The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1921-08-26

The future OF Prohibition in Hi
forces that will control the Legislatur
so far as the Legislature IS concerned
to liquor in Chicago will control the 5
The question OF limiting Chicago in
ton in the constitutional convention
reasons III favor OF effectively safeg,
by limiting the Legislature in both HI
by the County Representation Leag
follows:
1t is seriously proposed by some oi
the members OF the constitutional
convention to limit Cook eounty's rep.
resentation i'll the state Legislature tc
one-third OF the Senate bnt to place
the House Of Representatives purely
on the basis OF population ignoring
the counties as such in apportioninq
the districts. This is offered as Z
compromise to the demand for lin.
itation OF Cook county in botl
branches OF the legislature
The following are some of many
reasons why the above proposal is in.
sufficient, contrary to the principles
of representative government and dan.
gerous to the substantial interests oil
both down state and Chicago itself:
1t would prevent county repre-
sentatiou which the foremost
states i'll the Union haze adopted:
thirty-four counties would have
no representatives OF their own.
II wouid dangcrouSiy centralize
power; cause gerrymandcring.
legislative deadIocks. Jack pot
and "sandbaggng" legislation,
hatred and bitterness between
down state and Chicago.
1t would turn the state over to
the mercios OF Cook county ma
chine empowering it 10 create
endless jobs-high priced com
missions-berths for experts"
and generally exploit the re-
sources OF the state Tor its own
aggrandizement.
No worse scheme than one House
limitation could be invented for doing
away with any chance for good gov
ernment in Illinois. Anyone familiar
with the process OF legislation knows
that practically it would be a delusion
and snare. 1t would be calamity
for the state to be carelessly caught
in such trap. 1t would be colossal
folly to Intentionally enter into such
arrangement. We believe that Cook
county as well as down state will be
slow to embark upon such an enter
prise.
The following are nineteen reasons
why the one House limitation is de-
fective:
Q) BECAUSE it would danger
.ously centralize political power in
the one county OF Cook. 1t would
destroy the fundamental principle OF
representative government - T Fl L.
WIDE DIFFUSION OF THE
SOURCES OF POWER-(See pa
pers for Thinking People No. p
(2) BECAUSE no state in the
Union with one-half OF the population
in one county permits any such ar
rangement.
() BECAUSE the constitutional
conventions OF twelve states after
thoroughly considering this question
limited their most populous communi-
ties in both branches OF their Legis-
latures. Included in the twelve are
all the states where there was danger
OF one community controlling either
branch of the Legislature
(D BECAUSE the Federal Con-
stitution itself recognizes this prin-
ciple in providing that each state shall
have at least one member of the
House of Representatives 1t does
not provide that each state as soon
as it has a population equaling con-
gressional ratio shall have represen-
tation "but each state shall have at
least one representative"
Nothing was more carefully safe
guarded in the Federal Constitution
than the principle OF the wide diffu-
sion OF the sources OF power to which
the one House limitation scheme is
the antithesis. These safeguards, too,
were written at time when there
were neither railroads nor steamboats,
and no great danger apparently of the
Capitalization of the sources of