The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-02-13
REAPPoRTIoNMENT SCHEMES


resentative districts. The Tribune
pointed ont at the time some objections
to that plan, and hoped that the Legis.
lature might do better later on in con
sidering this question One thing that
seems to trouble the Legislators is the
great growth OF Salt Lake City and
county, which entities it to a represen-
tatlon in both branches of the Legisla-
turc that 4 number OF the members Of
the present body are 10th to accord, but
which to deny would be unjust. That
was one trouble with the Stookey bill.
Although it was said to give Salt Lake
county more members than some legisla-
tors were inclined to accord, it in fact
gave to this county less representa- ton
in both houses than the number to
which the county is entitled The
Stooley bill kept the representation in
both houses below the ratio which the
population of this county bears to the
population of the whole State. The pop
ulation of the State is 373,351; the pop
ulation of Salt Lake county is l31 ,426,
this being considerably more than one
third Of the whole population of the
State, Consequently, Salt Lake county
is entitled to a little more than one
third OF the total membership in each
house but was denied this in the Stock
ey bill.
And now Mr. Samuel Russell, Of
this county, has offered an even
| ba hot 80
ator Stookey's. He proposes a Senate
of twenty members, of which Salt Lake
Citv and county shall have seven, which
makes it about right. But he proposes a
House membership Of fifty. with
only fourteen from Salt Lake coun-
ty, all told That is. Salt Lake
county, with considerably more than
one-third of the population of
the State, shall have only about one
fourth of the representation in the low
er house. Surely, this is all wrong.
There is no reason why population
and be accorded its fair representation.
With a House membership Of fifty,
Salt Lake county should have seven
| teen members, not fourteen. If 1T is
replied that the constitutional provision
which gives each county right to one
member without regard to its popula-
tion. interferes with common ratio of
apportionment, VIC agree that the consti-
tutional provision must be obeyed. But
we do not agree that this obedience re-
quires the restriction Of the ri~ht of
representation where the population is
heaviest, The constitution governs, Of
| right. But population also has rights
in the matter Of representation; and
where both these rights can be recon
ciled, that is the thing to do; and they
can easily be reconciled by according to
each county its constitutional right, and
at the same time by according to popu-
lation its Just right Of representation.
| There is no conflict between these re-
spective rights, nor do we see the
slightest need for any such conflict. I'm
der the constitution, with the number
of Senators fixed at twenty. the num-
Der of Representatives may be as high
as sixty This gives ample opportunity
for the Just recognition OF the consti-
tutional right of the smaller counties,
and also of the representative right Of
the counties that have the heavier pop
ulations.
| Mr.. RUSSELL IS bill is also Objectionable
on another ground. 1t is inconsistent
in that it segregates districts in part
in counties, making unit districts here
and there, and in other portions con
solidates districts to an unprecedented
extent, as where it masses an immense
population in the first Senatorial dis
trict, giving the three counties thus
thrown together in way never before
known. two Senators. If a bill is to be
a separate district bill, that is one
thing. If it is TO be bill conformable
to usage in Utah, consolidating where
population requires it, and separating
as county lines have dictated hereto
fore, that is another thing. And either
is consistent in itself. But to take both
ideas, or principles, and unite them in
one bill is not only inconsistent, but in
| tolerable,
The Russell bill also provides for the
| districting of the State into two Con-
gressional districts, and 1T makes the ia
tai error of separating Salt Lake county
and putting one part of it in one Con-
gressional district, and another part in
another. We can hardly conceive of
the Legislature agreeing to folly like
this There is not a particle of sense
in separating counties i'll Utah for the
purpose of Congressional districting. 1t
is perfectly easy and consistent to make
two good Congressional districts in this
State Of practically equal population,
without dividing any county, Aas The
Tribune has heretofore shown. The to-
tai population Of the State is, as stated,
373, 3,35l. One-half of this is 1868;
and each Congressional district should
have approximately that population. If
We make one district comprise Salt
|