This was Mr.. Towills first speech in
the house, and be acquitted himself
very creditably indeed.
Mr.. John P. Thomas, Jr., declared
the motive which prompted the ju-
dietary committee of the house to
report favorabiy on the bill. The
constitution requires the general as
sembly to make the apportionment
on the population of the counties. Ii
one of the component parts of a
county goes to another county, the
legislature is bound to take notice.
Among the component parts of Lex
ington county is Little Mountain
with population of 9s according to
that same census. The apportion-
ment act of 1901 does not go into
effect until 1902 and the matter is
still within the control of the house.
Mr.. Croft of Aiken opposed the
bill. he claimed that the spportion-
ment has already been made, and the
law is valid. The constitution pro-
vides for reapportionment for new
counties, but says nothing Of changed
county lines. The apportionment
must be made on the census of 1900.
Mr.. Bacot declared that the very
fact that the new county provision
was put in shows that the apportion-
ment act is flexible and subject to-
change.
Mr.. Lide of Orangeburg warmly
advocated the bill. Had the appor-
tionment act not been passed until
this year there would have been no
additional representative for Le1ing-
ton, but what has been done can be
undone at this session, and should be
done.
MIR. r B. Robinson thought they
had better let good enough alone,
and he opposed the bill.
Mr.. Dominick of Newberry said if
this bill should happen to pass what
would prevent a county from de-
manding new census at any time
and then claim reapportionment?
MIR. Fraser agreed with Mr..
Thomas that this is purely question
of law. But he differed with Mr..
Thomas on the point of county's
census being taken upon the theory
that the county is made up Of sepa-
rate units: All that is shown in the
act of 1901 in regard to the transfer
! of Little Mountain to Newberry is
that a town has been transferred
from one county to another. He be-
lieves that the house must rely on
the United States census by counties,
not by townships or by towns.
Mr.. Mclaughlin of Orangeburg
agreed with Mr.. Fraser that they
must be bound by the census emu
meration is subject to conditions,
though not to changes. It would be
ridiculous to say that if the county
of Lexington should be dismembered
it would still be entitled to three
representatives. Last Jesr there
was an effort made to annex New
Brookland to Columbia; Orangeburg
tried to get some territory around
st. Matthews: and Little Mountain
! was ceded to Newberry. Suppose
! these three proposed inroads OF Lex
ington's territory had been made and
had left that county but 5000 peo-
pie, would Lexington have still been