The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1907-03-13
GOVERNOR TOOLE'S VETO.

Most of the measures passed by the
tenth assembly received the approval
of Governor Jos. X. Toole, but upon
q few of them he exercised his power
of veto and in some cases was sus'
tanned in that action by the state SEN
ate. A conspicuous instance OF the
latter kind was the governors veto OF
the re-apportionment bill, a measure
which provided for a more equitable
representation of the several counties
in future legislatures, the basis of ap.
portionment being the federal census
returns of 1900.
The proposed change in representa-.
ton may not have been absolutely fair
to every county in Montana, but it
was such a great improvement upon
the present outrageously unjust ap.
portionment that its failure to receive
the governors approval is most un.
f0rtuua ate. His action in the matter
deprives several counties of the legis-
lative representation to which their
population entities them, while other
counties retain power and influence in
the state legislature in excess of that
contemplated by constitutional pro-
vision.
1t is suspected that the governors
dispute between Cascade county and
Lewis and Clark county as to which
contained the greater number of resi-
dents in 1900, and the representation
in the state legislature to which each
is fairly entitled. Under the present
apportionment Cascade county has
FIVE representatives and Lewis and
Clark seven. The re.apportionment
measure that was vetoed by the gov
ernor awarded Cascade county seven
representatives and Lewis and Clark
five, the federal census returns OF 1900
being the basis Of apportionment.
1t has been alleged that the federal
census Of Cascade county seven years
ago was padded to an extent that
showed a population largely in excess
OF the number of actual residents.
The official returns gave Cascade
county q ,777 Inhabitants, while Lewis
and Clark county wat credited with q
population of 1911. The citizens Of
Helena aud other localities in Lewis
and Clark publicly charged that the
Cascade county census, IS returned to
the federal authorities, was unfair and
misleading. They declared that the
population of Lewis and Clark was
greater than that of Cascade county,
the federal census returns of 1900 to
the contrary Notwithstanding, and
have since maintained that q legisla.
. tive apportionment based upon these
padded figures would be grossly unfair
to other counties.
There certainly was something Pc
culiar about the Cascade county cen.
sus returns of 1900. The official fig.
, ures, as above noted, gave Cascade
county u population of %, III, and
Lewis and Clark 1911. The census
was completed in the early fall of the
year, and about two months later
, there was a presidential election a,
which the vote of Cascade county was
4,648, and that of Lewis and Clark was
/ 4,S6l. These election returns failed to
sustain the claim that Cascade county
had a population more than 5000
greater than that of Lewis and CLARK
) in fact, they indicated that the lat
ter was the more populous county.
Again, in the presidential election
: of 1904, the total vote of Cascade
{ county for republican and democratic
electors was 3, 100, while the total vote
of Lewis and Clark was 4,04S. In the
congressional election of last Novem'
Der, the vote of the two counties was
about equal--Cascade leading by
! thirty votes.
Disclaiming any purpose to misrep'
resent the motives of Governor Toole
! IN this matter, the River Press sus
poets that his veto of the re.apportion'
ment bill was due in part to the little
unpleasantness between Lewis and
Clark citizens and those Of Cascade
county, regarding those census re
turns and the unfair effect of using
. them as a basis of Legislative repre-