Rensselaer Republican, Volume 27, Number 26, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 March 1896 — THE APPORTIONMENT SITUATION. [ARTICLE]

THE APPORTIONMENT SITUATION.

The Indianapolis News truly .says that it is well to keep in mind what the real situation is. The court has decided that the apportionment act of 1879 and the acts of 1891, 1893 and 1895 are all unconstitutional. It has so happened that in the litigationthe question of the validity of the law of 1885 has never been directly raised. As a consequence the court has not felt called upon to express itself on that law. But everyone who has given the matter the least attention knows that the law of 1885 is open to the same kind of objections as the laws condemned; it, too, is unconstitutional and is known to be unconstitutional; only it has not been so decared formally by the function of the government charged with that authority. Moreover, the original defective quality of the law has been increased and accentuated by the very great changes in relative population in many countries in the years that have elapsed since it was adopted. There was just.one statesmanlike way to meet such aVondition of affairs, and that was for the governor, without stopping tojeonsider which party would be helped or

hurt, or whether either party would be helped or hurt, to call ithe legislature together to pass'a new law. . That was the course pursued by the governor of Michigan after the supreme courton July 23,1892, had pronounced the law of 1891, and the law of 1895 unconstitutional, and had declared that the election must be held under the law of 1881 “unless the executive of the state shall call a special cession of the legislature to make a new apportionment.” The governor of Michigan did not hesitate. He called the legislature together, which had passed the faulty law of 1891 and in less than a week a constitutional law was adopted. We can not think there is serious doubt that a similar result would have been reached here. With the clear exposition of principles made by the supreme court it is not at all probable that anything like a new gerrymander would have been attempted. But the governor hastened to annouce that he would not do the duty which the situation demanded. Thereupon what was to be done? The Republican party, after deliberation, decided to present assurances to the Governor that no advantage would be take of a special session to pass any legislation other than an apportionment law, if he should reconsider his decision and convoke the legislature. It is improbable, we regret to say, that the governor will reconsider his decision. Then litigation will be begun to have a law formally declared unconstitutional which we now all know to be of that character. If this litigation tends to produce confusion the blame should be placed where it really belongs on the shoulders of the governor who has refused to meet an emergency in the way that duty and statesmanship demanded.