Rensselaer Republican, Volume 27, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 February 1896 — The Free-Silver Party. [ARTICLE]

The Free-Silver Party.

. Indianapolis Jonrnal: As has before been stated, the Journal is rather pleased than otherwise that the free silver conference at Washington has decided to pat a free silver presidential ticket in nomination. Possibly the managers may intend it as a bluff, bat if they do they are likely to be mistaken. As John Sherman said, the free coinage of silver by the United States alone is a worn-out issue. In 1877 more than twothirds of the House of Representatives was in favor of the free coinage of silver. The Republican House of 1889 was very close politically, but, on a straight test, the vote on the coinage question would have been very even, with the chances in favor of free silver. The Democratic House of 1891 was decidedly in favor of free silver, but’the last Democratic Congress could muster scarcely a majority for and unlimited coinage. In the present Republican House free silver cannot muster one-third of the votes in spite of the fact that daring the early months of the present year public attention was never so generally called to the silver question. In all of the elections last’fall silver lost wherever the issue was raised. Silver’s most significant defeat was in the eighteenth congressional district of Illinois, always surely Demoerwfebefopelß94; It was claimed by the champions of silver that all the Democrats and a large part of the Republicans were in favor of free coinage. The campaign was made upon that issue. The Republicans labored under many disadvantages, yet when the voter were counted the Republican plurality of 2,600 in 1894 was increased to 3,251. In this agricultural district, after hearing the case, the people decided against independent free silver coinage. Consequently, Senator Sherman was right when he said that it is “a worn-out issue.” It would have no strength in any State under the present conditions of silver production and use if a few thousand people were not interested in silver mining. If the well-meaning men who have always-a weakness for a de- 1 predated money and the silver ! mine lobby imagine that they can j force the country to accept the I free and independent coinage of silver and the single silver standard for money by organizing a silver party let them proceed, and, above all things, let no timuTHepublican undertake to remonstrate

with them. C mnt all the electors in sympathy with them off the Republican coltimn next November, and^yet.its candidate cm be elected. The silver mine interest as a political party cannot defeat the Republican party, but in the Senate its adherents are revealing their selfishness in a manner which will turn all real Republicans in the country at large against it. The Apportionment Decision. The decisions of our Supreme Court voiding all legislative apportionments since 1885 opens for debate a grave political question in our state. The constitution of 1851 needs to he supplanted by a‘ new one While it remains the charter for our law makers * its provisions shbnld be followed as closely as necessity will permit. No mathematical exactness in the apportionment of nor of the inhabitants over twenty-one years of age can be reached by a statute. The number of senators must be fifty or less, and of representatives one-hnndred or less; so in numbers there is elasticity within the maximum limit. Article 4, Sec. 2. Each district must be composed of contiguous territory, and a senatorial district cannot be less that a county. Of necessity a voting precinct cannot be divided in any apportionment for any purpose. , Iu territory the law must, in apportioning Senators, preserve the county autonomy, and for representatives precinct autonomy. Compare Art. 1, Section 1 and 23, as to equal rights, Art. 2, Sec. 1,2, and 13, as to right of ballot, and Art. 4, Sec. 1, 6 and 6as to districts.

The constitution expressly provides that no county can for senatorial apportionment be divided, on the rule that the expression of one excludes the other. A senatorial district must then consist of one county or contiguous counties. Each district shall have one senator to conform to the provisions of Articles 1 and 2, and the words, “Shall be chosen by the electors of the respective districts.” This means a separate district for each member, and one member only for each separate district. Each voter should thus have a like privilege of casting a ballot for one member of each house. In cases where all, or more than one body are to be voted for, the constitution so declares. As for the members of the supreme court, Art. 7, Sec. 3. Thus far the vote for a single member, in a contiguous district, without dividing a county for senatorial, nor a precinct for representative apportionment is not barred by any constitutional expression. A distribution to counties is no more than congressional distribution to states, While within the state every voter casts his ballot for one member of congress. It is impossible to preserve county automy, in forming representative districts while the number of Representatives is impliedly twice that of the senators. Art. 4, Sec. 2. An apportionment for representatives on precinct lines for any number of districts less than one hundred, could conform, to the enumerated adult males of the state residing therein nearly enough to be pronounced fair and just. For senatorial apportionment make Marion connty one district, and divide the residue of the state into districts composed of contiguous counties having approximately the same number of enumerated electors, and the whole apportionment would be constitutional, fair, just and equitable. Should the legislature take a stand against decreasing the number of senators, senatorial representation by Counties might be tolerated, as senatorial representation from Nevada and New York in the national senate. No fairness to electors can be had while in the counties containing our populous cities one vote-may control a heavy balance of power for the whole state. While a voter in Marion county can vote for a half dozen representatives and I can vote for only One, there is no constitutional apportionment.

SOMON P. THOMPSON.