OF THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA. 1850. VOLUME II. H. FOWLER, OFFICIAL REPORTER TO THE CONVENTION. INDIANAPOLIS, IND Mr. DOBSON. Before we leave this place we will have to designate the number of the districts, and we may as well do it now as at any other time. If the matter were left to the Legislature, we might insert these words, but at the first election under the new Constitution they are to be elected as we district the State. I think, therefore, that we may as well leave the amendment as it is. Mr. HENDRICKS. Very well; I withdraw the amendment. Mr. BORDEN moved to amend the section by adding the following proviso: 66 Provided, That every organized county shall be entitled to elect at least one member of the House of Representatives." In support of his amendment, Mr. B. addressed the Convention as follows: Mr. PRESIDENT: I have considered this question as being one of great importance, and as I have desired to submit my views upon the subject to the Convention, although it is near the hour at which we usually adjourn, if no other gentleman desires to continue the debate, I will proceed to state those views as briefly as I am able, consistently with the nature and importance of the question. The report made by the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative Department (Mr. Bright) proposes to empower the General Assembly to reduce the House of Representatives to sixty members, and also that the Senate may be reduced to not less than one-third of the number of the House. Now, sir, to this reduction of the House of Representatives, I am utterly opposed; and so far from desiring to see that body reduced below its present number of one hundred, I would much rather see it increased to one hundred and fifteen or a hundred and twenty members, and a provision inserted that would secure to each county in the State at least one Representative. On this question, I consider myself bonnd by instructions. At the Convention at which I was placed in Domination for a seat in this body, the following, among other propositions, was laid down: "The division of the State into single districts for the election of Representatives; but each county to have at least onc member of the House of Representatives." And, sir, I stand here to defend, to the utmost of my power, both of these principles. Should we. as proposed in the proposition I have just read, give to each organized county in the State one member of the House of Representatives, we could then reduce the Senate to thirty-four members, which would be a reduction in that body of sixteen members from the number of which it is at present constituted. Add these sixteen to the present number of the House of Representatives, and it would make that House consist of a hundred and sixteen members. There are now ninety organized counties in the State, and it would of course take ninety out of the hundred and sixteen members to represent these counties. That would leave an excess of twenty-six members to be distributed among the largest counties. This arrangement would give two members to every county having the number of 2500 free white male persons, over the age of twenty-one years, and would include one of the counties which I represent (Allen) which has 3214 free white male citizens, as returned by the Auditor of State. But, sir, if the Convention is not prepared to go that far, let us provide that any county having one-half of the ratio, shall be entitled to send one member. This would secure to all the counties numbering over 2000 free white male persons, two Representatives; and would allow to all the counties having one thousand such persons, one Representative. Sir, I cannot but think that some concession should be made by the large counties to the smaller counties in the northern part of the State. The gentleman from Switzerland (Mr. Kelso) has said that we must either take territory or population as a basis of representation, and I understood him to say that if we take one of these principles, we shall be necessarily compelled to abandon the other. Now, sir, with all deference to that gentleman, I do not see that any such necessity follows at all. Allow me to ask him why we may not unite both of these principles? I am decidedly of opinion that the Senate should be based upon the whole number of inhabitants; but I am for basing the House of Representatives on the whole number of free white male persons, over the age of twenty-one years; and then taking into view in the apportionment of the House of Representatives that each county, as a political organization, is entitled to be represented, I think the uniting of all these elements in the apportionment will, in my opinion, not only be productive of the most beneficial results, but be entirely satisfactory to a great majority of the people of the State. If we look at the House of Representatives of the United States, we there see that each State has at least one Representative in Congress; and all men admit that it is a correct principle. It works well in the National Government, and I can see no reason why the same principle should not operate equally well in a State Government. Sir, it has been said in this debate that those of us who are disposed to stand by the small counties in this, the severest hour of their trial, are disposed to introduce the odious principle that property and not numbers should be represented in the popular branch of the Legisla ture. Let me here say, sir, once for all, that this charge is without the slightest foundation, and that nothing can be further from the truth than such an mputation. No, sir; it is because we think tha. property should not have a pre 802532 ponderating influence in the government of this State that we desire to see the large counties limited in the number of representatives they may have. Not, sir, that we desire to prevent capital from having the weight that legitimately belongs to it, but we are opposed to its possessing the all-controlling influence in the Legislature. Šir, the great interest of the State of Indiana is agricultural; and while that class of our population engaged in these pursuits retain the ascendancy in the councils of our State, we have no reason to fear but that she will be well governed. Let us not, however, attempt to conceal from ourselves the fact that the towns and cities of our State are rapidly on the increase; that banks, insurance companies, railroads, and other corporations and associations have increased beyond anything we could have expected, or even dreamed of a few years ago, and that, at no distant day, unless some measures are taken to prevent it, there is reason to fear that the capital and moneyed influence of the State will govern its legislation. And, sir, it is because I find that in nearly all the large counties, such as Jefferson, Marion, Tippecanoe, Vigo, and others, large cities are gaining the ascendancy, and sending up here their three or tour members to the popular branch of the State Legislature, that I desire to see a provision inserted in the new Constitution that shall retain and secure to the farmers in the new and sparsely settled portions of the State their full share in the representation of the State. In regard to the increase of population in the States of this Union, it is a fact that has been well ascertained, that, after they reach a certain point in population, the rural districts remain stationary, while the towns and cities continue to increase. In many of the old States the population of the country has even decreased to a very great extent, while the large cities and towns are constantly drawing the population to them. I therefore contend, that, in fixing the principle for the apportionment of representation, which, for aught we know, is to continue for a century to come, these facts should be constantly borne in mind; and unless we do bear them in mind, it will be found that, in time, the agricultural counties will be too much at the disposal of the commercial counties, having within their limits the large cities and towns of the State. And now, sir, let me again repeat what has already been observed by others-that the principle for which we contend is not new, notwithstanding that some gentlemen would seem to insinuate such to be the case. It is a great mistake to suppose that numbers is the only principle that has heretofore been observed in this country in regard to representation. In addition to the General Government, to which I have already alluded, I would direct the attention of members to the book of Constitu tions of the several States of the Union, which are now lying on their tables. This book, I presume, will be regarded as the collected wis dom of the American people in regard to the best method of construing organic law for the wise government of a people; and by turning over these pages what do we find? In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the rest of the New England States, it is expressly provided that each township shall have one member in the lower branch of their Legislature; and in several of the States, the number of representatives in the popular branch of the Government amounts to three or four hundred. In New York and Pennsylvania, the agricultural interests of these States, in order to secure themselves against the overpowering influence of their great cities, have provided in their new Constitutions that each county shall have at least one member in the House of Representatives. In New Jersey, one representative is sent from each county, without regard to its population. The same principles may be found in the Constitutions of Delaware and Maryland. In North Carolina, my own native State, under their new Constitution, each county, without respect to its pop ulation, is entitled to send one member to the popular branch of the Legislature, whether it has the ratio fixed in the Constitution or not. It is the same in Georgia and in South Carolina. In the State of Louisiana, it is expressly provided in her new Constitution that "each parish shall have at least one representative." In Tennessee, the rule was adopted that every county having two-thirds of the ratio of representation should have one representative; and I am told by a gentleman I have reason to believe is well informed upon the subject, that, practically, this gives to all her counties one representative. I have not had time to examine the Constitutions of all the States minutely, but I find that the Constitutions of Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Michigan, each contain a provision that each county shall be entitled to at least one representative; and a friend, who has examined the matter, informs me that the Constitutions of twenty-five out of the thirty-one States of the Union, in some shape or other, contain the same principle. Now, sir, with this evidence before us, am I not justified in saying that the united experience of our country requires us to adopt this principle, or one similar to it? Sir, the more this subject is examined, the more I am satisfied it will be found that there is nothing so really odious in allowing each county which has onehalf or two-thirds of the ratio to be represented in the popular branch of our State Legislature. Sir, I cannot but believe that when the State Government has come to the conclusion that any portion of the territory of the State should be organized into a county government, it would seem to me as necessarily following that the interest of that portion of the territory would to enable them to secure their rights. These counties are just organized and are now being settled. They are, as it were, just in the chrysalis state, and for that very reason they stand more in need of attention than the older counties, whose interests are permanent, and which have already received the fostering care of the Government. The remoteness, too, of these counties from the seat of Government, makes it doubly necessary that each of them should have some one upon the floor of the House of Representatives who would in truth and in fact, and not in name only, represent their interests. be so separate that from any other county that it ought to be represented in the government that had organized it. Sir, I am not only a State rights" man in regard to our National Government, but I am, to some extent, a State rights man in county matters; and I hope that this Convention will re-organize the county boards and vest in them the power of local legislation, and thus render it unnecessary that the Legislature of our State should be occupied with that class of business. The business which even now is committed to their care is very important. They have to act on all claims against the county; they have to take care of the poor; to erect county buildings; to construct roads Sir, I know that some of the smaller counand bridges; and to transact various other im- ties in the northern portion of the State have portant business which I have not time now been held up to ridicule on this floor; and it has to mention. And how, could these miniature been triumphantly asked here if such counties, republics be properly represented in the great with their sparse population, were each to have council of the State, unless the principle for as many representatives as Wayne, with her which we contend should be adopted? Can it four thousand seven hundred and eighty-two be done by attaching them to some adjoining polls. No, sir; no one has ever contended for county? Sir, there are many questions which this. We have no objection that Wayne and have reference to each county in its capacity of the other large counties should have their two a separate political organization which never or three representatives. All that we ask is, could be fully and fairly represented by a person that each of these small counties should have, at who had his feelings and wishes divided by rep- least, one representative. Suppose, sir, that resenting at the same time another county. I the population of these northern counties is have known of jealousies and unfriendly feelnow sparse, is that any reason why they should ings existing between counties when they have be deprived of their voice, when you have albeen attached together for purposes of repre-ready recognized their separate territorial exsentation, and I have always looked upon the istence? joining of counties together for such purposes, as an evil that, if it were possible, should be avoided. When a person is elected to represent two counties, whatever may be said to the contrary, it practically results in his becoming the representative of but one; for it is a matter of course that he will be attached to the county in which he resides; and in all local matters he will be disposed to give more particular attention to its interests than to the interests of the other county, especially where the interest of the two counties might happen to conflict. There was much truth in the remark of the gentleman from Owen, (Mr. Dobson,) that there was now a double necessity that as far as possible, each and every county in the State should be represented in the Legislature, and for the very reason that he suggested. We have decided to have the General Assembly meet but once in two years. Now, we know that when two counties are attached together for the purposes of electing a representative, they usually take it in turns; and thus under the new Constitution, one of such counties would only in fact be represented once in four years. I repeat, sir, that if the system reported by the committee on the legislative department should be carried into effect, it would do manifest injustice to the smaller counties. In my opinion the new counties in the northern portions of the State, of all others, need most to be represented in the Legislature, But, say gentlemen from the large counties, the small counties will be allowed each a representative once in four years; or should there be some three of them joined together to form a representative district, then once in six years; and that once in two years they will be allowed to participate in electing a representative for the whole district. It is contended that this ought to be sufficient for them; and that at all events one person ought to be able to represent three or four such counties. Sir, need I repeat what I have already said, that the interests of even contiguous counties, are not always identical, and that the person elected to represent them, necessarily becomes the representative of one in preference to the others, for the reason that his personal interests and attachments unite him in feeling with the county in which he resides. Besides, sir, as is frequently the case where one county is the larger of the two, it will overpower and entirely control the representation, and thus the smaller county goes entirely unrepresented if the interests of the counties should in any way conflict. For all these reasons, then, which, whatever weight they may have with the Convention, have great weight with me, I think the course we ought to pursue is, to give to each of the counties, at least one representative. I now come to speak of another feature of this report to which I object. For anything |