Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1910-07-21
WHY SURPRISED?

10th instant had a column and half ed
itorial criticism of the report of House
Committee No. 8 filed in the contested
election case of Parsons against Saun-
ders, from the Fifth Congressional dis
trict of Virginia.
The Virginisn-Pilot, by a specious
presentation Of the facts in the case and
recital of the conditions that prevail
ed during the Reconstruction period.
undertakes to show that the decision of
the committee in the Parsons case con-
tiicts both with principle and precedent.
But our Norfolk contemporary does not.
and will not, undertake to defend the
unrighteous and notorious act by which
the Fifth district was re-arran9ed or
re-apportioned so as to take it from the
Republicans.
In support of its contention that Com
mittee No. has violated established
precedent, our Norfolk contemporary
cites the case of Dawson VS.. Gilbert
from Kentucky, which case the Virgin
lan-Pllot declares is precisely on all
fours' with the Parsons case. The Da-
vison-Gilbert case arose from the reap
portionment of the Eighth Congressional
district of Kentucky, taking jackson
county from the Eighth district and add
ing 1T to the Eleventh. Jackson county
had heavy Republican majority, and
Its separation from the Eighth gave the
district to the Democrats, just as the
separation of Floyd county from the
Fifth Virginia Congressional district
was intended to place it in the hands of
the Democrats.
Our Norfolk contemporary informs US
that a Republican committee of the
House ruled that the reapportionment
OF the Kentucky district was lawful and
refused to give the seat to Dawson.
the Republican contestant And in SUD-
port of its finding the committee in the
Dawson case quoted from an opinion of
Judge Nathan Clifford, wherein he held
that whether the subdivision of the
representative power within state be
equal or unequal, or fairly or unfairly
made, Congress has no right to enquire;
1T is enough that the state presents her
allowed representation on the floor of
Congress in the mode she chooses to
present it"
Possibly this ruling of Judge Clifford
was given in a case that arose from a
regular, stated Congressional reappor-
tionment, and not from an irregular,
out-of-tune reapportionment like that
made for the Fifth Congressional dis
trict Of Virginia. How is this? Will
the Virginian-Pilot inform US? Then,
did our Norfolk contemporary give full
value to that expression in Judge Cliff
ford's opinion, Gin the mode she 1.-THE
State) chooses to present it?" What is
the mode" in which Virginia has chos-
en- to present her Congressional repre-
sentation? Section SIS of the State Con-
stitution prescribes that mode" 1t
as follows:
The General Assembly shall by law
apportion the State into districts, cor
responding with the number of repre-
sentatives to which it may be entitled |
In the House of Representatives of the |
Congress of the United States: which
districts shall be composed of contiou-
GUS and compact territory containing,
as nearly as practicable, an equal num-
Der of Inhabitants"
This section of the State constitution
most positively and emphatically pre-
scribes and fixes the mode by which Vir-
GINA is to present her representation ON
the floor Of Congress. Has the mode"
been followed in the re-districtin9 of
the Fifth district and the presentation
of Saunders as its representative on the
floor of Congress? No! Upon the con-
trary two of the most important feat
ures Of the mode" have been infract-
ed-that of compactness of TERRITORY
and equal number of inhabitants. If
these two features of the mode" pre-
scribed by the organic law of the State
can be so brazenly violated and the act
held legal, why cannot the other fea-
ture, contiguous territory" be ig-
rored?
Suppose the next Legislature of vir- [