The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-04-20

might at once remedy, but at the same
time IL is held that 100 representatives and
nIty senator's are To be considered
Local pride, commercial jealouses and
rlvalries, diverse interests among the peo-
pie must not be forgotten
certain districts can be pointed out in
Ihe Whole number, compared with other
distrlcts, and inequality charged, but when
ihhety-tWo counties are to be arranged
bearing In mind the express commands Of
the Constitution, il will pass the skill of
man 10 make "A districting of the State
mat VIII not be subject 10 adverse criti-
ciSm and alleged possible improvements.
II the appellants win the present suit
the circuit Courts of Ripley and Dear
born counties have commanded the holding
OF the coming elections under the act of
1884, III the act of 1897 is TO be enforced
much greater inequality will exist than can
De suggested against the act of 1903. The
same reasoning which would set aside as
NOld the act OF 1903 would be still more
powerful showing the total inyalidity
of the act OF 1897
If the court can hold that the inequality
OF population alone renders the act of
1903 unconstitutional, then il must neces-
sarlly follow that the appOrtionment law
OF 1897 is now unconstitutional, and was
unconstitutional at the time ii was enacted
as appears from the following figures:
ACT OF 1887; ITS RESULTS.
Dubois-Pike, one representative. 1873
Ohio-Switzerland, one representative. A, 46S
Difference ................................4,77 10
district under the act of 1908, 1880, in Van
derburg and Warrick which can be salts
factorily explained. while the difference
under the act of 1897 can not.
If the act of 1903 is void the act of 1897
is clearly and plainly unconstitutional, and
no election of members of the Legislature
should be tolerated under it,
In seeking for the correct solution of any
legal question, and especially the construc-
ton of statute, the result which may fol-
low Is always potent factor and Is some
times in and of itself conclusive.
Eight of the twenty senatorial districts
complained of are the same under the
act of 1897 The smallest population isfound
in Lagrange and Noble, variation from SEN
atorial unit. 1909; same counties a sena-
torial district under the law OF 1897.
The district having the largest popula-
ton is Franklin. Union. Dearborn, Ohio
and Switzerland; variation from unit, $3.50.
In all but one other district complained
of the variation is much less than 5000.
If commanded TO proceed under the act of
1897 we find
Lagrange and Noble .................... 10,7S7
Marion and Morgan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. &c, 232
The variation from the senatorial unit
The he greatest excess under the law of ''
1893 .......................... $3.50
A difference in favor of the law Of 1903
or almost 1O,OOO
In most of the representative districts
complained of the variation Is only nom
inal.
The greatest difference appears in COM
pairing Rush with the district comprising
the counties of Nanderburg and Warrick,
1850. This variation arises by reason OF
putting the excess of Vanderburg with
Warrick- Vanderburg is entitled 10 two
representatives and has an excess OF 4,S54
votes.
Gibson and Posey are each given a rep
resentative. and the excess of Gibson is
given TO Pike Either join Vanderburg
and Warrick, throw away the 4,S54, or give
| Vanderburg an additional representative,
which would be still more equitable.
Morgan and Rush counties are each given
a representative. Each had a representa-
| tive under the 1897 law.
1t is said Hancock should be treated the
/ same as Rush and Morgan, and not being
/ so treated, elections. to work equality,
/ must be held under the apportionment law
/ of 1897.
Marion Hancock. S271 1903 act; excess, ISIS
The difference in these two representative
| districts, 1902. To command the holding
| of the elections in November. 1904. under the
act of 1897 would. indeed. be a travesty upon
| the law. If il can be said that the act OF
| 1897 was constitutional when enacted, II
| certainly cannot be said that it is appli-
| cable to this day and time.
You might as well require man who is
/ six feet tall upon attaining his majority tC
| wear a pair of knickerbocker pants that
he was forced to discard at the age of four
| teen" said Attorney General Miller, in dis
| GUESSING the suit.
| The INEQUALITIES are not unreasonable OF
| unjust when the whole act is examined
The real and only question in passinl
upon such a law is: Does the act, upon it:
| face, disclose such a gross and willful abus,
| of legislative discretion that a court will
| not hesitate to act? All doubt must be re
| solved in favor of the law. No decision o
upon an apportionment act. the population
| of districts approximating the unit nearl!
| as in the act in question, where the Law
was held unconstitutional