New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1911-02-01
Legislature Divided on Reap
portlonment Question
UNIVERSITY DEFICIENCY BILL
Some Features Of Measure Severely
Criticised by Members Of
Both Houses.

st. Paul, Jan. 1910 reappOrtlOn or
not to reapportion-that is the ques.
ton. The longer the legislature is in
session the more serious is it seen to
be. The hard road simple resolution
introduced in both houses at the sug.
gestion of the joint reapportionment
committee had to travel is an indica.
ton Of the strenuous opposition any
measure for redistricting the state on
which the committee can agree is
bound to meet later.
]. i. i.
The resolution to which refer re-
cites in its preamble the constitutional
provision that any reapportionment
made must be in proportion to popula-
ton. It then goes on to declare that
in the opinion of the legislature the
senators should not exceed sixty-three
In number. nor the representatives
1875. In the house ]. NJ johnson of
Candy, explaining that he had no oh.
lection to the resolution, but didn't
like the whereases," opened the fight
with an amendment to strike out that
part of the preamble. This reused
the war dogs. Mr.. Congdon was sur
prised that anybody. was afraid of the
preamble. 1t simply recited the con-
stitutional provisions verbatim and
did not bind the members a single
iota more than they were already
bound by their oaths.
!. !. i
Mr. Johnson none the less insisted
on his amendment This brought Bob
Dunn to his feet. "The man." he
said, who would vote for any other
or different kind of reapportionment
than that presented by the constitu-
ton which members are freshly sworn
to observe and to obey comes danger
ously near committing perjury" Then,
turning to Johnson: You call your
selves progressives," he tainted.
you profess great. faith in the peo-
pie. You loudly declare your devo-
ton to equal rights. And yet in the
matter of representation you want to
make distinctions" Suggesting that
the day may come when, in the inter-
ests of good government, it may be
necessary to restrict the political priv.
flege of .populous centers, That" he
continued, us not now the question.
We are face to face with conditions,
not theories. 1t is our duty to redis
trict the state at this session. There
Is only one way we can do it and that
10 according to the terms of the con.
stitution we now have. How in Gods
name" he cried emphatically," can
you advocate any other kind of reap.
portionment than that demanded by
the constitution which few days ago
you solemnly swore to obey"
Spooner of Morris also took up the
gauntlet. Shaking his hoary locks the
gladiator Of the house sprang into the
thick Of the fray. Why" he de.
manded," should the constitutional
provision be stricken out of the: reso.
luton? What Is behind this amend
ment? The preamble may be super
Auous, because whether it is there or
not you are bound by the organic law
Of the state exactly the same. But
why strike it outs challenge you to
say whether it is not because, in de-
fance of the constitution, you want to
deprive the cities of the state of pro.
portional representation? The cities
may, under constitutional reappor-
ttonment, get larger representation.
What if they do? We can not help it.
We can only reapportion the state &C.
cording to the constitution we have.
There is no other course open to us if
we reapportion at all. AS for me,
Will not vote for any other kind of
reapportionment than that prescribed
by the terms of the constitution, be-