The CLERK. The gentleman from Dauphin moves to insert after the word "ratio" the words:

"And every county having a population of double the ratio and not less than three-fifths of the ratio shall be entitled to three representatives."

Mr. STRUTHERS. I accept that. Mr. MACVEAGH and Mr. J. S. BLACK. Let the amendment as modified be read. The CLERK read as follows:

"The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and fifty members, and the State shall be apportioned every ten years, beginning the first year after the adoption of this Constitution, by dividing the population, as ascertained by the last preceding United States census, by one hundred and fifty, and the quotient shall be the ratio of representation. Each county shall be a district and entitied to a member for each ratio and one for each three-fifths of a ratio which it may contain at the time of such apportionment. Each county organized at the adoption of this Constitution shall have a representative but shall not be entitled to an additional member until its population shall be equal to a ratio and threefifths of a ratio; and every county having a population of double the ratio, and not less than three-fifths the ratio, shall be entitled to three representatives. Counties hereafter organized shall not be entitled to separate representation until their population shall be equal to at least three

fifths of a ratio.

The PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays have been called for and ordered.

Mr. J. PRICE WETHERILL. I desire to ask the gentleman from Warren a single question before the vote is taken on his proposition: Whether he will say in his place, from actual calculation worked out by himself, that the House will consist of one hundred and fifty members only by his plan.

Mr. STRUTHERS. As near as I can ascertain it will not come up to it; it will only be about one hundred and fortyeight.

The PRESIDENT. The Clerk will call the roll.

Funck, Hall, Horton, Kaine, Long, M’Clean, Minor, Newlin, Parsons, Purviance, Sam'l A., Struthers, White, Harry and Walker, President-26.

NAVS.

Messrs. Addicks, Ainey, Armstrong, Baer, Baily, (Perry,) Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Baker, Barclay, Bardsley, Bartholomew, Biddle, Broomall, Buckalew, Cochran, Corbett, Curtin, Cuyler, Dallas, Darlington, Davis, De France, Edwards, Fell, Gibson, Green, Guthrie, Hanna, Harvey, Hay, Hemphill, Howard, Hunsicker, Landis, Lawrence, Lilly, Littleton, MacConnell, MacVeagh, M'Camant, M'Culloch, M'Michael, Metzger, Palmer, G. W., Patterson, D. W., Patton, Pughe, Read, John R., Reed, Andrew, Reynolds, Rooke, Runk, Russell, Sharpe, Smith, H. G., Smith, Henry W., Smith, Wm. H., Stanton, Stewart, Turrell, Wetherill, J. M., Wetherill, Jno. Price, White, David N., White, J. W. F., Woodward, Worrell and Wright-66.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

ABSENT.-Messrs. Achenbach, Bannan, Becbe, Black, Chas. A., Brodhead, Bullitt, Campbell, Carter, Cassidy, Church, Clark, Corson, Craig, Cronmiller, Dodd, Dunning, Elliott, Ellis, Finney Gilpin, Hazzard, Heverin, Knight, Lamberton, Lear, M'Murray, Mann, Mantor, Mitchell, Mott, Niles, Palmer, H. W., Patterson, T. H. B., Porter, Purman, Purviance, John N., Ross, Simpson, Temple, Van Reed and Wherry-41.

Mr. MACVEAGH. Mr. President: I think the Convention will agree with me that the time has now come to consider, at least, the proposition reported by the Committee on the Legislature, to ascertain what defects it has, to propose such amendments as gentlemen consider desirable, and to endeavor, by giving our exclusive attention to it for a very few hours to perfect it so that it will meet the views not of everybody here in every detail, but in its main scope meet the views of a majority of this body. I ask the at

tention of the members while I tell them its salient points.

In the first place, it makes gerryman

YEAS.

Messrs. Alricks, Andrews, Bigler, Black, J. S., Bowman, Boyd, Brown, Calvin,

and forever as far as a constitutional article can do. In the next place, it makes the census of the United States the basis of apportionment. In the third place, it fixes the apportionment of every period

of ten years in accordance with the arrangements of the taking of the census of the United States. In the next place, it approximates the number of one hundred and fifty as the number of the House; and I wish to call the attention of members to this consideration, that it is better to take an approximate number than to take an absolute number, for this reason: You can then prescribe the method of reaching the approximate number so that partisan prejudices and partisan corruption shall not control your House of Representatives, whereas if you fix a positive number you put it in the power of the House to give the five, six, or seven odd members to such districts as a partisan majority may select. You may provide that they shall go here and there at every term, but what tribunal have you to sit in supervision of the apportionment when it is made? And if the control of the Legislature depends upon two or three votes in the House of Representatives a partisan majority is offered the vast temptation of disregarding the letter of the Constitution in order to secure that majority.

This plan received thorough consideration, underwent the ordeal of a prolonged discussion in the Reform Convention of Illinois, and when it was introduced here gentlemen began at once to figure the practical results of it, some of them with reference to their counties, others with reference to their party. So far as I am concerned, I have never yet asked myself to consider what would be, under the present accidental division of parties in this State, the practical working of this section; but I have turned it in various lights; I have endeavored to look at it from different stand-points, and I am unable to see how it can work injustice to anybody. Why is it not fair? The government of the United States ascertains your population for you every ten years. You avoid all the squabbles and troubles about a State census such as existed in New York a few years ago, when it was said that the Republican canvassers refused to report the proper population of New York city, in order to prevent New York city from having her proper Democratic representation in the House of Representatives. You get rid of that temptation to partisanship; and then you have a fixed divisor, not a fixed result, not a result that offers a temptation to partisanship to palter with a duty like this, but a fixed divisor in your funda5-VOL. VII.

mental law, and the quotient is the basis of representation.

Then what are you to do with that quotient? It finds this Convention, as all conventions would be, largely divided between two opinions, one saying that representation must be absolutely upon the basis of population; another saying that it must respect the corporate community known as the county. Then this quotient is let down to a proper compromise between those opinions. It goes down to three-fifths of the quotient, and `admits the county that has three-fifths as a corporate entity, entitled to representation, and it closes the door against the very smallest counties that have 4,000 and 8,000 of population, offering thereby, as it seems to me, a reasonable compromise between these conflicting opinions; and then, in order to secure as exact justice as possible in human arrangements, it utilizes the fractions. How? By taking again the same proportion, three-fifths of the ratio, and giving an additional member wherever that fraction of the ratio is attained.

Now, it will be found here as it was found in Illinois, that while of course in any plan submitted, when it comes to be worked out, accidental injustices and inequalities will be discovered, nevertheless take a great city like Philadelphia and take the country districts bounded by county lines, and what is the result? Philadelphia, the country members say, loses none of her fractions because she divides solidly twenty times into her population and the country districts lose their fractions below three-fifths. Very well; but the country districts gain their fractions whenever they exceed threefifths and the large cities gain nothing from excess of fractions. It is therefore a system that works with absolute equality-the equality that is born of justice.

If any man will let his tables alone and will point out an unjust result, I do not mean to say that this year he may not find a fraction in one county not represented and a fraction in another somewhat larger represented, but those inequalities are inevitable to the working of human government. If he will point out an unjust result that this principle will produce he will adduce an argument against its adoption; but I submit it is not an argument against it to say that it does not work with absolute perfection. We are reduced to the alternative of accepting some such proposition as this, amended, improved, if it can be, and the

tleman from Warren accepts it as a modification. The amendment will be read.

The CLERK. The gentleman from Dauphin moves to insert after the word "ratio" the words:

"And every county having a population of double the ratio and not less than three-fifths of the ratio shall be entitled to three representatives."

Mr. STRUTHERS. I accept that.

Mr. MACVEAGH and Mr. J. S. BLACK. Let the amendment as modified be read. The CLERK read as follows: "The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and fifty members, and the State shall be apportioned every ten years, beginning the first year after the adoption of this Constitution, by dividing the population, as ascertained by the last preceding United States census, by one hundred and fifty, and the quotient shall be the ratio of representation. Each county shall be a district and entitied to a member for each ratio and one for each three-fifths of a ratio which it may contain at the time of such apportionment. Each county organized at the adoption of this Constitution shall have a representative but shall not be entitled to an additional member until its population shall be equal to a ratio and threefifths of a ratio; and every county having a population of double the ratio, and not less than three-fifths the ratio, shall be entitled to three representatives. Counties hereafter organized shall not be entitled to separate representation until their population shall be equal to at least three

fifths of a ratio.

The PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays have been called for and ordered.

Mr. J. PRICE WETHERILL. I desire to ask the gentleman from Warren a single question before the vote is taken on his proposition: Whether he will say in his place, from actual calculation worked out by himself, that the House will consist of one hundred and fifty members only by his plan.

Mr. STRUTHERS. As near as I can ascertain it will not come up to it; it will only be about one hundred and fortyeight.

The PRESIDENT. The Clerk will call the roll.

Carey, Collins, Curry, Ewing, Fulton, Funck, Hall, Horton, Kaine, Long, M'Clean, Minor, Newlin, Parsons, Purviance, Sam'l A., Struthers, White, Harry and Walker, President-26.

NAVS.

Messrs. Addicks, Ainey, Armstrong, Baer, Baily, (Perry,) Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Baker, Barclay, Bardsley, Bartholomew, Biddle, Broomall, Buckalew, Cochran, Corbett, Curtin, Cuyler, Dallas, Darlington, Davis, De France, Edwards, Fell, Gibson, Green, Guthrie, Hanna, Harvey, Hay, Hemphill, Howard, Hunsicker, Landis, Lawrence, Lilly, Littleton, MacConnell, MacVeagh, M'Camant, M'Culloch, M'Michael, Metzger, Palmer, G. W., Patterson, D. W., Patton, Pughe, Read, John R., Reed, Andrew, Reynolds, Rooke, Runk, Russell, Sharpe, Smith, H. G., Smith, Henry W., Smith, Wm. H., Stanton, Stewart, Turrell, Wetherill, J. M., Wetherill, Jno. Price, White, David N., White, J. W. F., Woodward, Worrell and Wright-66.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

ABSENT.-Messrs. Achenbach, Bannan, Becbe, Black, Chas. A., Brodhead, Bullitt, Campbell, Carter, Cassidy, Church, Clark, Corson, Craig, Cronmiller, Dodd, Dunning, Elliott, Ellis, Finney Gilpin, HazZard, Heverin, Knight, Lamberton, Lear, M'Murray, Mann, Mantor, Mitchell, Mott, Niles, Palmer, H. W., Patterson, T. H. B., Porter, Purman, Purviance, John N., Ross, Simpson, Temple, Van Reed and Wherry-41.

Mr. MACVEAGH. Mr. President: I think the Convention will agree with me that the time has now come to consider, at least, the proposition reported by the Committee on the Legislature, to ascertain what defects it has, to propose such amendments as gentlemen consider desirable, and to endeavor, by giving our exclusive attention to it for a very few hours to perfect it so that it will meet the views not of everybody here in every detail, but in its main scope meet the views of a majority of this body. I ask the attention of the members while I tell them its salient points.

In the first place, it makes gerryman

YEAS.

Messrs. Alricks, Andrews, Bigler, Black, J. S., Bowman, Boyd, Brown, Calvin,

and forever as far as a constitutional article can do. In the next place, it makes the census of the United States the basis of apportionment. In the third place, it fixes the apportionment of every period

of ten years in accordance with the arrangements of the taking of the census of the United States. In the next place, it approximates the number of one hundred and fifty as the number of the House; and I wish to call the attention of members to this consideration, that it is better to take an approximate number than to take an absolute number, for this reason: You can then prescribe the method of reaching the approximate number so that partisan prejudices and partisan corruption shall not control your House of Representatives, whereas if you fix a positive number you put it in the power of the House to give the five, six, or seven odd members to such districts as a partisan majority may select. You may provide that they shall go here and there at every term, but what tribunal have you to sit in supervision of the apportionment when it is made? And if the control of the Legislature depends upon two or three votes in the House of Representatives a partisan majority is offered the vast temptation of disregarding the letter of the Constitution in order to secure that majority.

This plan received thorough consideration, underwent the ordeal of a prolonged discussion in the Reform Convention of Illinois, and when it was introduced here gentlemen began at once to figure the practical results of it, some of them with reference to their counties, others with eference to their party. So far as I am concerned, I have never yet asked myself to consider what would be, under the present accidental division of parties in this State, the practical working of this section; but I have turned it in various lights; I have endeavored to look at it from different stand-points, and I am unable to see how it can work injustice to anybody. Why is it not fair? The government of the United States ascertains your population for you every ten years. You avoid all the squabbles and troubles about a State census such as existed in New York a few years ago, when it was said that the Republican canvassers refused to report the proper population of New York city, in order to prevent New York city from having her proper Democratic representation in the House of Representatives. You get rid of that temptation to partisanship; and then you have a fixed divisor, not a fixed result, not a result that offers a temptation to partisanship to palter with a duty like this, but a fixed divisor in your funda5-VOL. VII.

mental law, and the quotient is the basis of representation.

Then what are you to do with that quotient? It finds this Convention, as all conventions would be, largely divided between two opinions, one saying that representation must be absolutely upon the basis of population; another saying that it must respect the corporate community known as the county. Then this quotient is let down to a proper compromise between those opinions. It goes down to three-fifths of the quotient, and `admits the county that has three-fifths as a corporate entity, entitled to representation, and it closes the door against the very smallest counties that have 4,000 and 8,000 of population, offering thereby, as it seems to me, a reasonable compromise between these conflicting opinions; and then, in order to secure as exact justice as possible in human arrangements, it utilizes the fractions. How? By taking again the same proportion, three-fifths of the ratio, and giving an additional member wherever that fraction of the ratio is attained.

Now, it will be found here as it was found in Illinois, that while of course in any plan submitted, when it comes to be worked out, accidental injustices and inequalities will be discovered, nevertheless take a great city like Philadelphia and take the country districts bounded by county lines, and what is the result? Philadelphia, the country members say, loses none of her fractions because she divides solidly twenty times into her population and the country districts lose their fractions below three-fifths. Very well; but the country districts gain their fractions whenever they exceed threefifths and the large cities gain nothing from excess of fractions. It is therefore a system that works with absolute equality-the equality that is born of justice.

If any man will let his tables alone and will point out an unjust result, I do not mean to say that this year he may not find a fraction in one county not represented and a fraction in another somewhat larger represented, but those inequalities are inevitable to the working of human government. If he will point out an unjust result that this principle will produce he will adduce an argument against its adoption; but I submit it is not an argument against it to say that it does not work with absolute perfection. We are reduced to the alternative of accepting some such proposition as this, amended, improved, if it can be, and the

The Convention will remember that there are two matters remaining open for final settlement. One is whether this compromise between the large and the small counties shall be accepted, or whether the smallest counties shall in every instance have a member. That question can be reached by a very simple amendment which I propose to offer in the interest of the settlement of that question, unless somebody else does, and not because I intend to favor it, and I will indicate to the friends of separate county representation that their question will be nakedly put before the House without embarrassment, and presented squarely, so that no man can err about it, by simply proposing to strike out of the seventh line these words, "unless its population is less than three-fifths of the ratio." The sentence "Every county shall be entitled to one representative unless its population is less than three-fifths of the ratio." By striking those words out it will leave it to read, "every county shall be entitled to one representative."

reads:

Then as to the division of counties and cities into districts, the committee thought it was better to leave that matter to the Legislature. I believe they had no doubt -certainly I had none-that the present method of allowing the old counties to elect their representatives on general ticket is preferable to the division of them into small separate districts, and if the people of the large cities desire to have their cities divided into districts of five members the Legislature will be competent to do it, or into districts of one member. What I think is now utterly impracticable is the view entertained by the late lamented President of this Convention, that a city so great as Philadelphia, and entitled to so large a proportion of the representation of the Commonwealth, should be allowed to elect her members on one single ticket. I think the counterbalancing dangers far outweigh all the possible advantages of such a policy.

The PRESIDENT. The delegate's time has expired.

chairman of the Committee on the Legislature, that we ought to consider in the first place the plan which is endorsed, wholly or partially, by his committee, and after considering it proceed to consider the amendments which may be proposed to it. We have proceeded, however, upon a different plan. We have been considering a great number of entire propositions of representation and apportionment offered by individual members on all sides of the Hall. Probably some portion of our embarrassment and much of the delay attending this debate has arisen from this cause. I agree, therefore, that we had best now consider what is before us, offered formally by the gentleman from Philadelphia, but really endorsed, at least in part, by the committee charged with this subject of the constitution of the Legislature.

Sir, we are informed by the gentleman from Dauphin that this is substantially the Illinois plan, that it comes recommended to us by the judgment of that State. Now, in point of fact, this proposition is not contained in the Constitution of Illinois. It was a frame of amendment proposed in a general body of amendments by the Convention of that State, but it was displaced by the adoption by the people of a separate proposition with regard to the House of Representatives. Therefore, sir, it can receive no sanction from the manipulation or consideration which it has undergone in the State of Illinois.

This amendment, from my point of view, is very much like having the play of Hamlet with the principal character omitted. It does not grapple with or solve the principal difficulty which we have in considering this question of representation. It does not determine what shall be done with the great cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburg, or rather with the city of Philadelphia and the county of Allegheny. It leaves the whole question as to these two great and populous communities, to the unregulated and complete discretion of the Legislature. It leaves that subject, I insist, in this shape: That representatives must be elected from

The motion was agreed to.

general ticket.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President: I think the debate is beginning now at the

tio shall have a representative; containing a ratio and three-fifths of a second, two members, and an additional repre