are entitled to consideration. I concur with him, that we ought not to undertake to apportion the State for county representation; and I do so, chiefly, because I do not think that we have time to do it, and also because I think there is no necessity for it.

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION.

Mr. CARR of Jackson, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Convention will now take up the orders of the day.

The resolution was adopted.

The Convention then resumed the consider

pending question being a motion of the gentleman from Floyd (Mr. Kent) to lay an amendment offered by the gentleman from St. Joseph (Mr. Colfax) on the 5th instant, to an amendment_offered by the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Brookbank,) on the same day, upon the table.

The gentleman from Morgan has said that the Legislature must, of necessity, make an apportionment this winter-that they are boundation of the second section of No. 12-the by the old Constitution to do so, and that we cannot exercise any control over them. Why, sir, it is easy for us to provide that the first apportionment under the new Constitution shall be that which may be made by the Legislature nder the old. I see no difficulty in doing this. But if we undertake to make an apportionment, we shall have the same difficulty upon our hands that the Legislature would have; the same local and conflicting interests to reconcile. Now, I want to keep local and political questions out of the Convention altogether. Every gentleman who has been in the Legislature must be aware that it will take two weeks, at least, to district the State; and we shall gain nothing by doing it, because the Legislature is about to perform the same work.

The question was put, and decided in the affirmative.

So the amendment of the gentleman from St. Joseph (Mr. Colfax) was laid upon the table.

The question then recurring upon the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Union (Mr. Brookbank)—

Mr. B. said: In order to give a friend of mine the opportunity of introducing an amendmeut, And I do not conceive that we should divide I will withdraw the one I have offered proposthe State into judicial districts. We can directing to introduce it again if the one he introthat they shall continue as now provided by law, duces shall be rejected. or as may hereafter be provided by law. I do not think we ought to prescribe the precise size of these districts. I think that we ought, by all means, to keep these extrinsic questions out of the Convention.

Mr. MAGUIRE moved to strike out from the resolution so much as related to districting the State for representative purposes.

The motion was agreed to.

The question being upon the adoption of the resolution as amended,

Mr. WATTS. I am opposed, sir, to the adoption of this proposition at this time. It appears to me that it is altogether out of place. If we district the State at all for representative or judicial purposes, it should be the last act of the Convention. I do not know what the number of representative districts ought

to be.

The PRESIDENT. All that relates to representative districts has been stricken out.

Mr. WATTS. Well, sir, I do not know what should be the number of judicial districts. I do dot know what number of judges the Convention may decide that there shall be on the supreme bench. All these things should be settled before we district the State, if we district it at all. I therefore hope that the same disposition will be made of this proposition, without any further debate, in order that we may first ascertain what is necessary to be done, and if no other gentleman wishes to see the resolution any longer above the table, I will move that it be laid upon the table. The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion that the gentleman from Union cannot now withdraw his amendment.

Mr. CLARK of Tippecanoe. In order to get the amendmeut out of the gentleman's way, I move to lay it on the table.

Mr. HOWE moved to amend the original section, by inserting the proviso "that each county shall be entitled to at least one Representative."

Mr. H. said, I agree with the gentlemen who support this section, that, as a general proposition, the smaller the number of Representatives the better; provided, however, at the same time, you give a just representation to all.

At first, sir, I was in favor of fixing the number of Representatives in the House at 75; but upon hearing the arguments of gentlemen in the course of this debate, and consulting with friends in regard to the matter, I have come to the conclusion that that position is wrong, and that the adoption of such a proposition will prevent the just representation of counties below or equal to an average. All the counties cannot have each a Representative with that number, and we must, therefore, adopt such a number as to give one Representative to nearly all. It will be utterly impossible, with seventy-five Representatives, to give a just representation to all. I therefore adhere to my original rule, to adopt the smallest number practicable, that will furnish a just representation.

It is true, my proposition is liable to some objections, for instance, that it interferes with the rule that representation is based upon pop

ulation. But it is impossible in carrying out Representatives. I concede to the gentleman this idea practically, to arrive at mathematical that he states his views with a great deal of accuracy It is but an approximation to ab- frankness, but I am one of those who believe stract justice. But I think this proposition car- that in fixing our representation, we should deries out both of these ideas as far as practicablecide upon a consistent and correct system by in just representation and a minimum number which it will be diffused as far as possible over of legislators. It gives the smallest number every section of the State. I stand upon the practicable, and at the same time carries out old platform, sir, that population is the correct'bathe idea of just representation as far as it can sis upon which to predicate representation. That be carried out. Obviously there are some ob- is a rule that has been long established; a comjections to it, but it is less obnoxious than any mon sense and just rule, and I would adhere proposition I have yet heard. If this proposito it were it not for the purpose of accommotion does not carry, I am ready to introduce an- dating the sparsely settled portions of the other-the next best in order; that each coun- State, and the weaker counties. I do not know, ty having two-thirds of the requisite number { sir, but I may be tempted to adopt the twoof males shall be entitled to one Representa-thirds ratio. But, sir, I am determined to do tive. If that does not carry, I have another justice as far as I can in this matter, as my votes proposition to introduce, providing that each have already indicated. The county I repreCounty having two-thirds of the requisite num-sent, sir, is not one that is likely to be affected ber of polls, shall be entitled to a Representa-by any system of ratio that is likely to be adopttive; and if that does not carry, I am willing ed. There are nearly three thousand polls in to adhere to the original proposition of the my county, so that we shall always most probacommittee, to fix the number of Representa- bly be entitled to a Representative. tives in the House at seventy-five. I am consistent, sir, in these views. Seventy-five is a smaller number, and practically, is enough to carry out the purposes designed. The only reason presented against its adoption is, that it conflicts with just representation.

If gentlemen will fix the votes upon the basis of population, they will find that in a few years this matter will come right. Population in the progress of time will diffuse itself equally over the State. Because, sir, this is an agricultural State and all portions of it have a good soil calIf, however, the counties of the average or culated to invite population; and those counties smallest size, are not to be secured in the priv-which are the weakest in the State at present ilege of a Representative each, they will be as will become the strongest in a few years. The well represented, and as little, perhaps less ob-progress of population in the State, if gentlenoxious, to want of proper representation, with the total number of seventy-five than of one hundred. The smaller counties are in justice entitled to considerable allowance in fixing the ratio of representation, because the greater number of them will increase very much be- { tween the periods of districting the State for representative purposes, while the older and -larger counties will be stationary, and will possibly decrease.

Mr. GARVIN moved further to amend by adding the following:

men will take population as the basis of representation, will give the necessary number of representatives to represent the State fairly. The proper mean to strike upon, I think, is one hundred, and when the population of the State is more dense that number will be ample to represent it correctly. The correct number of representatives I conceive to be fifty to the Senate and one hundred to the House, and the increase of population in the progress of time will, remedy any inequalities which may exist at present under this arrangement.

"Provided, after the year 1860, upon the pe- Mr. CLARK of Tippecanoe. MR. PRESIDENT, tition of the qualified voters of any county in I come from a large county, yet I have been this State, the Legislature shall cause a vote to voting to give to each of the small counties, as be taken at a general election held for the pur-far as possible, a representative as they do not pose of electing State officers, and if it shall seem to be desirous of having the number reappear that a majority of all the votes cast at duced. said election shall be in favor of an additional But, sir, I cannot vote for the proposition of ratio of representatives, then it shall be the the gentleman from Lagrange (Mr. Howe). duty of the Legislature to make such addition- My county which has three thousand two hundal ratio of representation as shall be necessa-red and forty-eight polls lies alongside of the ry: Provided, also, That it shall never exceed one hundred and twenty."

county of Benton which has two hundred and fifty-six polls, and adjoining that county is the Mr. SMITH of Ripley. It occurs to me, county of Jasper with six hundred and fortythat the argument of the gentleman from La-five polls. If I give to each of these counties grange amounts to something like this: If he a representative they, with one quarter of the cannot do a great deal of good he is determined population in my own county, will be entitled to do a great deal of harm. If he cannot get to twice as many representatives, and I cannot a Representative for each of the counties in consent to such injustice. I do not think the the State, he is for reducing the number of principle is at all correct.

A gentleman over the way, sir, has stated of Parke, Davis of Vermillion, Dobson, Dunn that territory and not population is the true of Jefferson, Duzan, Elliott, Farrow, Fisher, basis of representation. Now we have a vast Gibson, Gordon, Haddon, Hall, Hamilton, Hardesert prairie on the Western border of the or- { din, Helm, Helmer, Hendricks, Hitt, Holman, ganized States of the Union devoid almost en- Hovey, Johnson, Jones, Kent, Logan, Maguire, firely of population; does any gentleman say Mather, McFarland, McLean, Mooney, Morgan, that that desert should be represented in Con- Morrison of Marion, Nave, Newman, Niles, gress without population. Why should that Owen, Rariden, Read of Clark, Read of Monroe, desert be represented independently of popula-Ristine, Schoonover, Shannon, Snook, Smith tion? There is no fairness, sir, nor justice in of Ripley, Spann, Stevenson, Thomas, Thornsuch a system of representation. I am willington, Todd, Wallace, Watts, Wiley, Wolfe, Yoto share the number of representatives, fixed at cum, and Zenor-76. ose hundred, so as to accommodate the smaller counties as much as possible; but when I am asked to sacrifice the rights of my constituents in order to accommodate the interests of other portions of the State I think it is asking too much. I cannot go so far, it is an unequal and unfair proposition.

Mr. HELM moved to lay the amendment to the amendment, offered by the gentleman from Kosciusko (Mr. Garvin), on the table.

A division being called for the question was taken and decided in the affirmative-ayes fiftytwo, noes not counted.

So the amendment to the amendment was laid on the table.

So the amendment was rejected.

The question then recurring upon the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Decatur (Mr. Foley) to the amendment of the gentleman from Jennings (Mr. Prather), submitted on the fifth instant

Mr. ROBINSON asked for the yeas and nays on the question.

The yeas and nays were ordered and taken with the following result-yeas 56, nays 65: Those voting in the affirmative were,

Messrs. Badger, Barbour, Beard, Borden, Bourne, Butler, Coats, Conduit, Cookerly, Crawford, Davis of Parke, Davis of Vermillion, Dick, Dunn of Jefferson, Dunn of Perry, Duzan, Farrow, Fisher, Foster, Gibson, Gordon, Haddon,

Mr. STEVENSON. As I think members have made up their minds definitely on this mat-Helmer, Holman, Howe, Huff, Kelso, Logan, ter I call for the previous question.

March, McClelland, McLean, Morgan, Nave,
Newman, Pepper of Ohio, Rariden, Read of

The PRESIDENT. The question is, will the Convention second the demand for the pre-Clark, Ristine, Robinson, Schoonover, Shanvious question? non, Sherrod, Smiley, Stevenson, Tague, Tannehill, Thomas, Todd, Trimbly, Walpole,

The demand was seconded.

The PRESIDENT. The question is, shall Watts, Wolfe, Work, Yocum, Zenor, and Mr. the main question be now put? President-56. It was so ordered by consent.

The PRESIDENT. The question will now be taken upon the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lagrange (Mr. Howe).

Upon this question Mr. BORDEN demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered and taken with the following result-yeas 48, nays 76:

Those voting in the negative were,

Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Anthony, Berry, Bicknell, Blythe, Bowers, Bracken, Brookbank, Bryant, Carr, Chandler, Chapman, Chenowith, Clark of Hamilton, Clark of Tippecanoe, Cole, Colfax, Crumbacker, Davis of Madison, Dobson, Edmonston, Elliott, Garvin, Gootee, Graham of Miami, Hall, Hamilton, Harbolt, Hardin, Helm, Hendricks, Hitt, Hogin, Hovey, Jones, Those voting in the affirmative were, Kent, Kendall of Wabash, Kendall of White, Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Anthony, Bicknell, Lockhart, Maguire, Mather, May, McFarland, Borden, Brookbank, Chandler, Crumbacker, Miller of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, MoonDick, Dunn of Perry, Edmonston, Foster, Gar-ey, Moore, Morrison of Marion, Niles, Pepper vin, Gootee, Graham of Miami, Harbolt, Hogin, of Crawford, Prather, Ritchey, Snook, Smith Howe, Huff, Kelso, Kendall of Wabash, Ken- of Ripley, Smith of Scott, Spann, Steele, Taydall of Warren, Lockhart, March, May, McClellor, Thornton, Wallace, Wheeler, Wiley, and land, Miller of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Wunderlich-65. Moore, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Prather, Ritchey, Robinson, Sherrod, Smiley, Smith of Scott, Steele, Tague, Tannehill, Taylor, Trimbly, Walpole, Wheeler, Work, Wunderlich, Mr. President-48.

Those voting in the negative were,
Messrs. Badger, Barbour, Beard, Berry, Blythe,
Bourne, Bowers, Bracken, Bryant, Butler, Carr,
Chapman, Chenowith, Clark of Hamilton, Clark
of Tippecanoe, Coats, Cole, Colfax, Conduit,
Cookerly, Crawford, Davis of Madison, Davis

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The question then being upon the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Jennings (Mr. Prather)

The yeas and nays were demanded, and being ordered were taken with the following result-yeas 64, nays 58.

Those voting in the affirmative were:

Messrs. Allen, Badger, Beard, Berry, Blythe, Bourne, Bowers, Bracken, Bryant, Butler, Chap

man, Chenowith, Conduit, Crawford, Davis of Madison, Davis of Parke, Dick, Dunn of Jefferson, Dazan, Farrow, Hall, Hamilton, Helm, Hendricks, Holman, Hovey, Huff, Johson, Kelso, Lockhart, Logan, Maguire, May, McClelland, McLean, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Moore, Morrison of Marion, Nave, Newman, Owen, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Prather, Rariden, Read of Monroe, Robinson, Schoonover, Shannon, Smiley, Snook, Steele, Stevenson, Tague, Todd, Trimbly, Elliott, Wallace, Walpole, Watts, Wiley, Zenor, and Mr. President-64.

Those voting in the negative were,

Tannehill, Taylor, Thomas, Trimbly, Walpole,
Watts, Yocum, and Mr. President-51.
So the section was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading.

ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. MCFARLAND moved that the Convention adjourn until Monday morning nine o'clook.

Upon a division, the motion was not agreed to-ayes 49 noes 52.

Mr. HARDIN moved that the Convention adjourn until two o'clock P. M.

The motion was not agreed to.
The third section of No. 12 was then taken

up for consideration, on its second reading.
It is as follows:

Messrs. Alexander, Anthony, Barbour, Bicknell, Borden, Brookbank, Carr, Chandler, Clark of Hamilton, Clark of Tippecanoe, Coats, Cole, Colfax, Cookerly, Crumbacker, Davis of where more than one county shall constitute a "Senatorial and Representative districtsVermillion, Dobson, Dunn of Perry, Edmon-district-shall be composed of contigious counston, Fisher, Foster, Garvin, Gootee, Gordon, ties; and no county for representative purposes, Graham of Miami, Haddon, Harbolt, Hardin, shall ever be divided." Helmer, Hitt, Hogin, Howe, Jones, Kent, Kendall of Wabash, Kendall of Warren, March, Mather, Miller of Fulton, Mooney, Morgan, rod, Smith of Ripley, Smith of Scott, Spann, Niles, Read of Clark, Ristine, Ritchey, SherTannehill, Taylor, Thomas, Thornton, Wheeler, Wolfe, Work, Wunderlich, and Yocum-58. So the amendment was adopted.

The question then being, shall the section as amended, be engrossed for a third reading. The yeas and nays were demanded and being ordered, were taken with the following result yeas 73, nays 51:

Those voting in the affirmative were,

Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Anthony, Badger, Beard, Berry, Bicknell, Blythe, Borden, Bowers, Bracken, Brookbank, Bryant, Butler, Chandler, Chapman, Chenowith, Clark of Hamilton, Clark of Tippecanoe, Cole, Colfax, Crumbacker, Davis of Madison, Davis of Parke, Davis of Vermillion, Dick, Dobson, Edmonston, Farrow, Graham of Miami, Hall, Hamilton, Harbolt, Helm, Hendricks, Hitt, Hovey, Jones, Kelso, Kent, Kendall of Wabash, Lockhart, Maguire, May, McClelland, McFarland, Miller of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Mooney, Moore, Morrison of Marion, Newman, Niles, Owen, Pepper of Crawford, Prather, Rariden, Read of Monroe, Ritchey, Snook, Smith of Ripley, Smith of Scott, Steele, Thornton, Todd, Elliott, Wallace, Wheeler, Wiley, Wolfe, Work, Wunderlich, and Zenor-73.

members of the Convention are desirous of
Mr. RITCHEY said, as I do not suppose the
Convention do now adjourn.
having a speech inflicted upon them at this late
hour of the morning session, I move that the

Mr. KELSO moved to amend the motion of

the gentleman from Johnson, (Mr. Ritchey,) by adding the words "until Monday morning, eight o'clock.

Mr. GRAHAM of Warrick, asked for the yeas and nays upon the question, and

The yeas and nays were then ordered and taken, with the following result-yeas 39, nays 67.

Those voting in the affirmative were,

Messrs. Allen, Barbour, Berry, Bourne, Bryant, Carr, Chapman, Conduit, Cookerly, Dick, Dobson, Dunn of Perry, &c., Duzan, Edmonston, Elliott, Gibson, Graham of Miami, Hendricks, Hitt, Kelso, March, May, McFarland, Milroy, Niles, Pepper of Ohio, Prather, Rariden, Read of Monroe, Robinson, Smith of Scott, Spann, Steele, Taylor, Thornton, Walpole, Wheeler, Wiley and Mr. President-39.

Those voting in the negative were,

Messrs. Alexander, Anthony, Badger, Beard, Blythe, Borden, Bowers, Brookbank, Butler, Chandler, Clark of Hamilton, Clark of Tippecanoe, Coats, Cole, Crawford Crumbacker, Davis of Parke, Dunn of Jefferson, Farrow, Fisher, Foster, Garvin, Gootee, Haddon, Hall, Hamilton, Hardin, Helmer, Hogin, Holman, Howe, Huff, Johnson, Kendall of Wabash, Kendall of Warren, Lockhart, Logan, Maguire, Mather, McClelland, McLean, Miller of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Mooney, Moore, Morgan, Nave, Newman, Pepper of Crawford, Ritchey, Schoonover, Shannon, Sherrod, Smiley, Snook, Stevenson, Tague, Tannehill, Thomas, Trimbly, Wallace, Watts, Wolfe, Work, Wunder

Those voting in the negative were, Messrs. Barbour, Bourne, Carr, Coats, Conduit, Cookerly, Crawford, Dunn of Jefferson, Dunn of Perry, Duzan, Fiser, Foley, Foster, Garvin, Gibson, Gootee, Haddon, Hardin, Helmer, Hogin, Holman, Howe, Huff, Johnson, Kendall of Warren, Logan, March, Mather, McLean, Milroy, Morgan, Nave, Pepper of Ohio, Read of Clark, Ristine, Robinson, Schoonover, Shan-lich, Yocum, and Zenor-67. non, Sherrod, Smiley, Spann, Stevenson, Tague,

So the amendment was rejected.