tion there will be left from thirteen to fifteen small counties of the Commonwealth. Those gentlemen who are familiar with the political character of those counties know that they are very diverse in politics. They are so territorially located that they can be attached to or taken from certain counties to which they are contiguous and thus effect ultimately the political character of the Legislature. This has been the stumbling block in the way of a fair apportionment of members of the Legislature hitherto in the history of all bills that have been passed. I remember at the passage of the last bill the committee of conference of the Legislature sat in one of the committee rooms of the State Capitol until the grey dawn appeared, and the bone of contention was the disposition of particular small counties, for upon their disposition depended somewhat the political results to be attained, certainly the political fortunes of some gentlemen who had selfish interests as members of the Legislature.

Now, sir, with this experience, knowing what has existed in the past, I am opposed to any principle which will leave it loose, and which will not determine the status of those counties hereafter. If we are to leave this thing to the Legislature, I would leave it as an entirety; I would make a simple enunciation providing for the apportionment at the end of a certain period, and then let the legislative discretion be wide and free to satisfy itself and be responsible to its constituents. I would not, however, vote for any principle which provided for the separation of counties, and allowed the Legislature to take charge of those small counties and to dispose of them as the political

necessities of the times or the individual

necessities of the representatives might

determine.

I find this proposition of the delegate from Philadelphia specially obnoxious to this objection, and if I had none other to it, I would vote against it for this reason.

five members shall be divided in the formation of representative districts. Mr. J. M. WETHERILL. Make it four members. Make it three.

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW.

Mr. MACVEAGH. It will be the liberty of any gentleman to present his views upon that subject. My friend from Schuylkill (Mr. Bartholomew) desires me to make the number three, and other gentlemen around me suggest four. I have proposed this amendment, however, and if it be voted down, then any gentleman may introduce his proposition; but it shall not be said that we had not an opportunity of fixing this matter.

On this amendment I desire to say a single word. It will remove the ambiguity that gentlemen seem to see in this section. The ambiguity was considered and was not supposed to exist in it. The rule of construction in reference to the consideration of a State Constitution was supposed to be ample to cover this matter, that the Legislature had power to do what they were not forbidden to do; but

this amendment relieves it of this diff

culty. It prevents the division of any county not entitled to more than five members. I do not care what the view of the Convention is on this subject; I would prefer to leave it entirely to the Legislature as the smaller of two evils; but if gentlemen desire to put in an additional provision prohibiting the division of the counties not entitled to more than five members, very well. Or if they propose to limit the division to Philadelphia and Allegheny, that can be done by an amendment. It is entirely in the power of the House to make the section very explicit on this subject.

Mr. DARLINGTON. Mr. President: I

cannot yield my assent to this proposition, and my reasons I shall state very briefly indeed. I think we shall be compelled to come to one of two propositions, either single districts dividing every county and every city in the State, as is my favorite proposition; or allow county representation to exist and city represen

it hereafter.

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs then on the original amendment of the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill.)

Mr. MACVEAGH. In order to raise this question distinctly, I propose to offer an amendment to come in at the close, providing that no county entitled to less than

we can, with propriety, adopt one rule for one part of the State and another rule for another. Why is it that Philadelphia ought to be divided into single districts? Because of the preponderance that she would have in the Legislature if all the members of that large community in the Legislature were of one political party. It would be better for the interests of the

Mr. MACVEAGH. What the gentleman from Philadelphia means is to learn this: If the Legislature is not to apportion, who is?

Mr. BUCKALEW. I shall submit an amendment on that subject at the proper time. I can state now what I am in favor of, if that is what is wanted.

Mr. MACVEAGH. Well.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I am in favor of the amendment which was submitted two or three months since by the gentleman from Carbon, (Mr. Lilly,) which was that every tenth year commissioners should be elected by a vote of the people of the State for the purpose of making apportionments, taking it out of the Legislature. If this is not acceptable to the Convention, I am then in favor of the amend ment which was proposed by the gentleinan from Philadelphia, (Mr. Simpson,) that the Legislature itself, in joint convention, on the first Tuesday of the session following the United States census, should select commissioners for the same purpose, and providing how the apportionment should be made and disqualifying these commissioners of apportionments from holding any seat in the Legislature for five years thereafter. But, Mr. President, for the present I do not care to precipitate a debate on that question in connection with the other matters which are contained in this section. My present motion is simply to separate the two questions and allow that to come afterward.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. I do not exactly apprehend the amendment offered by the delegate from Columbia. I hold in my hand the proposition before the Convention, submitted by the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill.) Do I understand that the delegate from Columbia proposes to strike out the entire amendment?

The PRESIDENT. No, sir. He moves to strike out the third line, leaving the first line and the second line stand down to and including the word "Constitution," and to insert in lieu thereof the words: "The State shall be formed into representative districts every ten years." The question is on the amendment.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I ask the mover of the original amendment whether there is no possibility of separating this question of the authority to make the apportionment from the subject of the apportionment itself. Let us vote on them separately.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. I have just an observation to make on the principle of this amendment, and I will make it now. I shall vote against the amendment offered by the delegate from Columbia, at this time-I do not know how I shall vote upon it ultimately-for I want to take a vote on the naked proposition offered by the delegate from Philadelphia, and I shall have great pleasure in voting against that proposition.

It is possibly no egotism for me to say that I have had the privilege, if not the honor or possibly dishonor, of participating three times in the apportionment of the State into legislative districts, as a member of the Senate of Pennsylvania; and I confess that I am almost forced to the conclusion that it would be quite as safe to trust the Legislature of the State to make a fair apportionment as it would be a Convention of this kind. This is, doubtless, as we all admit, an assemblage of very respectable gentlemen, but I discover that they are animated for their respective districts by the same motives that seem to animate many members of the Legislature in making what have been, from time to time, characterized as gerrymandering bills of apportionment. If we wish to strike at that which is characterized by the popular voice as gerrymandering by the Legislature, if we wish to make that impossible for the future, we shall hesitate long before we adopt the proposition offered by the honorable delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill.)

Why is this? It has certain indicative features about it. One, the object of which was thoughtlessly avowed by the gentleman from Philadelphia,gives Philadelphia two more representatives on this principle than upon any other principle which has yet been under consideration. But the honorable delegate from Philadelphia has asserted that he has not considered locality in announcing any principle here whatever, and certainly I take him at his word. Leave that, then, out of view entirely and it is obnoxious for another objection. That objection is that it throws the small counties of this Commonwealth into a Legislature with which the dishonest members of that body can play battle-door if you please. Why, sir, the great difficulty that the Legislature has encountered from time to time has been in making disposition of the small counties of the Commonwealth. I discover that under the principle of this proposi

tion there will be left from thirteen to fifteen small counties of the Commonwealth. Those gentlemen who are familiar with the political character of those counties know that they are very diverse in politics. They are so territorially located that they can be attached to or taken from certain counties to which they are contiguous and thus effect ultimately the political character of the Legislature. This has been the stumbling block in the way of a fair apportionment of members of the Legislature hitherto in the history of all bills that have been passed. I remember at the passage of the last bill the committee of conference of the Legislature sat in one of the committee rooms of the State Capitol until the grey dawn appeared, and the bone of contention was the disposition of particular small counties, for upon their disposition depended somewhat the political results to be attained, certainly the political fortunes of some gentlemen who had selfish interests as members of the Legislature.

Now, sir, with this experience, knowing what has existed in the past, I am opposed to any principle which will leave it loose, and which will not determine the status of those counties hereafter. If we are to leave this thing to the Legislature, I would leave it as an entirety; I would make a simple enunciation providing for the apportionment at the end of a certain period, and then let the legislative discretion be wide and free to satisfy itself and be responsible to its constituents. I would not, however, vote for any principle which provided for the separation of counties, and allowed the Legislature to take charge of those small counties and to dispose of them as the political

necessities of the times or the individual

necessities of the representatives might

five members shall be divided in the tormation of representative districts. Mr. J. M. WETHERILL. Make it four members.

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW. Make it three. Mr. MACVEAGH. It will be the liberty of any gentleman to present his views upon that subject. My friend from Schuylkill (Mr. Bartholomew) desires me to make the number three, and other gentlemen around me suggest four. I have proposed this amendment, however, and if it be voted down, then any gentleman may introduce his proposition; but it shall not be said that we had not an opportunity of fixing this matter.

On this amendment I desire to say a single word. It will remove the ambiguity that gentlemen seem to see in this section. The ambiguity was considered and was not supposed to exist in it. The rule of construction in reference to the consideration of a State Constitution was supposed to be ample to cover this matter, that the Legislature had power to do what they were not forbidden to do; but this amendment relieves it of this diffculty. It prevents the division of any county not entitled to more than five members. I do not care what the view of the Convention is on this subject; I would prefer to leave it entirely to the Legislature as the smaller of two evils; but if gentlemen desire to put in an additional provision prohibiting the division of the counties not entitled to more than five members, very well. Or if they propose to limit the division to Philadelphia and Allegheny, that can be done by an amendment. It is entirely in the power of the House to make the section very explicit on this subject.

Mr. DARLINGTON. Mr. President: I cannot yield my assent to this proposition, and my reasons I shall state very

briefly indeed. I think we shall be com

pelled to come to one of two propositions, either single districts dividing every county and every city in the State, as is my favorite proposition; or allow county representation to exist and city representation, however large. I do not see how we can, with propriety, adopt one rule for one part of the State and another rule for another. Why is it that Philadelphia ought to be divided into single districts? Because of the preponderance that she would have in the Legislature if all the members of that large community in the Legislature were of one political party. It would be better for the interests of the

Mr. MACVEAGH. What the gentleman from Philadelphia means is to learn this: If the Legislature is not to apportion, who is?

Mr. BUCKALEW. I shall submit an amendment on that subject at the proper time. I can state now what I am in favor of, if that is what is wanted.

Mr. MACVEAGH. Well:

Mr. BUCKALEW. I am in favor of the amendment which was submitted two or three months since by the gentleman from Carbon, (Mr. Lilly,) which was that every tenth year commissioners should be elected by a vote of the people of the State for the purpose of making apportionments, taking it out of the Legislature. If this is not acceptable to the Convention, I am then in favor of the amend ment which was proposed by the gentleinan from Philadelphia, (Mr. Simpson,) that the Legislature itself, in joint convention, on the first Tuesday of the session following the United States census, should select commissioners for the same purpose, and providing how the apportionment should be made and disqualifying these commissioners of apportionments from holding any seat in the Legislature for five years thereafter. But, Mr. President, for the present I do not care to precipitate a debate on that question in connection with the other matters which are contained in this section. My present motion is simply to separate the two questions and allow that to come afterward.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. I do not exactly apprehend the amendment offered by the delegate from Columbia. I hold in my hand the proposition before the Convention, submitted by the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill.) Do I understand that the delegate from Columbia proposes to strike out the entire amendment?

The PRESIDENT. No, sir. He moves to strike out the third line, leaving the first line and the second line stand down to and including the word "Constitution," and to insert in lieu thereof the words: "The State shall be formed into representative districts every ten years." The question is on the amendment.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I ask the mover of the original amendment whether there is no possibility of separating this question of the authority to make the apportionment from the subject of the apportionment itself. Let us vote on them separately.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. I have just an observation to make on the principle of this amendment, and I will make it now. I shall vote against the amendment offered by the delegate from Columbia, at this time-I do not know how I shall vote upon it ultimately-for I want to take a vote on the naked proposition offered by the delegate from Philadelphia, and I shall have great pleasure in voting against that proposition.

It is possibly no egotism for me to say that I have had the privilege, if not the honor or possibly dishonor, of participating three times in the apportionment of the State into legislative districts, as a member of the Senate of Pennsylvania; and I confess that I am almost forced to the conclusion that it would be quite as safe to trust the Legislature of the State to make a fair apportionment as it would be a Convention of this kind. This is, doubtless, as we all admit, an assemblage of very respectable gentlemen, but I discover that they are animated for their respective districts by the same motives that seem to animate many members of the Legislature in making what have been, from time to time, characterized as gerrymandering bills of apportionment. If we wish to strike at that which is characterized by the popular voice as gerrymandering by the Legislature, if we wish to make that impossible for the future, we shall hesitate long before we adopt the proposition offered by the honorable delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill.)

Why is this? It has certain indicative features about it. One, the object of which was thoughtlessly avowed by the gentleman from Philadelphia,gives Philadelphia two more representatives on this principle than upon any other principle which has yet been under consideration. But the honorable delegate from Philadelphia has asserted that he has not considered locality in announcing any principle here whatever, and certainly I take him at his word. Leave that, then, out of view entirely and it is obnoxious for another objection. That objection is that it throws the small counties of this Commonwealth into a Legislature with which the dishonest members of that body can play battle-door if you please. Why, sir, the great difficulty that the Legislature has encountered from time to time has been in making disposition of the small counties of the Commonwealth. I discover that under the principle of this proposi

tion there will be left from thirteen to fifteen small counties of the Commonwealth. Those gentlemen who are familiar with the political character of those counties know that they are very diverse in politics. They are so territorially located that they can be attached to or taken from certain counties to which they are contiguous and thus effect ultimately the political character of the Legislature. This has been the stumbling block in the way of a fair apportionment of members of the Legislature hitherto in the history of all bills that have been passed. I remember at the passage of the last bill the committee of conference of the Legislature sat in one of the committee rooms of the State Capitol until the grey dawn appeared, and the bone of contention was the disposition of particular small counties, for upon their disposition depended somewhat the political results to be attained, certainly the political fortunes of some gentlemen who had selfish interests as members of the Legislature.

Now, sir, with this experience, knowing what has existed in the past, I am opposed to any principle which will leave it loose, and which will not determine the status of those counties hereafter. If we are to leave this thing to the Legislature, I would leave it as an entirety; I would make a simple enunciation providing for the apportionment at the end of a certain period, and then let the legislative discretion be wide and free to satisfy itself and be responsible to its constituents. I would not, however, vote for any principle which provided for the separation of counties, and allowed the Legislature to take charge of those small counties and to dispose of them as the political necessities of the times or the individual

necessities of the representatives might determine.

five members shall be divided in the formation of representative districts. Mr. J. M. WETHERILL. Make it four members.

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW. Make it three. Mr. MACVEAGH. It will be the liberty of any gentleman to present his views upon that subject. My friend from Schuylkill (Mr. Bartholomew) desires me to make the number three, and other gentlemen around me suggest four. I have proposed this amendment, however, and if it be voted down, then any gentleman may introduce his proposition; but it shall not be said that we had not an opportunity of fixing this matter.

On this amendment I desire to say a single word. It will remove the ambiguity that gentlemen seem to see in this section. The ambiguity was considered and was not supposed to exist in it. The rule of construction in reference to the consideration of a State Constitution was supposed to be ample to cover this matter, that the Legislature had power to do what they were not forbidden to do; but

this amendment relieves it of this diffculty. It prevents the division of any county not entitled to more than five members. I do not care what the view of the Convention is on this subject; I would prefer to leave it entirely to the Legislature as the smaller of two evils; but if gentlemen desire to put in an additional provision prohibiting the division of the counties not entitled to more than five members, very well. Or if they propose to limit the division to Philadelphia and Allegheny, that can be done by an amendment. It is entirely in the power of the House to make the section very explicit on this subject.

Mr. DARLINGTON. Mr. President: I cannot yield my assent to this proposition, and my reasons I shall state very briefly indeed. I think we shall be compelled to come to one of two propositions, either single districts dividing every county and every city in the State, as is my favorite proposition; or allow county representation to exist and city represen

it hereafter.

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs then on the original amendment of the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill.)

Mr. MACVEAGH. In order to raise this question distinctly, I propose to offer an amendment to come in at the close, providing that no county entitled to less than

we can, with propriety, adopt one rule for one part of the State and another rule for another. Why is it that Philadelphia ought to be divided into single districts? Because of the preponderance that she would have in the Legislature if all the members of that large community in the Legislature were of one political party. It would be better for the interests of the