Mr. BIGLER. I avail myself of the courtesy of the delegate from Dauphin (Mr. MacVeagh) to say a word or two about this amendment. It is very simple and very plain, and the distinction between the two propositions will be seen in a moment. The delegate from the city (Mr. J. Price Wetherill) proposes to impose the duty of apportionment upon the Legislature. The amendment which I have submitted has no reference to that question whatever. I intended, however, to offer another propisition entirely different from that of the delegate from the city, on that subject. But the strong point of differerce is that my proposition concedes at least one member to every county, while that of the delegate from the city clusters the small counties. In short, the proposition which I submit as an amendment sets out by declaring that each county shall be a legislative district entitled to representation according to population, except that no county shall have less than one member, and that an excess of the ratio shall also be entitled to representation. With reference to the three large counties of Luzerne, Allegheny and Philadelphia, it provides that they shall be districted. These are the points of difference. The proposition which was under consideration a moment ago has this distinctive difference from the other two, that it proposes single legislative districts, each having one member.

These are the points of consideration, and it is just as well to consider the value of the proposition of the delegate from Indiana in this connection, and therefore I allude to it now.

Mr. MACVEAGH. Mr. President: I belong to that small minority of this body whose members have not any particular project for the organization of the House of Representatives, and I desire to speak to that minority rather than to the majority of the Convention, who, when we were last assembled, seemed possessed with the determination either to secure each for himself his own particular project or to assist in voting down any project that was not entirely acceptable to him.

Now I desire to call the attention of the Convention to certain points that we ought either to regard as already settled in this matter or to take test votes and settle them. One is whether each county is to have a member. The argument upon

ed. We have taken innumerable votes upon it, but our votes were wavering for the reason that men who were in favor of separate county representation, when the proposition came for a final vote where offended at some other provision in the proposed section, and they assisted in voting it down. Then those who were ofposed to separate county representation, like the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Wetherill,) thought at once that the majority of the Convention was opposed to separate county representation. The moment a proposition in that sense was introduced it also was voted down, and the result was that we spent day after day, not in settling any single proposition on which a majority was agreed, but in voting down every proposition that was offered.

Mr. S. A. PURVIANCE. Will the gentleman from Dauphin allow me to interrupt him?

Mr. MACVEAGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. S. A. PURVIANCE. My distinct recollection is that the question was brought separately and distinctly before this body as to whether each and every county in the Commonwealth should have a representative, irrespective of population, and it was decided in the

affirmative.

Mr. MACVEAGH. I was just going to state that I was myself opposed to the separate representation of counties until a test vote, not once but I think three times, was taken. Certainly once a clear test vote was taken, and a decisive majority of this body pronounced in favor of separate county representation. From that time forward I ceased my opposition utterly, but when the proposition came forward embracing a provision for separate county representation, gentlemen who were in favor of it voted "no" because of other provisions in the article, and other gentlemen voted "no" who were in favor of every other provision in the article because it contained that provision. Now, I submit that in that method of voting, with that tenacity of purpose to over-ride the mature judgment of a majority of this body, it is impossible to reach any satisfactory result, and that when the body takes a clear responsibility upon a test vote disincumbered of every other consideration, and says "aye, we will have separate county representation,” then for one, I understand that henceforward, without submitting any rule for the gov

ernment of anybody else, I will accept that principal as the principal of that majority of this body and endeavor to perfect the article in other respects.

We had accepted the proposition of the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. D. N. White,) and it was finally defeated, in my judgment simply because members of the Convention who were in favor of it in every other respect were opposed to separate county representation, and assisted, therefore, to vote it down.

Now, I trust that we shall take test votes again, if that be desired; that as often as it is desired we shall take them-the freest liberty of discussion and of voting being allowed; but when the Convention does solemnly decide upon a principal that then we shall accept that decision in good faith and go on to perfect the article.

The differences between the pending propositions are not very important. The first is the question of separate county representation; the second is whether the ratio shall be a quotient that is the result of taking the population and dividing by a fixed number, as the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill) proposes, and which I confess seems to my mind an unexceptionably fair proposition, or whether it shall be a fixed number of 25,000 as contemplated by the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. D. N. White,) and the third is as to the method of using the fractions. I think this Convention would do wisely to consider that we fixed the number after a great deal of skirmishing and voting one way and another at 152. I think the Convention would do wisely to consider that we decided the question of separate county representation, but if not, let us reconsider it, debate it as long as gentlemen think it wise and then decide it, and if the principle is accepted let us go forward and perfect the article. It is simply in the interes: not of a hasty discharge of this duty, but of a discharge of it that will reach a practical result, acceptable not in every detail to a majority of the whole body, but acceptable in its general purport and in the main scope of its provisions to a majority of the Convention, that I have felt at liberty to urge these considerations at this time.

Mr. LILLY. Mr. President: I am opposed to a separate county representation when it is mixed up with a proposition for representation on population, and can only support it when you separate it in such a way that it becomes a principle,

and then I am ready to take that as a compromise between my opinion and the opinions of others who go for separate county representation upon the principle of the plan offered by the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. D. N. White,) and re-offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Harry White) to-day. Now, I take it that giving each county a representative because it is a county is the most delusive thing that has been offered in this Convention. It overturns all principle upon which representation in the lower House or popular branch of the Legislature should be founded, in my opinion. In the first place, I take it that the reason why we send representatives to the Legislature at all is because it is impracticable or impossible for the people all to go to the Capital of the State to make laws, and the consequence is that we send representatives. Representatives of what sir? Representatives of the people, not of court-houses and jails, but representatives of the people.

The plan which is proposed by the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman

from Allegheny, and which was voted for by a majority of this Convention at one time, contains that principle to such an

extent that it never can receive my assent. The counties of Cameron and Elk have a very small fraction, about 4,000 people each. The gentleman from Susquehanna (Mr. Turrell) says we have had that all over, but it has been so long ago that some of us have forgotten it. Oh, no.

Mr. TURRELL.

Mr. LILLY. On that plan, counties containing over twenty-five thousand people are only one-seventh as much represented as these small counties. Now the only way I am willing to see this county representation is, first, to have a county represented because it is a county, and then to apportion if you please one hundred and fifty members among all the counties according to population strictly, making them into single legislative districts, if you please, not dividing any township or election precinct, but dividing the State up in any other way. That is the only basis on which I can see myself at liberty to support county representation. It is the greatest fallacy in the world for us to be talking about it because they are political divisions. You can carry that down to townships. The gentleman of Indiana says becauso they assess taxes they ought to be separately represented. Every township in

the State of Pennsylvania assesses taxes, and consequently the townships ought to be separately represented!

Mr. BUCKALEW. And every borough. Mr. LILLY. Yes, and every borough should be represented separately, according to the gentleman from Indiana. The gentleman from Indiana takes that position, which I think is altogether wrong, and he goes further and rather carries out the idea that because they are not separately represented they are not represented at all! Well, I take it that if two counties lying side by side send one man to the Legislature, that man is bound to represent the two counties as much as one, and he does it, and it is a delusive thing to say that a county should have a representative because it is a county!

I feel very strongly on this subject, and did before the Convention adjourned. I have had no new light thrown on the subject since, and my conversation with the people has led me to no different conclusion. On the contrary, every man I have conversed with on this subject away from this body is strongly opposed to this separate representation, or the mere representation of a county because it is a county. Every one that I have spoken to on this subject is opposed to it and says it is entirely wrong. Men from the most populous counties of the State said to me, men from Borks county said to me: "If you adopt that thing we will give the largest majority against your Constitution that we ever polled in Berks county." How much they spoke for the people of Berks county I do not pretend to say; but people from other counties have talked in the same

way to me because they say (which is the truth) that it is doing those people a great wrong to give counties that have no population or only four or five thousand population seven times as much representation as they have. It is certainly doing a great wrong to the larger counties.

I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Clearfield (Mr. Bigler) will

not be adopted, and I hope if we can get to the proposition of the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill) it will be adopted. But if the great champions for county representation will agree in the first place that each county shall have a representation because it is a

county, lay that down as a principle, not because it has any population in it at all, but because it is a county, and then divide the population without any reference whatever to counties into districts ac

cording to the number of members we shall fix on, then I probably shall vote for it.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment proposed by the delegate from Clearfield (Mr. Bigler) to the amendment of the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. J. Price Wetherill.)

Mr. BIGLER. Let us have the yeas and nays on that.

Mr. HUNSICKER. I second the call. The yeas and nays were taken and were as follow, viz:

YEAS.

Messrs. Achenbach, Baer, Bailey, head, Buckalew, Bullitt, Dunning, Ful(Huntingdon,) Bigler, Bowman, Brodton Funck, Gibson, Guthrie, Harvey, Hay, Hunsicker, Kaine, Landis, Long, Metzgar, Palmer, G. W., Parsons, Patton, Purviance, Samuel A., Read, John R., Reed, Andrew, Sharp, Smith, H. G., Smith Wm. II., Stewart, Van Reed and Wright-32.

NAYS.

Mac

Messrs. Ainey, Alricks, Baily, (Perry,) Bannan, Bartholomew, Boyd, Broomall, Calvin, Campbell, Carey, Carter, Cochran, Collins, Corbett, Corson, Curry, Darlington, Davis, De France, Edwards, Ewing, Finney, Green, Hanna, Hazzard, Lawrence, Lilly, MacConnell, Veagh, M'Camant, M'Clean, M'Culloch, Minor, Newlin, Patterson, D. W., Pughe, Rooke, Runk, Russell, Smith, Henry W., Stanton, Struthers, Turrell, Wetherill, J. M., Wetherill, Jno. Price, White, David N.. White, Harry, White, J. W. F., Woodward, Worrell and Walker, President-51.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

ABSENT.-Messrs. Addicks, Andrews, Armstrong, Baker, Barclay, Bardsley, Beebe, Biddle, Black, Charles A., Black, J. S., Brown, Cassidy, Church, Clark, Craig, Cronmiller, Curtin, Cuyley, Dallas, Dodd, Elliott, Ellis, Fell, Gilpin, Hall, Hemphill, Heverin, Horton, Howard, Knight, Lamberton, Lear, Littleton, M'Michael, M'Murray, Mann, Mantor, Mitchell, Mott, Niles, Palmer, H. W.,

Patterson, T. H. B., Porter, Purman, Pur

viance, John N., Reynolds, Ross, Simpson, Temple and Wherry--50.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. I now renew the amendment which lies on the Clerk's desk.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Indiana renews his amendment. It will be read.

The Clerk read as follows: Strike out all after the word "the," in the first line, and insert:

"House of Representatives shall consist of not less than one hundred and fiftytwo members, to be apportioned and distributed to the counties of the State severally in proportion to the population, on a ratio of 25,000 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 of 500 for each increase of 75,000 inhabitants."

Mr. BUCKALEW. It is not at all likely that any considerable number of the members of this Convention will be etirely suited with any section which may be proposed with reference to the subject of representation in the House of Representatives, for so many considerations are involved in this question that we cannot expect the solution of all of them in an amendment, will accord with the views of any considerable number of members. We shall, therefore, be obliged in voting upon the question to select between the different propositions presented to us, and take that one which, upon the whole, is most, although not entirely, acceptable to our individual judgments.

Now, the amendment proposed by the member from Indiana might be accepted in some of its features, probably by each member of the Convention, for it comprises some half dozen different points. I shall, for one, be obliged to vote against

it, however, because there are, in my judg ment, several strong objections to it, objections which I cannot overlook or ignore. The amendment of the gentleman provides largely for single districts. A large part of the membership of the House under his amendment would be chosen by single districts. Now, my judgment is strongly and immovably set against single districts in representation, and if I needed any illustration of the mischiefs of this plan, it would be afforded me by the example of the city of Philadelphia ever since the year 1864. We all know that from the time when single districts were introduced into our representation for Philadelphia, under an amendment to the Constitution which was drawn by me, the character of the delegation from this city has degenerated both in regard to moral and intellectual quality. Nothing is more certain than that the city ever since this change has been represented in the Legislature of this State, speaking in the main, by inferior men. There are, of course, some exceptions, and I do not in what say on this subject intend to reflect upon individuals. I am speaking of a plan and of a general result which has come from it. Upon this point you have had the emphatic and powerful appeal of the late President of this Convention. He told you, and he told you truly, what was the inevitable result of breaking up the municipal divisions of the State into small districts for the purpose of selecting representatives in the Legislature. He told you that it degraded and lowered the tone and character of representation in legislative bodies, and he spoke, I suppose, not only with reference to his observation in his own city of Philadelphia, but from a larger observation directed to other States and to other countries.

In the first place, then, I am opposed to this amendment because it proposes that every city and county entitled to more than three representatives, shall be divided and elect its representatives from single districts. I think it would be a change greatly injurious to the character of the Legislature, and to the interests of the Commonwealth.

I am opposed also to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, because he has adopted an incorrect principle for the representation of fractions. As I spoke on this point before, I shall not enlarge upon it now. He provides for a single fraction to be represented, and he would