The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-03-06
APPoRTIoNMENT DIFFICULTIES

| ne apportlonmeDt OF the State
into Senate and Representative dis
trlcts for legislative purposes is Civ
ing good deal Of trouble. The Stoo
key bill meets much opposition. and
there is tendency towards Mr.. Sam.
uel Russell S scheme OF apportioument
which has some good features and
which carries also one indefensible
principle as we look at it. AS 10 the
Senate, Mr.. Russell S proposition VIC
consider TO be superior to that of Mr.
Stookcy, although local objections
could he made TO it here and there
but, as to that, local objections here
and there could be made to any meas.
ure that might be proposed.
1t is in the House apportionment that
Mr.. Russell's bill seems 10 us TO en-.
brace a principle that is violatve of
true representative principles. Under
the State constitution, every county in
| Utah must have at least one Represent.
ative. Mr.. Russcll's proposition is TO
take those fifteen counties out. which
'o'N NV l'PhiotipH NlOuSH 1DT more
than one representative and that CON
tain in the aggregate but minor frac-
iion Of the population of the State. and
apportion the remaining Represent.
atlves among thu more populous coun.
ties on basis that would provide n
ratio of but two Representatives for
one Senator. The general effect Of
tins is 10 accentua.c in favor of the
smaller counties the advantage they al
ready have in their right to one Reprc.
sentative regardless of population The
Russell measure carries the constitution
al provision into extreme that is Must
to the rights Of population, AS such.
10 representation; and this we conceive
TO be totally wrong idea. We believe
in giving the constitutional provision
its full sway but in no part of the
constitution is there the least warrant
for denying the principle of popular
representation also. And so. in place
Of taking The remaining population
after deducting the fifteen counties and
making from that remainder ratio OF
two Representatives TO one Senator. the
true principle as we conceive. is to give
TIE fifteen counties each Represent.
atlve and then striking the proper ratio
for Representative. to consider the
whole population OF the State in con
ncction with the total number of Rep.
resentatives TO be determined upon,
The Russell proposition gives a ratio
of upwards of 1000 as the unit of rep,
resen,ation in the Lower House. But
the true representative ratio. consid-
ering the whole State together on a
basis, say, of fifty Representatives,
would not he to exceed 1900, and
should. IN fact. be little less. This
would give to the population it's
just representation and to the counties
their constitutional rights also To
count the representation on the Rus
sell basis is to deprive the larger coun-
ties of their Just representation ac.
cording to inhabitants. To count the
whole population Of the State in ar
riving at the true representative basis.
r''~S t"' 'ai XVI pppuldIlUDS also their
Just rights. This principle is undoubt
ediy the correct one. The population has
rights, and counties have rights in this
matter. We believe in giving each its
due; and we do not believe in empba.
sizing the county vested right to the
injury of the larger populations of the
State, by depriving the latter OF their
.lust ratio. In this respect undoubtedly
the Stookey bill is, both on principle
and in practical effect, far superior to
the Russell bill. A ioinder of the two
propositions would be very much better
than either taken together. Let the
Russell Senatorial proposition pass.
Joined to the Stookcy Representative
proposition, and then we think the
matter will be about right. For, WHY
should the larger counties be docked in
popular representation, especially as
therc'is no intent to deprive the smaller