AFTERNOON SESSION.
CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT.
On motion by Mr. MAGEE the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the Congressional Apportionment bill [H. R. 424] which was read the third time.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tippecanoe: It is with a feeling of regret, almost amounting to sadness, that I rise here to mke some remarks on this proposition to redistrict the State of Indiana in the manner in which it has passed the House of Representatives, or by the amendment to that bill. This proposition, I understand, has not only received the approbation of the joint Democratic caucus, but also the indorsement of the Democratic majority of the House of Representatives, and yet, Mr. President, in spite of these considerations, which in the eyes of many Democrats may be of paramount importance, I can not, persuade myself to support it and vote for it. My opposition to this apportionment bill, as it comes from the House, and also as it is amended, is caused by the conviction that it conflicts with my ideas of and my respect for right, justice and fairness, and that by voting for it I would sanction and help to commit a wrong which finds no excuse or apology in the dictates of party.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of St. Joseph: If any political measure ever offered for endorsement call for all the attributes of greed that humanity can summon to stifle its natural tendency to decency and equity, these Congressional and Legislative bills are such measures. Party caucus and organization is right for the purpose of forwarding measures in the interest of the people, but when against the people and against right, and against the spirit and letter of the Constitution, it is then time to step out from caucus and walk alone, while yet a man can respect rospect the company he is in when he walks alone. These apportionment bills are made without regard to ratio of voting numbers in direct conflict to the mandate of the Constitution. Can Democrats upon this floor forget tbe oath of fidelity to the Constitution and give the stamp of official approval to these products of irresponsible politicians. The purposes of these measures are to disfranchise a large number of the voters ot this State, to deny a large number any representation at the National Capital, to take charge of every institution of the State end throttle advice or criticism, to lock the doors of the uncounted treasury and manacle every hand that would open to investigate. These measures have not even a pretense of being dictated by any standard higher than that which has controlled monarchs and Arabs and pirates and Indians and bogs at the swill-trough. "Might makes right." Politically these measures are as corrupt as infamy, unfair as dishonesty, vicious as robbery, tyranical as oppression, unchaste as rape. No argument or explanation or excuse is made except the one given by the child, the street gamin and the saloon thug, the taunts "you did it first," "you are another," the logic of which is that to copy and repeat the meanest things Republicans ever did is the highest virtue to which the Democratic party desire or expect to attain, and a proof that the Democratic cry of fraud and corruption and theft has not been a call to protection, but the rallying call for pillage and plunder.
Mr. HILLIGASS: I will commence by saying that I am for this bill, and in presenting this apportionment for Congressional purposes to the people of the State of Indiana, I want to claim that there has been no such Congressional map given to the people in its contiguity of territory. It presents as just and as fair an apportionment as ever has been made of tbe State of Indiana. It is true we have nine of the thirteen Congressmen, but it is also true that in 1873 the Republicans made an apportionment that gave them eleven out of the thirteen Congressmen. I will say to the Democratic side of this House that we can stand before any audience in the State and hold that map up with pride. [See appendix.]
Mr. YOUCHE: If my party were in the majority and would present a bill which to my mind is as unfair as this bill, I should not vote for it. I should take the position of the Senator from Tippecanoe (Mr. Johnson) and say that I repudiated any action of that kind. Under this bill it would take 24,514 Democratic votes to elect one Congressman, while it would tafce 79,248 Republican votes to elect one Congressman. In other words, one Democrat has as much Congressional representation as three and page: 288[View Page 288] one-half Republicans. Will anybody say that is fair? [See appendix.]
Mr WILLARD: Never in the history of Indiana was there an apportionment like that of 1872. The Republicans passed that law under the operations of the previous question without allowing discussion, and without even allowing the bill to be printed.
The result of that bill was to give the Republicans eight members of Congress and the Democratic party only five. This kind of talk about unfairness is something always heard whenever an apportionment bill comes up. This bill has been drafted upon the plane of making it equal as between the parties and the doubt was decided in favor of the party in power on this floor. Could we do less? This bill has been drawn in fairness. Were it not done in fairness I certainly would not give it my support. [See appendix]
The bill passed by yeas 29, nays 17.
