The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1902-01-29

That act was drawn by Judge Simon
ton, Gen. McCrady and Mr.. Murray
of Anderson. The conditions which
demanded such action have passed
away, and Richland and other coun-
ties demand that they be restored to
their former alignments. The advan-
tage to be gaiend is that one congress
man will not represent 245, 600 people
and another represent 10000. He
disclaimed any selfish desire and stat
ed emphatically that he is not seeking
for congressional honors.
Mr.. Henry J. Kinard opposed the
bill. The present arrangement has
saved US, why not let it stay? He
asked Mr.. MCGOWAN what common
bond of uinon there is between Pick
ems and Newberry.
Mr.. Tatum asked Mr.. Weston if the
Burleigh act requires that districts
"shall'' be Of compact territory. etc.
Mr.. Weston after seeing printed
copy of the bill in Mr.. Tatum's pos
session argued that while the veribage
may not be mandatory, yet the spirit
of the entire bill is such. The Repub-
licans have been trying to reduce
southern representation, and the
southern States should comply with
the spirit of that act.
Mr.. Efrd said he believed this was
a fight of the politicians: that the peo-
pie did not demand a change. When
they did he would favor it. He
argued that the act of congress did
not require any change in the dis
tricts. The present arrangements is
as satisfactory as it is possible to make.
He moved to recommit the bill.
Mr.. Carter of Williamsburg gave his
reasons for favoring a change. His
county under the present law is badly
cut up, the town of Kingstree being
divided between the sixth and
seventh districts.
Mr.. j. P. Thomas, Jr., restated
the various reasons for favoring redis-
tricting regardless of any particular
measure. He said it is only justice to
the counties that are now divided be-
tween different districts.
Mr.. Thomas argued that compliance
with the intent of the Burleigh bill
demands a change in the districts.
The legislators represent the people OF
the whole State, and should consider
whether it is not best for the whole
people to redistrict the State. Mr..
Thomas made spirited and effective
argument.
A WARM SPEECH.
Then the fun commenced. Mr..
Cosgrove of Charleston sent up a
resolution that all of the bills on this
subject be sent to the committee on
privileges and elections with instruc-
tions to the committee to give one
weeks notice of the day upon which
the bills were to be considered.
Mr.. Cosgrove said in support of this
resolution that " the voice of the peo-
ple'' once "was the voice of Cod
but is now the voice of few legisla-
tors. He charged a few men with try
ing to run roughshod over the wishes
of the people. He had passed the
judiciary room and had seen men
pointing at map with ruler and
saying that they would "put Charles
ton here" or put Charleston there
There were intimat;ons that the peo-
pie of Charleston even speak q differ
ent dialect. He protested aginst this
alleged mistreatnent Of Charleston:
Why was not the bill introduced
through the committee on privileges
and elections?
Mr.. Weston replied in q very spirited
manner. He had served in the general
assembly for years, and be had never
had such a charge brought against
him. He repuidated the suggestion
that no new idea could originate ey-
cept through the committee on privi-
leges and elections. It is his right to
Introduce bill if he wants to do so,
and he is not compelled to sbumit it
to the committee on privileges and
elections. The politics of the up
country is not regulated by caucusses,
he said pointedly. He had introduced
the bill properly and it had been re-
ferred to the judiciary committee. He
was willing for the records Of the
authors of the redistricting bills to be
compared with that of Mr.. Cosgrove.
If he had to be dictated to by the
committee, "then to hell with the
committee on privileges and elections.
Mr. Cosgrove intimated that Mr..
Weston had had the bill sent to the
judiciary committee because Mr.. Wes-
ton is member of that committee.
Mr.. Weston scored a point in deny
ing emphatically that he is member
Of the committee named. The speaker
gave additional information that sur
prised Mr.. Cosgrove. The bill had
not been referred to that committee of
the speakers volition or at Mr.. Wes-
toms request, but by the vote of the
house.
Mr.. Dominick who seemed to be
warmed up, protested that the com
mittee on privileges and elections
doesn't want to 90 to the neighbor-
hood to which it had been consigned
by Mr.. Weston. He defended the
committee. It is composed of one
member from each congressional dis
trict and these bills should have come
through that committee.
He referred to Mr. Weston's refec-
ton on Charlestcn's caucus politics
and stated significantly thai they have
politics in the up-country, too.
Mr.. Mendle Smith opposed recon-
mitting the bills. 1t would mean
that week would elapse before the
l.1Iz<.o, Ia o,-o,. Lo co-ci Jora1 'Tbaca