The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-02-02
DECISION ON THE APPoRTIoSMENT


One Of the tive suits brought by the
Democratic State committee TO test the
constitutionality OF the last legislative ap-
portionment act has been decided by Judge
Artman, Of Lebanon, who holds the act
unconstitutional. For some reason or
other the committee decided TO have two
strings to its bow, and brought two suits.
one before Republican and the other be-
fore a Democratic judge. Judge Artman is
the Republican.
The argument Of the present decision and
the facts cited in support of 1t are substan-
TALLY the same as those used by the Su-
preme Court in setting aside the appor-
tionment acts of 1898 and 1895. Readers of
the Journal are familiar with the provi-
sions of the Constitution under which ap-
portionment acts are framed. II says that
senator's and representatives "shall be ap-
portioned among the several counties. ac
cording to the number of male inhabitants
above twenty-one years of age" The
courts have always held that this does
not require a fundamentally exact appor-
tionment of senator's and representatives,
because that would be impossible. but that
1t requires as near an approach to that
standard as is practicable and without
any fragrant departures from it. In the
decision of 1896, after quoting the constitu-
tional provisions, the Supreme Court said:
While it is true that the Legislature has
and in the true nature OF things must
have, large discretion I'm making an appor
tionment, yet II cannot be successfully
maintained that the incumbents OF any de-
partment of the government have dis
erection to disregard the Constitution Of the
State. If exactness from the nature
OF things cannot be attained, then the
nearest practicable approach TO exactness
ought TO be made.
In that decision, also, the court empha-
sized the idea that the Constitution in
tended to provide for the local representa-
ton of counties, governmental divisions
of the State, and of the inhabitants ac-
cording TO their number in each county.
For this reason the court held that the
grouping of two or more counties, neither
of which has a voting population equal to
the ratio for a senator or representative,
and giving to the district so formed more
than one senator or representative. was
violation Of the Constitution. The court
cited many instances of such violation in
the act OF 1895
In the present case, Judge Artman cites
many instances in which both senatorial
and representative districts have either
many more or many less than the number
of inhabitants required to form a district,
and therefore DEPARTS from the constitu-
tional standard TO a degree that involves
violation of the Constitution. He holds
that the unit of population-that is, the
total number of inhabitants divided by
the total number of senator's or of repre-
sentatives-constitutes the true basis of
representation, and that the apportiohment
must conform as nearly as possible to that
standard. His line of argument is very
similar to that of the Supreme Court in
1896. and the individual cases of mis-appor-
tionment cited by him seem equally clear.
If the last Legislature had been more
careful to follow the principles and rules
laid down by the Supreme Court in the
decision of 1896, the present litigation might
have been avoided As it is, Republicans
cannos complain if the present apportion-
ment act is subjected to the same ordeal
and tests which they applied to former