The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-04-20
SUPREME COURT HEARS
ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE
APPORTIONMENI ACTS
Democrats Fight States Conten-
ton that 1908 Law Is Only
Valid Measure.
"A c HARRIS'S ARGUMENT
Makes Eloquent Defense-Attor-
ney General Miller Backs Words
with Figures.
c. HARRIS'S ARGUMENT


-, crowds which ever assembled in the
courtroom was present Attorneys from
- .it, and other parts of the State heard
,be sides presented
That interest in the case was partisan.
- vel As professional was shown by the
attendance OF politicians principally Dem
ecrats from all over Indiana. The latter
were observing the result of the fight of
.beir state chairman, William II. O. Brien.
lie wishes conditions in Dearborn county
and other southern Indiana counties to re-
vert. as far as appOrtionment goes, to the
former laws. irrespective of changes dur
ing the intervening time.
In this he is opposed by the State. which
holds that reversion to former conditions
would be unjust.
Attorney General Charles w. Miller and
the Hon. Addison c. Harris, of this city,
appeared for the State. and Major Menzies
OF Mount Vernon. and p. J. Ryan, OF this
city. argued for Mr.. OBrien, the appellant
Mr. Harris said that the validity of the
present apportionment act must be tried
on established rules; that the first rule is.
as stated By the late Judge Coffey, that to
doubt the validity OF a statute is to declare
the law IS not TO be overthrOwn; that an
other rule is that court will not over
throw one law and put another in for it,
81 by doing so the people will be injured
more under the old law than the new.
he then showed that under the law of
sS97 Marion county would have but three
senator's with an oveTplus OF 1854, which
must be put with Morgan county, making
p new senatorial district of p 1877 voters,
whereas the Dearborn county district,
which the Democratic counsel so hotly con-
DENIM contains under the present law only
s7.755 voters.
As in the House the overplus Of Marion,
coined with Hancock, makes district OF
25,2l4 voters, while the largest under the
present law contains only 1919 voters.
he further showed that by the law of 1897
Ohio and Switzerland counties were joined
IN a representative district, having only
400 voters; whereas Rush county is the
smallest district under the present law,
having 5.499 voters
He also showed that the old senatorial
district OF Madison, Hancock and Rush
counties have a present voting population
of 1858 voters. And he asked the Demo-
cratic lawyers whether they thought the
people would be benefited by oyerturning
The present law and giving districts with
much greater fractions over the senatorial
unit OF $50 and the House unit, 6,943 He
pointed out that the plaintiffs were not in
9ured IN their own districts by the new law
and insisted that a voter who is fairly
some other voter in some other county is
IN he plaintiffs opinion, injured by the
present law.
He also said that the present law did not
contain any double district" as did the
old laws heretofore held bad; that there
was no charge in either complaint that the
Legislature of 1903 was moved by any
selfish or partisan motive, and that the
court should not condemn "A law because
somebody else thought they could make a
Better one; that the lawyers asking that
ShOnfd he ha
rot shown that any better law could have
been formed to meet the views of a ma
1Ority Of both houses.
He closed by saying that Judge Howard
said the Legislature must be allowed
"a large discretion which Mr. Harris as
serted had not been allowed in this in
stance.
HOLDS PRESENT ACT LEGAL.
Attorney General Mller's argument pre-
scented the states side of the case from
she standpoint of present, as opposed to past,
conditions. lie contended that the cases
before the court seek to enjoin the holding
Of elections under the apportionment act
Of 1905. and to compel the holding of cleo
tons under the appOrtionment act of 1897.
40 Illegal fraudulent motive or purpose
Is charged
All questions TO be considered by the
court are presented by complaints setting
/. The enumeration OF 1901 by counties.
= The senatorial districts and electoral
districts and electoral population of each
variations from senatorial unit in TWEEN
y districts. 3. Variations from representa-
i've unit in twenty-siX districts.
No districting OF the State is presented
10 the court by the appellants, who chal-
lenge the 1903 law and it is understood that
10 one can prepare an appOrtionment act
which will not contain variations in SEN
9torial and representative districts as great
as between four and five thousands.
The Indiana Supreme Court has held Ger.
tain appOrtiOnment acts unconstitUtiona
because of double districting." and not be.
cause OF mathematical inequality in max
ing the apporuonment- This court de-
SUned 10 pass upon the cOnSttutOna1ty oil
the act of 1885 because that act was the
only remaining appOrtionment law, and &c
ceclare II unconstitutional would leave the
state without the means of electing
Legislature
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.
The Constitution provides that an emu
meration shall be made every six years o.
AL the male inhabitants over twenty-on'
years OF age: that the number of senators
and representatives shall. at the next ses
sion following each enumeration period b.
fixed by law and apportioned among tn
several counties according 10 the number o
male inhabitants over twenty-one years o
age in each, that districts shall be com
posed OF contiguous counties and no count.
shall be divided.
The main objects kept in view by TIL
trainers of the Constitution were loca
county representation and proportional
representation Either of these object
might easily be attained, but both had Z
be borne IN mind and accomplished a
nearly as practicable.
The Legislature cannot divide a county
Districts must be constructed OF countie
that are contiguous. AS to such matter
the Legislature has no discretion. but
Is given discretion in determining wha
counties shall be constituted into senate
rial and representative districts and as [
the voting population of each.
WILL NOT INPUGN MOTIVES.
II is a general RUE OF law that court
have no concern with the motives of IN
legislative body in passing an act. Their
IS nothing IN the act of 1903 establishing O
calling attention TO any feature that i'm
putes 10 the Legislature any fraudulen
motive or unfair conduct
The legal presumption is in favor OF tn
constitutlonality Of the acts, and particJ
larry is this true when the Legislature pei
forms a political duty. exercises its discrt
ton in enacting a law for the gOvernmeT
or the State.
DeviatiOns may be demanded by publ
exigeucies Some consideration should
given n the difficulties which environ N