Morris tribune., 1911-03-24

Senators. Southern Minnesota Sena-
tors and Senator Weiss, there were
no Republican Senators. Democratic
Senators or State Senators. The State
Constitution was treated with con-
tempt. party pledges absolutely dis
regarded and the States interests as
a whole, were thrown to the winds.
No one would have imagined listen
ing to the debate on the subject that
those debating were state officials dis
cussing state question that affected
the rights and privileges of every
citizen of the state, but on the other
hand he must inevitably have come to
the conclusion that they were body
of local representatives holding a
meeting to divide up territory among
themselves with each local representa-
tive moving heaven and earth to Sc
cure advantage for his own territory
utterly regardless of how Jared the
others.
The Constitution of the State pro-
vides:
"The representation in both houses
shall be apportioned equally through
out the state in proportion to the pop
ulation thereof. "
Section %, Article w, after pro-
viding for state census in 1865 and
every tenth year thereafter, declares:
"After the first session after such
enumeration, and also at their first
session after each enumeration made
by the authority of the United States,
the Legislature shall have power to
prescribe the bounds of Congressional
and Senatorial districts and apportion
anew the Senators and Representa-
tives among the several districts ac-
cording to the provisions of Section
2, of this article.''
No quibbling can make these two
sections mean anything else than that
it is the constitutional duty of the
Legislature to make reapportionment
after each census on population
basis. and there is an ugly term applied
to men who make solemn oath to sup
port the Constitution and then refuse
to obey its mandates.
The Democratic state platform de-
clared.
"We are unequivically in favor of
reapportionment in the state Legisla-
ture with view to making the COM
position of that body true reflection
of the distribution of the population.
Nearly every Democrat Senator was
a member of the convention that
adopted that platform. Two of the
most prominent were members of the
Committee on Resolutions that framed
the platform and all of them
voted for the resolution and saw it
adopted without protest.
This Resolution did not bind them
to support the Congdon bill. but when
they voted against Senator Sullivan's
resolution to recommit the measure
and in view of the fact that they have
made not the slightest effort to intro !
duce or pass a reapportionment measure |!
of any kind shows that they have I
not, and do not intend to pay the
slightest regard to the platform
pledge of their party.
The Republican platform pledge on /
this subject is still more explicit.
1t declares:
"Believing that each section of the
state should be fairly represented in
the making bodies, we pledge the :
Republican party to the passage Of an !
apportionment measure based on pop +
llation as shown by the census of .
1910, to take effect January 1st,
1912. that will give each county the
it is entitled to in both
Houses
Nearly every Senator was mem
Der of the Convention that adopted
this plank of the state platform with
an enthusiasm that marked the adop-
lion of no other plank. AS in the case
If the Democratic Senators this did
1ot bind them to the support of the
Congdon bill but it does place upon
every Republican Senator and Repre-
binding party obligation to
get together in caucus and use every
,ndeavor to formulate bill that will
meet the requirements of the platform
pledge.
Both party conventions made the
most solemn pledge to provide reap
)ortionment law that would furnish
IN equality of representation, based
m population. in both Houses in ac-
with the terms of the consti-
ution.
If this is not done it is utter folly
or either party to adopt any platform
-