The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1905-02-22
WEDNESDAY, FEB. y, 1905.
UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION.

One of the bills introduced in the
legislative assembly several weeks
ago, and which is of considerable i'm.
portance t O the general community,
provides for a new a~pportionment for
representatives in accord ance with the
requirements of the state constitution.
1t is made mandatory upon the legis-
lative assembly at the next session
following a federal census. "to revise
and adjust the apportionment for rep
resentatives on the basis OF such
enumeration according to ratios to be
fixed by law"
An apportionment bill based upon
the federal census of 1900 was passed
by the seventh legislative assembly,
but a serious defect in the measure
caused Governor Toole to veto it.
In the absence of legislation demand
ed by the constitution. the present
membership OF the house OF represen.
ta,ives is based upon the federal CEN
sus returns of fifteen years ago, but
in the meantime the population of GER
tain sections of the state has changed
to such a degree that their representa-.
tion IN the legislative assembly bears
no relation to the number OF represeu.
tatives to which they are justly en-
titled. Reference 20 the official census
OF 1900 suggests several Illustrations
of the unjust nature of the apportion-
meut now in effect.
Chouteau county has TWO members
ia the house of representatives: the
federal census returns gave us a
popu. alton of 10, 500, each of our
members in the house thus represent
ing about $500 residents of this part
Of Montana. Granite county also
has two members ia the house of rep
resentatives, although her population,
according to the census Of 1900, Is
only 1925 Each member from Granite
county represents a population OF y.
l6O, while each. Chouteau county mem
Der represents $500 persons.
a still more striking example OF
this unjust apportionment appears in
the case of Carbon county, which has
only one member ia the house OF rep
r~esentatives, the population of Carbon
county being returned as 1858. Ii
the house of representatives, however
there are three members from Jeffer
county, with q population OF onl,
$3.50, each of them representing onl!
1880 residents of Montana.
Teton county, with q population 0
$3.50, and Valley county, with a popu
lation of 1855, each has one membe
in the house Of representatives; Will
BrOadwater county, with q population
Of only 2,64l, has two members in tn
house.
The county of Lewis and Clark
with q population)ofil9, i'll, has sever
members In the house of representa-
tives, or one member for each 2, TAO O
its population. Yellowstone county
however, has but one member to rep
resent its population Of 6,2l2.
Meagher county, with a population
of only 1926, has twolmembers in tn
house of representatives, the sam
number as Chouteau county with fou
times the population. Teton count
has twice the population credited
Meagher county, but has only on.
half the voting strength of Meaghe
county in the house Of representative:
The disparity of the present appol
tiOnment appears in these compal
isOns:
Each member FRONT Broadwater rel
resents 1920 of population.
Each member from Beaverhead rel
resents $500 of population.
The one member from Carbon coul
ty represents IA population of 1888.
Each of the seven members fro
Cascade county represents a popul'
ton of 5,l55.
Each member from Chouteau coun>
represents $500 of population.
Each Custer county member repr
sents q population of 3,945.
The one member from Dawson re
resents a population of 2,443.
Each of the seven members fro
Deer Lodge and Powell represen
$500 residents of that part of Mo
tana.
Each member from Fergus repr
sents $500 population.
Each of the Granite county mel
bers represents 2,l6O: each memb
from jefferson county 1880: eat
member from Lewis and Clark, pa
each member from Madison, $50
each member from Meagher count
1890. Carbon county, with a popul
ton of 1858, has only one-half II
voting strength of Meagher county
the house of representatives, althous