Mr. HARRY WHITE. I made a motion to go into committee of the whole for the purpose of general amendments. It seems that the status of the case is this, and I state it so that we may understand where we are: The proposition offered by the gentleman from Allegheny (Mr. D. N. White) fixing a certain manner of Mr. HARRY WHITE. I move to amend that the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole on the nineteenth and twentieth sections of the report of the Committee on the Legislature. We have not agreed upon those sections; and that, I suppose, would be the regular order of proceeding. The PRESIDENT. The article itself is apportionment was adopted in committee now on second reading. Mr. HARRY WHITE. There were several amendments offered and ordered to be printed and laid on the desks of members. I move therefore that the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole on the amendments printed to the nineteenth and twentieth sections of the report of the Committee on the Legisla ture. Mr. MACVEAGH. I trust that the motion of the gentleman from Mifflin (Mr. Andrew Reed) will prevail, and not the motion of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Harry White.) Do not let us throw this whole article back again into committee of the whole. 80. of the whole; that proposition came out of the committee of the whole, and was voted down in Convention upon second reading, and Mr. Meredith, the then honored President of the Convention, decided that although the motion prevailed to vote down the report, yet it brought the whole article up on second reading. I presume that is the status of the case before the Convention now, and recognizing that decision, I propose to meet the question in this way: I withdraw my motion to go into committee of the whole for the purpose of general amendments, and I move to amend the motion of the delegate from Mifflin as follows: That the Convention resolve itself into Mr. HARRY WHITE. It would not do committee of the whole for special amend Mr. MACVEAGH. Yes, sir. The article on Legislature was reported to the Convention by the committee of the whole, and upon second reading these amendments were offered and voted upon without completing the second reading. The article was continued and postponed, and now the gentleman asks us to further continue it by moving to go into committoe of the whole again. The PRESIDENT. The order of proceeding with the subject as it now stands, is upon second reading. Mr. MACVEAGH. Certainly, sir. The motion of the gentleman from Indiana is out of order; but without referring to that, I trust that the motion of the gentleman from Mifflin will prevail, and that we shall at once go on with the second reading of the article and complete it. The PRESIDENT. The Chair understood that the motion of the delegate from Indiana was to amend the motion of the delegate from Mifflin. The gentleman from Mifflin moved to proceed with the second reading of the article on the Legislature. The delegate from Indiana then moved to amend, by proceeding in committee of the whole to consider the same article. Therefore the Chair recognized the motion to amend as in order. It is in order thus to amend. ments, and I indicate the following as the amendment I wish to offer: "The House of Representatives shall consist of not less than one hundred and fifty-two members, to be apportioned and distributed to the counties of the State severally in proportion to the population on a ratio of twenty-five thousand inhabitants to each member, except that each county shall be entitled to at least one member; and no county shall be attached to another in the formation of a district. And the city of Philadelphia, and any county having an excess of three-fifths of said ratio over one or more ratios, shall be entitled to an additional member. In case the number of one hundred and fiftytwo members is not reached by the above apportionment, counties having the largest surplus over one or more ratios shall be entitled to one additional member until the number of one hundred and fifty-two members is made up. The city of Philadelphia and counties entitled to more than three members shall be divided into single districts of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as possible; but no township or election precinct shall be divided in the formation of a district: Provided, That in making said apportionment in the year 1881, and every ten years thereafter, there shall be added to the ratio five hun dred for each increase of seventy-five to get into confusion. This will allow the thousand inhabitants." Mr. BIGLER. Proceeding with the subject in order will bring up this question without entering again into committee of the whole. I have a very distinct recollection that the article was gone through with, except so far as relates to the apportionment, upon which subject all the propositions were voted down. Then the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill) offered as an amendment a new section, to which I offered an amendment. A motion was made to print the amendments and it prevailed, when the further consideration of the article was posponed to allow the printing of the amendments, and there the subject has remained ever since. This article is before the body, and it is perfectly competent for us to consider it on second reading. It would be somewhat peculiar for us to proceed to consider in committee of the whole an article that in truth had been almost finished on second reading. I think the object which the delegate from Indiana may have in view can be accomplished by simply taking up this article on second reading, where we left it, and proceeding to complete it. Mr. MACVEAGH. Why should we adopt an amendment to transpose the orders of the day and remit the article again out of its order to the committee of the whole? The PRESIDENT. The Chair held that the motion to amend was in order. The motion of the gentleman from Mifflin was to proceed with the second reading and consideration of the article. The motion of the gentleman from Indiana was to go into committee of the whole on the subject, and it would be in order to move that. Mr. MACVEAGH. I beg to suggest to the Chair that under the rules of order we have prescribed, it seems to me that a suspension of those rules would be indispensible before we can take an article on second reading out of the hands of the Convention and re-transfer it to the committee of the whole. Mr. HARRY WHITE. Will my friend from Dauphin give way for a moment? Mr. MACVEAGH. Certainly. Mr. HARRY WHITE. Then, if the delegate will allow me, I propose to withdraw my motion to go into committee of the whole for the purpose of special amendments, as I do not want the Convention motion of the gentleman from Mifflin to prevail, and when that is done I will offer my amendment. Mr. MACVEAGH. That is right. The PRESIDENT. Then the question is on the motion of the gentleman from Mifflin (Mr. Andrew Reed.) The motion was agreed to, and the Convention resumed the consideration on second reading of the article on the Legislature. The PRESIDENT. When this article was last before the Convention, the question was upon an amendment moved by the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. J. Price Wetherill,) as section 19, which will be read. The CLERK read as follows: "The General Assembly shall apportion the State every ten years, beginning at its first session after the adoption of this Constitution, by dividing the population of the State, as ascertained by the last preceding census of the United States, by the number of one hundred and fifty, and the quotient shall be the ratio of representation in the House of Representatives. Every county shall be entitled to one Representative unless its population is less than three-fifths of the ratio. Every county having a population not less than the ratio and three-fifths shall be entitled to two Representatives, and for each additional number of inhabitants equal to the ratio, one Representative. Counties containing less than three-fifths of the ratio shall be formed into single districts of compact and contiguous territory, bounded by county lines, and contain as nearly as possible an equal number of inhabitants; or where there is not sufficient population in counties having less than three-fifths of a ratio which are adjacent to each other to form a single district, such counties shall be annexed to any one adjoining county, and the district so formed shall be entitled to the same number of members as if it consisted of a single county." Mr. HARRY WHITE. I move to amend the amendment by striking out all after the word "the," in the first line, and inserting the following: "House of Representatives shall consist of not less than one hundred and fifty-two members, to be apportioned and distributed to the counties of the State severally in proportion to the population on a ratio of twenty-five thousand inhabitants to each member, except that each county shall be entitled to at least one member; and no county shall be attached to another in the formation of a district. And the city of Philadelphia and any county having an excess of three-fifths of said ratio over one or more ratios shall be entitled to an additional member. In case the number of one hundred and fifty-two members is not reached by the above apportionment, counties having the largest surplus over one or more ratios shall be entitled to one additional member until the number of one hundred and fifty-two members is made up. The city of Philadelphia and counties entitled to more than three members shall be divided into single districts of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as possible; but no township or election precinct shall be divided in the formation of a district: Provided, That in making said apportionment in the year 1881 and every ten years thereafter there shall be added to the ratio five hundred for each increase of seventy-five thousand inhabitants." The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the delegate from Indiana. Mr. BUCKALEW. Now, Mr. President, I call for the reading of the nineteenth section. Mr. LILLY. I think that the proposition of the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill) itself is the nineteenth section under consideration. It is to be in the place of the nineteenth section. Mr. J. PRICE WETHERILL. I hope I may be pardoned for saying one word to give my recollection of this matter to the Convention. When the article was upon second reading we had under consideration a variety of amendments, and they were all voted down and the section itself was voted down, and in order to introduce a section into the article upon the subject of apportionment, I offered this a new section. It was not an amendment. The last amendment that was acted upon and voted down was the amendment of the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. D. N. White,) and when the Convention was left in that dilemma, with an important article on the Legislature without a section for apportionment in it, it seemed to me that it was essential that a section of that sort should be introduced, and I offered this as a new section. Therefore it is section nineteen not acted upon on second reading, and in my opinion clearly in order and before the Convention. The CLERK. The nineteenth section, or the section that was reported from the committee of the whole, was left with the Printer, and I made arrangements with the Printer to have that printed in the pamphlet. The Printer submitted the matter to Mr. Lamberton, Mr. Kaine and Mr. Alricks, and several gentlemen at Bedford Springs, and they said that it should be left out. I stated over the section in italics that it had not passed second reading. That manuscript section is now in the hands of the Printer at Harrisburg, I suppose. In the original bill form 1 have the report of the committee as submitted by Mr. MacVeagh. Mr. BUCKALEW. Before we commence considering these amendments, I desire to ascertain the general situation of this subject. I understand now that we aro in this predicament: We have no more than two propositions before us at any one time. The proposition of the gentleman from Philadelphia is an amendment; it ranks as such. Although we have no original text in the place where it is proposed, yet it is an amendment to the article. It has the characteristics of an amendment merely, and it is only possible for an amendment to his amendment to be proposed to the Convention. We are therefore in the situation instead of having three propositions before us, as we ordinarily have in a case of this kind, to wit, the original text, an amendment, and an amendment to the amendment, that we really have but two, and at present we shall be obliged to vote in the first instance between the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia and the amendment to the amendment, proposed by the gentleman from Indiana. The choice is between those two. If we take neither of them we have nothing left. Mr. J. PRICE WETHERILL. Just a word here. The Convention will find in volume five of the Debates, p. 715, the following: "Mr. J. PRICE WETHERILL. I offer the following as a new section at this place, to be numbered nineteen." Certainly, I think that makes the matter entirely clear. Mr. HARRY WHITE. Now, Mr. President, I am satisfied that we all understand the matter; at least I hope I understand the exact situation of the proposition before the Convention. If I am correctly informed, I understand the situation to be this. The committee of the whole rose, having agreed upon a certain propo sition which was to be the nineteenth section. When it came up on second reading that proposition was voted down. That left us without any nineteenth section at all. The honorable delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill) then offered an amendment, which was read in your hearing. I had the honor then to rise in my place and offer an amendment to his amendment, and that amendment to the amendment of the delegate from Philadelphia is the question before the Convention at this time. I understand, then, if the amendment I have offered prevails, the next question will be upon adopting the amendment thus amended and making it the nineteenth section; with this understanding let me say a word in explanation. At the outset I must congratulate the Convention upon having before them this morning an entirely novel question. We are not acquainted at all in this Convention with the matter of apportionment, and we may congratulate ourselves that we have inaugurated the opening hours of the Convention by so new a proposition. Now, Mr. President, the principles of the amendment I have offered are to be found in a slip which I hold in my hand which was printed by the order of the Convention. Delegates will understand that it contemplates constituting the House of Representatives of one hundred and fifty-two members. It recognizes the principle of separate county representation and allows an additional member for three-fifths of the ratio, which is fixed at twenty-five thousand population, and then provides, after the apportionment of 1881, there shall be added five hundred to the ratio for an increase of every seventy-five thousand population, thus preventing that unnatural and inordinate increase which might result in the future. Mr. LILLY. I should like to ask the gentleman a question. My question is, in what particular does his proposition vary from the proposition of the gentleman from Allegheny (Mr. D. N. White?) It appears to me to be precisely the same thing that we voted down. Mr. HARRY WHITE. In no material particular does it differ from the proposition offered by the delegate from Allegheny, (Mr. D. N. White;) but it is the same in principle. There are some differences of detail. It recognizes the principle of separate county representation; it recognizes the principle of single dis tricts, and it provides that where any county is entitled to more than three members they shall be elected from single districts, formed as shall be regulated by law. This, Mr. President, is the entire purpose and purport of this amendment. It is a complete system in itself. It recognizes separate representation for counties, regulates the manner of forming districts when they are entitled to additional representatives, and for the manner of apportionment. Pass this section and it is complete in itself. I apprehend there is no gentleman who is in favor of separate county representation but will accept cordially the proposition as it is now before the Convention. And why should it not be accepted? Why should we not accept separate county representation? If any gentleman here complains of the principle, let mic call attention to the fact that practically it but slightly affects the number of our Legislature. There are but few counties in this Commonwealth which would not be entitled to separate representation upon any number which may be agreed upon by this Convention for a ratio. I assume and take it for granted that we agree the number of members of the House of Representatives shall be one hundred and fifty or thereabout. Time and again the sense of this Convention has been indicated accordingly. Of course hereafter the ratio of representation will be diminished; that is to say, the number of population or taxables, if you adopt that principle hereafter, will be decreased in number from that which is now recognized upon the basis of one hundred members. Cast your eye over the Commonwealth. Look at the population of the several counties, and there are but five or six counties in the Commonwealth which would be so small as not to be entitled to a separate representation. Tho county of Cameron, the county of Elk, the county of Forest, the county of Sullivan, the county of Fulton and the county of Pike, six counties in all, practically cover the political communities which are so small that it would seem to be unnatural to allow them separate representation. If, then, any gentleman complains of the principle, let us be practical and realize that any surrender of conviction about the number of members makes in the end practically little difference. I hold, however, that this Convention should adopt the principle of separato county representation. Why not? The Legislature in the exercise of its power since the amended Constitution of 1838 has seen fit to form certain large territories sparsely populated into separate counties, giving them the power of separate political communities, clothing them with the great authority of organizing courts, administering justice, and levying taxes. I submit then that under any system of legislation which may control the lawmaking power, those separate communities should have a voice on the floor of your Legislature. I recollect reading years ago the speech of John Adams, in eulogy of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He pointed with pride to her history; he pointed with pride to her prosperity. The great reasons he assigned for that prosperity were her common school system, the morality of her people, and her separate town representation. Gentlemen on this floor have argued in favor of a large increase of the number of members of our Legislature for the purpose of increasing the purity of that body, and they have pointed with pride to New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and some of the smaller Commonwealths which have more numerous members in their Legislatures than we of Pennsylvania. Let me remind those delegates that the fundamental principles which those small Commonwealths have recognized has been separate county representation. One word more before I take my seat. I apprehend that we should have some political philosophy in enunciating the manner of apportionment, and if we do not recognize the principle of separate county representation I submit we have no philosophy whatever in our plan of representation. You take your Senate and you make your apportionment there upon the basis of population. We have passed a section which authorizes the Legislature to apportion the State into senatorial districts to the number of fifty every ten years. That is upon the basis entirely of population. I submit then that the more popular branch of the Legislature should blend and combine these two elementary principles. We should recognize the principle of separate county representation, and after we have secured that, as we do by the selection of sixtysix members from the different counties, then distribute the additional representatives to the different communities according to the ratio of population. I hope, sir, that we shall settle this vexed question by the adoption of this proposition. Mr. J. PRICE WETHERILL. Mr. President: I do not intend to occupy the time of the Convention with any lengthy speech in reply to the one just made by the gentleman from Indiana. We have heard pretty much the same thing all winter. There has been a conflict in this Convention as to whether we shall act upon principle on this subject or whether we shall concede to each county a representative, and it seems to me the Convention very wisely concluded at one of its sessions that we would act upon principle, that representation should be based upon population, and that we would not, because it would be pleasing to some and very likely unjust to others, give nine or ten counties a representative when they were not entitled to it by their population. That thing is well understood. Not a single word could be added by the gentleman from Indiana or any one else upon that subject which would enlighten the minds of the members of this body. One word as to my amendment, so that I may remind members of what it proposes. It will give 23,000 population one representative, 14,000 one representative, and 37,000 two representatives, thus giving a representative for a full ratio, a representative for three-fifths of a ratio, 14,000, and an additional representative for one and three-fifths ratio. It gives twenty-six counties one representative; it gives to fifteen counties two representatives; to eight counties three; to one, four; to two, Schuylkill and Lancaster, five; to one, Luzerne, seven; to Allegheny, eleven, and to Philadelphia twenty-nine, thus in a fair equitable manner giving a representation to each county of over 14,000 population. In regard to the small counties, by uniting Fulton with Bedford, Fulton will get her share, although having a population of but 9,000. By uniting Sullivan to Bradford, Sullivan will get her share, although having a population of only 6,000, by having one representative, while Bradford will still be entitled to her full share. Wayne would get her member losing nothing, but by uniting Pike thereto, with a population of 8,500, Wayne and Pike would have two. Thus every county in the State would have a representative with the exception of Cameron, Forest and Elk, having a united population of 16,000, and M'Kean and Potter, |