Ohio History Journal

MEMBERSHIP IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

OF OHIO

BY B. H. PERSHING

Professor in Wittenberg College.

Since pure democracy is not possible in any country

with a numerous population every republic finds itself

under the necessity of devising some system of repre-

sentation. The emergence in America of geographical

areas having in every case a historical background and

a political consciousness has made the problem more

complex here than in lands in which artificial boundaries

for this purpose may be created at will. To reconcile

representation based on geography with representation

based on population and yet not impair the rights of

citizens in any locality has been the problem confronting

constitution-makers and legislators. To outline the

history of the attempts to solve this problem in Ohio is

the purpose of this study. In it will be described the

experiences of the people of Ohio as they have grappled

with this question whose correct solution is so impera-

tive in a democracy.

Representation in the upper house of the General

Assembly has passed through three phases. The first

was that of the Legislature under the ordinance for the

government of the Northwest Territory. In this stage

which lasted from 1798 to 1803 membership in the

upper house or territorial council was not based on geo-

(222)

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  223

graphical areas. The members were appointed at large

by the President from a list submitted by the lower

house. The second period extended from 1803 to 1851.

During this time the senatorial districts were determined

by the General Assembly. That body exercised great

freedom in the matter as the restrictions in the Consti-

tution of 1803 were very few. The third period has

lasted from 1851 to the present time. While the sena-

torial districts are permanently fixed in the Constitution

a committee from the executive department has been

free to arrange them as seems advisable in view of their

population.

Four different plans have been followed by the peo-

ple of Ohio, in the apportionment of the membership of

the House of Representatives. The first was that au-

thorized by the Ordinance of 1787. In this stage which

lasted from 1798 to 1803 the Legislature determined the

distribution of the membership among the several coun-

ties of the territory. The second plan was in operation

from 1803 to 1851. During this time the Legislature

was empowered to apportion representatives subject

only to a few restrictions in the Constitution of 1803.

Then came a period from 1851 to 1903 in which the Con-

stitution greatly limited the field within which a commit-

tee from the executive department might distribute the

least populous counties. In the fourth period which has

continued from 1903 to the present time the constitu-

tional restrictions have been increased so that this com-

mittee cannot deny representation to any county but

must grant it to all according to a carefully formulated

system of complete and fractional ratios.

As already stated there was no question of appor-

224      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tionment of the members of the upper house of the Ter-

ritorial Legislature. In the lower house each county

was entitled to send one representative for every five

hundred free white male inhabitants.1 This gave Ham-

ilton 8, Ross 4, Wayne 3, Washington 2 and one each to

Jefferson, Adams, St. Clair, Randolph and Knox.

When the total number of representatives reached 25 the

Legislature was given authority to fix the number and

distribution for the future. Before the second and last

session of the Territorial Legislature convened, the

Northwest Territory was divided by the erection of the

western part into Indiana Territory. Hamilton County

sent one-third of the membership of this Legislature.²

The Constitutional Convention of 1803 met with this

precedent of legislative control of representation before

it. It was also under the spell of the unlimited confi-

dence in the probity and disinterestedness of the Legisla-

ture that characterized this period. As was to be ex-

pected under such circumstances, the Legislature was

given the authority to determine the number of senators

and representatives within broad limits and to apportion

them throughout the State.

This apportionment was to take place every four

years. At such intervals a census of white males over

twenty-one years of age was to be taken. Until the num-

ber of white males exceeded 22,000 the membership of

the House of Representatives was not to be less than 24

or more than 36. When this population mark had been

1 Ordinance of 1787, sec. 9, 11.

² House Journal (1801), p. 3.

Ohio Statistics (1881), p. 68; This volume contains a complete list;

of the members of the Legislature up to this time. It does not always

agree with the Apportionment Acts and the Senate and House Journals.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  225

passed the number could vary from 36 to 72 at the will

of the General Assembly. There was no explicit state-

ment that each county should be given a representative

or that the representatives from a county with more

than one representative should be elected in a block. The

schedule of the Constitution gave Hamilton 8, Clermont

2, Adams 3, Ross 4, Fairfield 2, Washington 3, Belmont

2, Jefferson 4, and Trumbull 2.³

The members of the State Senate were to be "appor-

tioned among the several Counties or Districts" by the

General Assembly. The number was never to be less

than one-third or more than one-half that of the mem-

bership of the House of Representatives. Until a cen-

sus could be taken, Hamilton County was to send 4 sena-

tors, Clermont 1, Adams 1, Ross 2, Fairfield 1, Wash-

ington 2, Belmont 1, Jefferson 2, and Trumbull 1.4 The

term of a senator was two years and that of a represen-

tative one year.

It is not necessary to follow in detail each of the ap-

portionment acts that were passed regularly at four-year

intervals until the revision of the Constitution in 1850.

To do so would be a monotonous repetition that would

do no more than strengthen the impressions one receives

of the practices of the period. These practices will be

shown by illustrations from the various acts. This will

prepare the way for a study of the Apportionment Act

of 1848 that disrupted two General Assemblies, threat-

ened a revolution in the State, and developed a demand

3 Constitution of 1802, art. 1, sec. 2, schedule, sec. 7, Patterson, Isaac

F., Constitutions of Ohio, p. 96.

4 Constitution of 1802, art. 1, sec. 6, schedule, sec. 7, Patterson, ibid,

p. 97.

Vol. XL--15.

226      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

for some apportionment system that would not lend itself

so readily to the partisanship of the General Assembly.

The work of the General Assembly during this period

was conditioned by several important factors. One of

these was the rapid growth of the State. From a pop-

ulation of 45,365 with the rank of seventeenth in 1800,

Ohio rose to third place in 1860 with 2,339,511.5 At

the same time the membership of the House of Repre-

sentatives could not exceed 72 and might be kept as low

as 36. The membership of the senate was limited ac-

cordingly. Even though the maximum number was

apportioned the ratio for one senator or representative

constantly grew larger. This explains the increasing

necessity for the combination of counties as time passed.

By 1850 the increase in population alone rendered a re-

vision of this section of the Constitution desirable. Ohio

was suffering from the situation that comes inevitably

when the membership of a legislative body is limited

while the population rapidly grows larger. A senate

whose membership could be apportioned without any

combination of counties in 1802 could not be so arranged

in 1850.

Another factor was the political complexion of the

State at large. It was not until 1822 that the Federalist

vote closely approximated that of the Democratic candi-

date for governor. In 1826 a Democratic gubernatorial

candidate was defeated for the first time. From this

year until 1850 the majorities of the winning candidates

were always small. On several occasions they were less

⁵ Eighth Census, Introduction, pp. iv. v.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  227

than 1000.6 This made the outcome of an election al-

ways uncertain.   It intensified the temptation of the

General Assembly to arrange the representative districts

in such a manner that the party in power would win the

Legislature at the next election.   Furthermore, after

1840 there was a political anti-slavery movement in the

State that under various names such as Liberty, Aboli-

tionist, or Free Soil polled from 5,000 to 15,000 votes.

These votes became of great importance in the final de-

cision of the House of Representatives in the General

Assembly of 1848-1849.

The formation of new counties with a sparse popula-

tion was a feature with a bearing on the apportionment

legislation of the first half-century of statehood in Ohio.

This will never be repeated in Ohio history. This ex-

plains the grouping of a large number of counties into

one district. For example, in 1832, Darke, Shelby, Mer-

cer, Allen, Van Wert, Putnam, Paulding, Henry, Wood,

and Williams Counties formed one district. The popu-

lation of the district was 13,764. Of this number 9,875

lived in Darke and Shelby Counties. In other words

only 3,889 people lived in eight counties. These ten

counties were joined with Miami to form a senatorial

district. At the same time counties such as Clermont

with 20,466, Harrison with 20,916, and Licking with

20,869, were given only one member apiece.⁷ In 1848,

Williams, Putnam, Van Wert, Paulding, and Defiance

6 Ohio Statistics (1927), pp. 424, 425. In 1830 Duncan McArthur

(NR) defeated Robert Lucas (D) by 482 votes. The majority of Seabury

Ford (W) over John B. Weller (D) in 1848 was 311. The largest majority

was one of 16,130 by which Thomas Corwin (W) won over Wilson Shan-

non (D) in 1840. Two years later Shannon defeated Corwin by 1872 votes.

7 Fifth Census (1830), pp. 18, 19; O. L., XXX, 3.

228      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Counties cast 114 votes for Seabury Ford, the Whig

candidate, and 2,047 for John B. Weller, the Demo-

cratic candidate for governor. The total for the dis-

trict was only 2,161.   At the same election Butler

County that had also one representative, cast 5,724

votes.  Hamilton County with four representatives,

totaled 18,237.8

In the Senate, large combinations of counties were

even more common. In the Senate that convened on

December 2, 1833, James Johnson represented the coun-

ties of Allen, Miami, Darke, Shelby, Wood, Mercer, Wil-

liams, Lucas, Van Wert, Putnam, Paulding and Henry.⁹

The slow growth of northwestern Ohio made large dis-

tricts there necessary for many years. In this same

Senate, Calvary Morris was elected by voters from

Athens, Gallia, Hocking, Meigs, and Washington Coun-

ties.

A practice that developed very early was that of

combining two or more counties and giving the district

several representatives. In 1804 Washington, Gallia,

and Muskingum Counties were combined. They elected

three representatives.10 This practice appears to have

been due, at times, to a desire to have the senatorial and

representative  districts coterminous.  Combinations

such as this appeared in 1820 when Meigs, Gallia and

Jackson formed a district electing one senator and two

representatives. Belmont and Monroe Counties chose

one senator and three representatives.11 It was seen

8 Compendium Sixth Census, (1840), pp. 78, 79; House Journal (1848-

1849), p. 57.

9 Senate Journal (1833-1834), p. 4; O. L., XXX, 3.

10 House Journal (1804-1805), pp. 3, 4; O. L., II, 147.

11 House Journal (1820-1821), pp. 3, 4; O. L., XVIII, 115-117.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  229

again in 1836 when Ross, Pike and Jackson Counties

formed one senatorial district and Brown, Adams and

Scioto another. Each district chose two representa-

tives.12

Counties were united into a district for certain ses-

sions during a four-year period and separated at others.

One of these groups in the session convening in Decem-

ber, 1836, was composed of the counties of Lucas,

Wood, Henry, Williams and Hancock. Paulding, Put-

nam, Van Wert, Allen, Hardin and Shelby formed

another. The Apportionment Act of 1836 united these

groups into one district in 1836 but separated them in

1837." The two groups in this case constituted a sena-

torial district. The law of 1824 provided that the sena-

torial district composed of the counties of Preble,

Darke, Mercer, Van Wert, Paulding and Williams

should elect a representative in that year. In 1825

Preble was to choose one representative while the re-

maining five were also to elect a representative. In the

years in which these counties united with Preble, the

Pike, Scioto and Lawrence district elected two represen-

tatives. When they voted separately the latter district

sent only one member to the House of Representatives.¹⁴

Another unusual feature appeared in 1848. This

awarded one representative apiece to certain counties.

These were then combined and the several combinations

each chose a representative in common. Montgomery

and Preble formed one such combination, Franklin and

Delaware a second, and Belmont and Guernsey a

12 House Journal (1836-1837), pp. 3, 4; O. L., XXXIV, 32.

13 Ibid., XXXIV, 32.

¹⁴ House Journal (1824-1825), p. 4; (1825-1826), p. 4; O. L., XXII,

100-104.

230      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

third.¹⁵ This as well as other practices already de-

scribed were possibly attempts to deal with fractional

ratios, though the system  of additional representation

in certain years appeared in the law of 1824.16

As was to be expected under such conditions com-

binations of counties seldom existed long enough to

develop a district consciousness or to permit a member

of the General Assembly to build up a political organi-

zation. There were some exceptions. Athens was

united with Washington from 1808 to 1826. After

eight years with Hocking it was joined with Meigs and

remained so until the revision of the Constitution.17

Erie and Huron were united under the laws of 1840,

1844 and 1848.18 In every law except one, from 1820 to

1848, Lawrence was joined with Scioto but at times

Gallia and Pike were in the district.19

These were the exceptions and not the rule.   From

1824 to 1848 Allen County found itself in seven com-

binations in which thirteen counties were involved. Dur-

ing the same period Hancock was combined with eleven

others.²⁰  Champaign was united with Logan in 1836,

stood alone in 1840, formed a district with Union in

1844, and was joined with Clark and Madison in 1848.21

These examples from the membership of the House of

15 House Journal (1848-1849), p. 4; O. L., XLVI, 57-64.

16 Ibid., XXII, 100-104.

17 Ibid., VI, 135; X, 102; XIV, 272; XVIII, 115-117; XXII, 100-104;

XXVI, 66; XXX, 3; XXXIV, 32; XXXVIII, 138; XLII, 63; XLVI,

57-64.

18 Ibid., XXXVIII, 138; XLII, 63; XLVI, 57-64.

¹⁹ Ibid., XVIII, 115-117; XXII, 100-104; XXVI, 66; XXX, 3;

XXXIV, 32; XXXVIII, 138; XLII, 63; XLVI, 57-64.

20 Ibid., XXII, 100-104; XXVI, 66; XXX, 3; XXXIV, 32; XXXVIII,

138; XLII, 63; XLVI, 57-64.

21 Ibid., XXXIV, 32; XXXVIII, 138; XLII, 63; XLVI, 57-64.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio    231

Representatives might be duplicated by many from that

of the Senate. Few men remained in the General As-

sembly for any length of time. The constant shifting of

the legislative districts caused a corresponding change in

the membership of both houses.

Hamilton whose population was sufficient to claim

a number of representatives at all times was the only

county that was not united with another at some time

between 1803 and 1851.22 At times a county that was

entitled to a representative in its own right was united

with another that was too small for separate representa-

tion. An example of this was the union of Franklin

and Madison in 1844. Another case was that of Rich-

land and Crawford in 1848.23

When new counties were organized they were

usually attached to existing districts. This led to a

greater change in the composition of districts than a

study of the four-year acts reveals. For example, when

Defiance County was organized in 1845 it was joined to

the district composed of Putnam, Paulding, Williams

and Henry Counties.²⁴ Van Wert County, organized

in 1837, became a part of the Shelby, Allen, Hardin,

Putnam and Paulding district.²⁵

When two or more counties were combined to form

22 The statement in Ohio Statesmen and Annals of Progress, p. 39,

that Hamilton was grouped with Butler, Greene, and Montgomery is strictly

speaking, incorrect. These counties were formed from Hamilton on March

24, 1803.

O. L., I, 9-12. Only Hamilton County with eight members is listed

on the roll of the House that met December 5, 1803, House Journal (1803-

1894), 3.

23 O. L., XLII, 63; XLVI, 57-64.

24 O. L., XLIII, 191-193; House Journal (1845-1846), p. 4.

25 O. L., XXXV, 273; House Journal (1837-1838), p. 4.

232      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

a district represented by one senator or representative

the law often provided that the member should be chosen

from the several counties in turn. Thus, for example,

in 1824 Adams and Brown formed one senatorial dis-

trict. The senator was chosen from these two counties

alternately.²⁶

The climax of apportionment legislation was reached

in the Apportionment Act of 1848. It was introduced

in the Senate on January 12.27 The Whigs controlled

the General Assembly by a majority of two in each

house. This represented a gain over the preceding ses-

sion in which they had been tied with the Democrats in

the Senate while having a majority of eight in the

House. They were naturally desirous of continuing

this control of the General Assembly. More than this,

however, was at stake. The General Assembly that was

to be elected in October, 1848, would determine whether

William B. Allen would be reelected to a third term in

the United States Senate or have his seat taken by a

Whig.

The Apportionment Act of 1844 was enacted by a

Democratic Assembly. The complications over the

currency question in the State and the indifference of the

Ohio Democrats to the candidacy of James K. Polk con-

tributed, however, to the election of a Whig General

Assembly in that year. This was repeated in 1845 and

practically again in 1846 as indicated in the preceding

26 O. L., XXII, 100-104.

27 Senate Journal (1848), p. 203. The bill had been prepared by a

joint committee from both houses, Ibid., p. 41; House Journal (1848), p.

74. The report of the committee is given in Senate Journal (1848), ap-

pendix, pp. 51-60.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio          233

paragraph.²⁸ It had not, it is evident, fulfilled the hopes

of its Democratic sponsors in insuring them control of

the State.    On the other hand, the Whig hold was so

small that extreme measures appeared warranted to

maintain the party of Henry Clay in power.

As finally enacted the bill presented many striking

changes from the Act of 1844. Twenty-nine counties

formed single districts with one representative apiece.²⁹

Of these six were grouped in pairs which also chose a

representative in common.³⁰ The remaining fifty-five

counties were grouped into twenty-one districts. Of

these seven returned two representatives apiece.31

Seven districts made up of two counties apiece re-

mained as under the former act. Of these five were

safely Whig on the basis of the election of 1846, one was

narrowly Whig, and the remaining one was Democratic

by a good majority.³² Five counties in the northwestern

part of the State in which the total vote was Democratic

beyond a doubt were grouped together.³³ Other in-

stances of the grouping of strong Democratic commu-

28 Under art. 1, sec. 3 of the Constitution of 1802; the term of a repre-

sentative was one year, Patterson, op. cit., p. 74.

29 O. L., XLVI, 57-64.

30 These pairs were Montgomery and Preble, Franklin and Delaware,

Belmont and Guernsey.

31 These were Clark, Champaign, Madison; Tuscarawas and Carroll;

Wayne and Ashland; Knox and Holmes; Richland and Crawford; Ashta-

bula and Lake; Trumbull and Geauga.

32 The strong Whig combinations were Tuscarawas and Carroll, Scioto

and Lawrence, Gallia and Jackson, Meigs and Athens, Erie and Huron.

There was a chance of a Whig victory in Shelby and Darke district. The

district of Pike and Adams was certain to return a Democrat. The districts

of Athens and Meigs and of Jackson and Gallia were united to send an

additional representative. For election returns see House Journal (1846-

1847), p. 17.

33 These were Putnam, Van Wert, Paulding, Defiance and Williams.

236       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

elected one senator and two representatives. The re-

mainder of the county constituted the Second District.

This sent one senator and three representatives to the

General Assembly.37

The enactment of this piece of legislation marked

one of the most violent upheavals in the history of the

General Assembly in Ohio. The attack on the bill be-

gan with its introduction. The question of constitu-

tionality was raised at once. The Senate referred it to

Henry Stanbery, the attorney general.³⁸ In his reply

he held that the bill was constitutional. "The manner

of the apportionment," he stated, "is not specified. So

that the people of the county get their proper number of

representatives, their just proportion, it is left at large

so far as the mere letter of the law goes--whether as to

a county entitled to two they shall be apportioned to all

the population in common, or whether they shall be ap-

portioned to the two constituencies, so that each constit-

uency or body of people entitled to a representative shall

have a representative."   Referring to the diversities of

interests between manufacturing and agricultural sec-

tions that could be met by such a division he said, "It

should require very clear constitutional provision to lead

to such inequalities and perpetuate an intolerable griev-

ance." If the Legislature possessed the power to unite

counties, it should be conceded to have the authority to

divide them.39

37 O. L., XLVI, 57-64.

38 Stanbery afterwards served as attorney general of the United States.

He resigned this office to serve as counsel for Andrew Johnson at the time

of his impeachment trial.

39 Ohio State Journal, Feb. 18, 1848. Stanbery, who was a member

of the Constitutional Convention in 1850-1851, referred to this decision in

the course of the debate on apportionment, Debates (1851) I, p. 132.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  237

A reply to Stanbery from the pen of David T. Dis-

ney appeared a few days later in the Daily Ohio States-

man. Disney maintained that in view of the general

practice of legislative apportionment there was grave

doubt whether the Legislature had the power to adopt

another method unless the Constitution specifically per-

mitted it. The case of New York to which Stanbery

referred was not relevant as the Constitution of that

State required single-member districts for representa-

tives. The Ohio Constitution stated that a man must

be a resident of the county from which he was chosen.

There was evidently no anticipation of single-member

districts. Such provision would make it legal for a

district to choose a resident of the county who yet lived

outside of the district. No valid conclusion, contended

Disney, could be drawn from the practice of uniting

counties. "Representation has ever been based upon

the idea of separate organized interests whether by

tribes, centuries, counties, cities, or boroughs." The

Constitution recognized nothing except a choice by

"counties respectively."⁴⁰

On January 28 the bill passed the Senate by a vote

of 19 to 17.41   It then went to the House. Some

amendments were added by the lower house and the bill

passed on February 10.42  When the Senate again took

up the bill it agreed to some of the amendments but dis-

agreed as to others.

The Democrats in the Senate now resolved to take

unusual steps to prevent the enactment of the law. On

40 The Daily Ohio Statesman, January 27, 1848. Disney represented

Hamilton County in the Senate, 1833-1834, 1843-1844.

41 Ohio Senate Journal, (1847-48), pp. 338, 339.

42 Ohio House Journal. (1847-48), pp. 568-569, the vote stood 37 to 29.

238        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

February 14 fifteen of them withdrew. Before doing

so they presented a declaration in which they endeavored

to justify their action.⁴³ The Whig majority, they

stated, could easily pass the bill at any time by acceding

to the House amendments. They looked on the pro-

vision for dividing a county as a "daring infraction of

the Constitution and a violation of all established

usages." It was unjust and unfair. The intentions and

designs of the authors were to perpetuate in power an

existing minority on "the existing war with Mexico."

"No alternative is left us now except to leave our seats

or remain and witness the consummation of that act."

To remain would make them partners to the crime.

The division of a county was a plain act of revolution.

"No member can occupy a seat in the General Assembly

unless voted for by the citizens of a whole, undivided

county." By withholding their resignations they would

not, they insisted, break up the General Assembly as the

Whigs did in 1842 when they resigned.⁴⁴        The seceders

took rooms at the American Hotel in Columbus.

While the Democratic senators were absent the Sen-

ate could not command a quorum. In the meanwhile the

43 The Ohio Statesman. February 14, 1848. The signers of the dec-

laration were Andrew H. Byers, Wayne; James H. Ewing, Hamilton;

James B. King, Butler; Sabirt Scott, Allen; J. R. Emrie, Adams; Jesse

Wheeler, Hancock; John S. Graham, Tuscarawas; Henry Cronise, Craw-

ford; P. B. Ankeney, Guernsey; Charles Reemelin, Hamilton; Samuel

Winegarner, Licking; Fisher A. Blocksom, Columbiana; Edson B. Olds,

Fairfield; Barnabas Burns, Richland; Benjamin Evans, Clermont.

44 In 1842 the Whigs resigned from a special session called to, divide

the State for congressional districts. Senate Journal (1842 special session),

p. 417; House Journal (1842, special session), p. 145. The Democrats in

1848 protested that they were not guilty of absquatulation, as this Whig

movement was called.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio          239

House receded from its amendments.⁴⁵      When the mes-

sage was sent to the Senate the Democrats who were

present raised the objection that the bill could not be

received as a quorum was not at hand. However,

Charles B. Goddard, the Speaker, signed the bill and it

became law. As a precedent the Whigs quoted the ac-

tion of David T. Disney, who when Speaker had signed

a bill after both houses had adjourned sine die.            The

seceders then returned to the Senate⁴⁷ and the General

Assembly completed its work.

The excitement in the State, especially among the

Democrats, was aroused to fever heat. The outcome of

it was the issue of a call for a state convention to convene

in Columbus on May 10.

The purpose of the Convention was to take such

steps as might be advisable in the face of the crisis

threatening the State.

On this day more than two hundred delegates from

two-thirds of the counties of the State assembled in the

Capital City.⁴⁸ The leading Democratic paper of the city

spoke of the delegates as "prudent, experienced, sub-

stantial men whose whole lives have been devoted to the

45 House Journal (1847-1848), p. 627. A protest was presented by 29

members of the House denouncing the action as "a practice dangerous to

the liberties of the State, subversive of order and good government, and in

violation of the spirit of the Constitution." Ibid., p. 631.

46 For a court decision on this point see State v. Moffit, 5 o. R., p. 358.

47 The Ohio State Journal, February 19, 1848, stated that the business

of the Senate which had been interrupted since Monday was resumed at

3:00 Saturday. "The Revolution attempted by fifteen traitorous Senators

is at an end--Laus Deo."

48 Whig newspapers ridiculed the movement. In an editorial in the

Ohio State Journal the citizens of Columbus were reported as going about

their accustomed tasks wholly unaware of the great catastrophe so near

at hand. The editorial ended with these words, "Fifteen minutes past five--

Order still reigns and the revolution is bloodless as yet."

240      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

interest of the state and nation--Stung by the wrongs of

official tyrants who know no law, no constitution, no

binding oaths, but what personal ambition, party malig-

nity, and a treasonable spirit against their country dic-

tated, they meet to seek such redress as the nature of the

circumstances will warrant and the inalienable rights of

freemen--of men justify." It declared that the attend-

ance surpassed all expectations, the federal, tory, Mexi-

can organ of this city [The Ohio State Journal] may

cast its monarchical sneers at the meeting of such men

but IT IS TOO LATE." Among those present were

such prominent Ohio Democrats as Samuel Medary,

John Brough, David T. Disney, C. L. Vallandigham, Ed-

son B. Olds, and T. W. Bartley.⁴⁹

The belief that some of the Whigs were also dis-

satisfied with the Apportionment Act aided the conser-

vative Democrats in securing control of the Conven-

tion.⁵⁰ A series of resolutions were adopted to the effect

that after the second Tuesday of October, 1848, there

would be no law by which a General Assembly could be

formed. The Governor was urged to call a special session

of the Assembly to frame an apportionment act. If he

did not do so the Democrats were to take "ulterior meas-

ures for the preservation of their past political rights."

Democrats were called on to turn out in full force on

election day and elect a Democratic legislature. These

members would then refuse to take their seats. This

would paralyze the state government and force the call-

49 The Daily Ohio Statesman, May 9, 10, 1848. A list of the members

appears in the Statesman of May 10 and the Journal of May 11.

50 Elijah Vance of Butler county was made temporary chairman. The

"Perpetual President" was Rufus Spalding of Summit county. Vance

had served in both the Senate and the House and Spalding in the House.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  241

ing of a constitutional convention.51 One man from each

of the congressional districts was chosen to compose a

Committee of Public Safety.⁵²

Another committee was ordered to prepare an ad-

dress to the people of the State. This address related in

detail the events connected with the passage of the Ap-

portionment Act. It concluded with the assertion that

there was no law by which a General Assembly could

come into existence after the second Tuesday of Octo-

ber, 1848. Again the Governor was importuned to call a

special session of the Assembly to frame such a law and

save the State from anarchy. A new constitution should

be formed. Justice must be done to all. If this could not

be secured in a legal way the voters were solicited to ex-

ercise their "natural, inherent, and Unalienable Rights."

The appeal concluded with these stirring words, "Fellow

citizens, the crisis has come. It has been forced upon

you by the fraud, the conspiracy, and the overthrow of

the constitution by the leaders of the federal party--If

you are prepared to become 'hewers of wood' and 'draw-

ers of water' you have but to hold out your hands to the

usurpers, and the manacles will soon be riveted upon

them. But if you will let decision, firmness, energy, and

a determination to die as freemen, rather than as slaves,

govern your actions, the liberty purchased by your

fathers upon the battlefields of the Revolution, will still

be unto your children as a perpetual heritage."⁵³

51 The Daily Ohio Statesman, May 10, 11, 1848.

52 Prominent Democrats who were members of this committee were

Samuel Medary, C. L. Vallandigham and T. W. Bartley.

53 The Daily Ohio Statesman, May 10, 19, 1848. The appeal was

signed by David T. Disney, Henry C. Whitman, Edson B. Olds, Chas. B.

Flood and Samuel Medary.

Vol. XL--16.

242       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Many of the Democratic newspapers commented fa-

vorably on the work of the Convention and promised

support.⁵⁴ No radical measures, however, were planned.

The course of action finally resolved upon centered on

Hamilton County. Here the Democrats planned to go

to the polls and vote for five candidates for representa-

tives.

This was done and five Democrats claimed to be the

legally elected members of the House from that county.

The struggle was accordingly thrown into the House of

Representatives which was the judge of the election of

its own members. The long contest which ended with the

seating of George E. Pugh and A. M. Pierce, Demo-

crats, whose seats were claimed by O. M. Spencer and

George W. Runyan, Whigs, need not be described here.55

The election of 1849 reopened the contest. The acri-

monious dispute ended on January 3, 1850, when the sec-

tion of the Apportionment Act that divided Hamilton

County was repealed.⁵⁶

The dissatisfaction with the apportionment system

aroused by the Act of 1848, gave this subject a promi-

nent place in the work of the Constitutional Convention

of 1850-1851. It was to bring about very important

changes in the system of representation in Ohio. With

54 The Daily Ohio Statesman, May 20, 1848, quoted favorable edi-

torials, from the Akron Democrat, Coshocton Democrat, Wayne County

Democrat, Hillsborough Gazette, Georgetown Standard, Knox County Dem-

ocratic Banner, Dayton Empire, Guernsey County Jeffersonian, Lorain

Argus, Ohio Sun, Circleville Watchman and Lancaster Eagle.

55 For a detailed description see Edgar A. Holt, "Party Politics in

Ohio, 1840-1850," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, XXXVIII,

pp. 319-353. It was connected with the election of Salmon P. Chase, Free-

soiler, to the United States Senate.

56 O. L., XLVIII, 68.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio             243

it began a new era both in the Senate and in the House

of Representatives.

The Convention opened in Columbus, May 6, 1850.⁵⁷

On May 13, Charles Reemelin of Hamilton County in-

troduced the resolutions that formed the basis of the

Convention debates.⁵⁸ The resolutions proposed to di-

vide the State into senatorial districts. The quotas for

these districts were to be permanently fixed by the Con-

stitution. Each county was to have at least one repre-

sentative. Those counties that were entitled to more

than one representative were to be divided into single-

member districts. No constitutional limitations were to

be placed on the number of senators or representatives.

The resolutions deprived the General Assembly of any

part in the apportionment of its members.⁵⁹

57 The Convention was in session in Columbus from May 6 to July 9

It then adjourned to Cincinnati, where it sat from December 2, 1850, to

March 10, 1851. There were 108 members. Of these 64 were Democrats,

41 Whigs, and 3 Free-Soilers. Col. William Medill of Fairfield County

was elected president. He had been a member of the House in 1835-1837.

58 Reemelin, who was a Democrat, was a member of the House in

1844-1845 and of the Senate in 1846-1847.

59 Debates, I, p. 63. The text of the resolutions was as follows:

Resolved, That it is expedient so to change the present constitution

of Ohio, as to take away from the General Assembly the power to apportion

senators and representatives among the several counties of the state.

Resolved, That it is expedient to graft upon the new constitution, a

provision for a self-apportionment of Senators and Representatives, based

upon the following principles:

1st. The whole population in each county, to be the basis for repre-

sentative purposes.

2d. For Senatorial apportionment purposes, the state to be divided

into senatorial districts, to be permanently fixed by the new constitution.

3d. The quota of population requisite for a Senator or Representative

to be permanently fixed in the new constitution.

4th. Each county to be entitled to at least one representative.

5th. No provisiorf to be put into the new constitution limiting the

244         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Reemelin discussed his resolutions on May 17. He

began by pointing out that no part of the old Constitu-

tion had been a greater cause of the Convention then in

session than the article on apportionment.⁶⁰ The evils of

the old system he emphasized in these words. "Under

the old apportionments, the people had no chance to ex-

press their sentiments and feelings. Public opinion has

been stifled repeatedly, and I may say, at all times, by

representative apportionment, not made for the good of

the people, but to strengthen a party; not with a view

of giving the people a chance to express their sentiments

and feelings, but with the purpose of conferring offices

and power upon particular parties and individuals con-

nected with them." He described the practice as fol-

lows: "Apportionments have been arranged by a very

few men, very often by a single chairman of a commit-

tee, sitting in his room at a hotel, taking a map in his

hand, [but] not asking himself, what will be for the

number of Senators or Representatives of which the General Assembly

may consist.

6th. In all cases, where a county or senatorial district may, according

to its population, be entitled to more than one Senator or Representative,

each county or senatorial district to be subdivided into such number of

separate, distinct and single districts, as may be equal to the number of

Senators and Representatives to which such county or senatorial district

would be entitled, by some local authority, resident therein; such, for

instance, as the Board of County Commissioners, or a similar body.

7th. The apportionment to be made every five years; of the first the

United States census now being taken to be the basis, and so every five

years thereafter if a United States census should be taken--if otherwise,

for the intermediate five years, the General Assembly to make provision

for a state census.

60 For some years before 1850 there had been agitation for a conven-

tion to revise the constitution. The vote on a convention in 1849 was

145,698 for and 51,167 against, Patterson, op. cit., p. 99. The agitation over

the apportionment did much to bring the issue to a head.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  245

good of the people  *  *  *  He asks himself no such

questions, but goes to marking upon the map his black

lines, his red lines, his blue lines, to see how by an ap-

portionment some particular party, or some favorite ob-

ject can be best subserved and sustained." In 1840, he

contended, the majority of the votes were Whig but that

party had been stifled by the apportionment. No man,

he contended, could divest himself of partisan feeling in

making an apportionment. A sound political axiom for-

bade giving to a body the power to control its successor.

The whole of the population should be the basis of rep-

resentation. It should not be limited to the white male

population. A man should not represent too large a

district. On this ground he favored the single member

district in principle. His opposition to it in the Act of

1848 he defended on constitutional grounds. Reemelin

concluded by expressing his belief that the growth of the

population would soon give to each county the population

that would justly entitle it to one representative.61

These proposals were soon attacked. As a Whig,

Henry Stanbery of Franklin County, joined with Reeme-

lin in favoring single-member districts. He contended,

however, that the principle of fixed ratios in the Con-

stitution would soon produce a legislature so large that

it would be unwieldy. To give each county a represen-

tative was a departure from the principle that population

should be the basis of representation. "This part of the

plan is quite as objectionable as the old borough system

of England. I know of no distinction between boroughs

61 Debates, I, pp. 99-104.

246      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

without people and counties without people," exclaimed

Stanbery in closing his speech to the Convention.⁶²

Samuel Humphreville of Medina, and Simeon Nash

of Gallia, spoke favorably although suggesting some

slight modifications.⁶³ Brown of Athens presented a

resolution empowering the Secretary of State to divide

the State by counties, giving to each county a representa-

tive if the population was equal to one-half of the ratio.

The county commissioners were to divide counties hav-

ing more than two representatives into single-member

districts. He also suggested the use of the city as well

as the county as a unit in apportionment. Each county

with not less than two nor more than three representa-

tives was to elect one senator. When the population was

too small for this, counties "contiguous and most con-

venient and adapted to each other" were to be combined

for the election of a senator."⁶⁴

Richard Stillwell of Muskingum charged that the

new system would be unjust. It would give Defiance,

Henry, Marion, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, and Van

Wert Counties seven out of the one hundred and twenty-

six members. The total population of these counties,

however, was but two per cent of that of the State. A

voter in Paulding County would have nine times the po-

litical power of one in Franklin. He favored districts of

contiguous territory. It was possible that the townships

would serve as units of apportionment more acceptably

than the counties.⁶⁵ Speaking for the opposition, Mc-

Cormick of Athens raised the question of the wisdom

62 Ibid., I, p. 132.

63 Ibid., I, pp. 133-137.

64 Ibid., I, p. 110.

65 Ibid., I, p. 140.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  247

and necessity of a bi-cameral legislature in a state with a

population as homogeneous as that in Ohio.⁶⁶ In the

course of the debate, Taylor of Erie and Robertson of

Fairfield expressed the same opinion.⁶⁷ Benjamin Stan-

ton of Logan maintained that to make a county the

basis of representation was to depart from the true prin-

ciples of republicanism. He was ready to approve the

division by townships to the complete disregard of

county lines if this would lend itself less readily to gerry-

mandering.⁶⁸

From James Taylor of Erie, came the thought that

the political rank and importance of the counties should

be elevated instead of destroyed as this last suggestion

would do. Any plan that would do less than give each

county a representative would lower the prestige of these

political subdivisions. "That the actual carrying out

of this plan might produce some apparent inconven-

iences, I do not doubt, and it may encounter objections

from the counties having a large representation. But I

think it is the duty of those counties to anticipate the

progress of population, and the development of re-

sources of these new counties, so far as to give them this

advantage in representation."⁶⁹  Reemelin closed this

first debate on apportionment. He submitted some mod-

ifications but adhered to his original plan of at least one

representative from each county and to single-member

districts.⁷⁰

66 Ibid., I, p. 143.

67 Ibid, I, pp. 151, 153.

68 Ibid, I, p. 151.

69 Ibid., I, p. 150.

70 Ibid., 1, p. 156.

248      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

In the meanwhile a standing Committee on Appor-

tionment had been appointed. As will be apparent, the

distribution was fairly even between the large and small

counties.⁷¹ To this Committee were referred the two

plans already before the Convention. The Committee

also considered an additional one submitted by Otis of

Summit. This provided for single-member districts and

the use of fractional ratios. The people in the counties

with less than the number that would entitle them to a

representative were to select for themselves the adjoin-

ing county or counties with which they wished to com-

bine. The governor, lieutenant governor, and secretary

of state were to ascertain the ratio every ten years. No

suggestion was incorporated for the election of senators.

Otis described the plan as one designed "to secure, as it

will in fact secure, if left to its own free action, the most

perfect representation of the people, and the most per-

fect utterance of the popular voice.72

The Committee on Apportionment reported on June

17. In formulating its report the Committee drew from

each of the plans proposed. The report provided that

the ratio for the House of Representatives should be as-

certained by dividing the population by one hundred.

This was to be done every ten years by the governor,

secretary of state, and auditor, or any two of them.

The ratio for senators was to be secured by dividing the

population by thirty. The senatorial districts were to

be fixed by the Constitution. Every county having at

71 Ibid., I, p. 64. The counties represented were Hamilton, Clinton,

Preble, Miami, Lucas, Seneca, Highland, Ross, Madison, Licking, Colum-

biana, Ashland, Summit, Ashtabula, and Huron.

72 Ibid., I, p. 271.

250      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Cities having a population equivalent to the ratio were

to be given representation apart from the county if the

remaining rural population was equal to that required

for a representative. This accomplished a part of the

objective of the advocates of single-member districts

since it made possible a division between the rural and

urban sections. At the same time it would eliminate

gerrymandering inside the county. The single-member

district plan as such was dropped. The membership of

the House of Representatives was never to exceed 120.73

The Convention turned its attention to other mat-

ters. The apportionment problem was not taken up

again until December 5. Minor changes in the report

were then suggested. The Committee was instructed

to consider these and present a second report.⁷⁴

This report was brought in on February 24, 1851.

While the ratio for a representative was still to be ob-

tained by dividing the population by one hundred, the

divisor for the senate was raised to thirty-five. The

fractional ratios were to be used for additional repre-

sentation. This was held to equalize the provision that a

county having only one-half of the ratio should be en-

titled to a representative. Separate representation for

the more populous cities was retained. The ratio was to

be determined as in the first report.⁷⁵

In the debate that followed much of the ground cov-

ered in the first discussion was gone over again. Law-

rence of Guernsey defended the use of the county as the

basis of representation on the ground that the counties

⁷³ Ibid., I, p. 460.

7⁴ Ibid., II, p. 5.

75 Ibid., II, p. 708.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  251

have a municipal interest as well as a population. Both

of these must be safeguarded in the Legislature.⁷⁶ Dor-

sey of Miami continued the defense of the report. "The

principle is a fair one--first, we represent the men in the

counties--second, the municipal interests of the counties

themselves, and third, if any wrong is done to the large

counties by giving a representative to each of the smaller

ones, a compensation is made by giving to the counties

of the second grade two representatives for a ratio and

three-fourths."⁷⁷

Archbold of Monroe attacked the report.      He

charged that it was a scheme to "combine the interests

of the smaller counties to do an act of injustice." He

proposed an amendment requiring a county to have a

population equal to the ratio before it should have a rep-

resentative. When a vote was taken on this amendment

it failed to carry.⁷⁸

The interest in the question was very great. So ab-

sorbing did the discussion become that a motion was

made to suspend the rule limiting debate while the re-

port of the Committee on Apportionment was before the

Committee of the Whole. The motion, however, did not

prevail.⁷⁹

During the debate, charges of partisanship in the

formation of senatorial districts were freely made.

Stanton of Logan showed that on the basis of the vote

of 1848 and 1850 the Democrats would have a majority

in the Senate although the popular vote in the State was

76 Ibid., II, p. 749.

⁷⁷ Ibid., II, p. 749.

⁷⁸ Ibid., II., pp. 750, 751. The distribution of the vote is not given in

The Debates.

79 Ibid., II, p. 750.

252      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

against them each of these years.80 The discussion on

the Senate centered around such items. The necessity

of combining counties to form senatorial districts was

recognized by all. The only question concerned the for-

mation of districts.

The debate on the apportionment question claimed

the attention of the Convention for the greater part of

the time from February 27 to March 6. The discussion

centered largely on the proposal to permit the division of

the counties into single-member districts if they were

entitled to more than one representative. This had not

been included in the report of the Committee. It was

brought up as a substitute for the section providing for

a division between the city and the country in the more

populous counties. In its favor it was urged that it

would permit a large minority party to have the repre-

sentation that was denied them if the representatives of

a county were elected in a block; that it was in harmony

with the plan of single-member districts for the repre-

sentatives from Ohio in the national House of Repre-

sentatives; that the question had been discussed during

the campaign for the election of members of the Con-

vention and approved by the people; that special inter-

ests in the counties could be safeguarded in no other

way. In reply its opponents charged that it violated the

unity of the county and thus endangered its municipal

interests; that it would encourage gerrymandering; that

it was only a partisan measure to enable the Whigs to

secure control of the Hamilton County delegation; that

80 Ibid., II, p. 786. On the other hand, Mitchell of Knox declared

"that from Andrews to Worthington the Whigs of this body had been as

true as the needle to the pole upon every political question upon which

they had been called to vote." Ibid., II, p. 765.

254        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

failed to carry by the close vote of 47 to 50. A second

time it was brought up and again lost. Those advocat-

ing it, however, were not ready to concede final defeat.

A motion was later introduced to submit this to the

voters for separate action. Favorable action was not

taken.⁸² After a motion to strike out of the report the

section giving the cities separate representation had lost,

a second one was made and carried.⁸³ The section which

limited the membership of the House of Representatives

to 120 members was stricken out by a vote of 40 to 37.⁸4

The vote on this article as it finally appeared in the

Constitution showed that the Convention was by no

means a unit on the subject.     The opponents of the ar-

ticle were able to muster 42 votes as against 53 for the

supporters.⁸⁵   This section of the Constitution was not

changed until 1903.

The ratio for the Senate was to be obtained by di-

viding the total population of the State by thirty-five.

The State was divided into thirty-three senatorial dis-

tricts. Each of these except the First was given one sen-

ator for the first decennial period. The First which was

made up of Hamilton County was given three senators.

If a county increased in population so that it was equal to

Democrats who opposed it. For this he was severely denounced by one

of his colleagues, G. W. Holmes, Ibid., II, p. 780. James W. Taylor of

Erie was another Democrat who favored it. Ibid., II, p. 774.

82 Ibid., II, pp. 780, 822, 825.

83 Ibid., II, pp. 766, 773. The delegation from Hamilton County sup-

ported the motion. No division of the cities was proposed. Yet even this

bore too much resemblance to the single-member district.

⁸⁴ Ibid., II, p. 766.

85 Ibid., II, p. 821. No geographical alignment on the final vote

can be discerned. The partisan division to be seen in the vote on the single-

member districts was preserved.

256      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

county having a population equal to one-half of this ratio

could elect a representative. The fractional ratios were

to be multiplied by five. In this way additional repre-

sentation was to be determined. A county having one

and three-fourths ratios was to have two representa-

tives. Three ratios would entitle it to three representa-

tives with an additional one for every complete ratio.

The governor, secretary of state, and auditor or any

two of them were to determine the ratios and combine

counties and senatorial districts.⁸⁷

On the basis of the census of 1850 the ratio for a rep-

resentative was 19,803.88 One-half of this or 9,901 en-

titled a county to a representative. This gave to sixty-

five counties one representative apiece throughout the

first decennial period.  Of these, thirty-eight ranged

?? population between 9,901 and 19,803. Additional rep-

resentation during certain sessions was secured by a

number of those on this list. Franklin, Licking, Mont-

gomery, and Stark sent two members to every session.

Muskingum and Cuyahoga had two at each session and

additional representation at others. Hamilton had no

less than seven at any time and had an additional one at

four sessions.

Twelve counties did not have a population equal to

one-half of the ratio. They were Defiance, Fulton, Har-

din, Henry, Ottawa, Paulding, Van Wert, Vinton, Wil-

liams, Wood, Mercer, and Putnam.⁸⁹ To form the com-

binations made necessary by these small populations,

Jackson, Lucas and Wyandot, each entitled to represen-

87 Patterson, op. cit., pp. 141-144, Constitution of 1851, art. VI, sec 1,

2, 3, 11. 19.

88 Census of 7850, pp. 817, 818.

89 Patterson, op. cit., pp 156-158.

258      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

people. In 1857 the voters rejected the proposal for

single-member districts for the House of Representa-

tives. The vote was decisive, the rejection being by a

vote of 114,603 out of a total of 179,917 ballots.⁹⁰

The growth in population in the smaller counties re-

duced the number having less than one-half of the ratio

to four in 1860.91 These were Henry, Ottawa, Paulding

and Van Wert all located in the northwestern or newest

section of the State. The combinations then made are

shown in the insert on the map on page --.

By 1870 there was only one county that did not have

one-half of the ratio.⁹²  This was Paulding which was

accordingly joined with Defiance. The interest now cen-

tered in the senatorial districts. The changes in popula-

tion made it necessary to combine some of the senatorial

districts. The possibilities of the gerrymander in this

period shifted to the Senate. The senatorial ratio was

76,146. The Seventeenth District made up of Knox and

Monroe was joined with the Twenty-eighth composed of

Wayne and Holmes.       The District contained 98,176

people.  Medina and Lorain constituting the Twenty-

seventh were united with Ashland and Richland, the

Twenty-ninth. The population of 104,849 was given an

additional senator in the fifth period of the decennial.⁹³

The apportionment problem claimed a large place in

the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention that

convened on May 13, 1873.⁹⁴ As the people rejected the

90 Patterson, op. cit., p. 166.

91 Census of 1860, pp. 365, 366.

92 Census of 1870, p. 55.

93 Ohio Statistics (1871) pp. 70, 71.

94 Patterson, op. cit., p. 176. The Convention opened in Columbus, May

13, 1873. On August 8 it adjourned to meet again at Cincinnati on Decem-

ber 2. The sessions continued until May 15, 1874. This extreme length of

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio     259

work of this Convention when it came before them the

plan proposed has had no influence on Ohio government

and politics. It has historical interest, nevertheless, as

reflecting the judgment of the Convention and the trend

of the times on the subject.

The Convention appointed a Committee on Appor-

tionment made up of one member from each congres-

sional district. G. V. Dorsey of Miami County, a mem-

ber of the Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851, was

the chairman of the committee.95

The subject was opened on May 26 when John C.

Hale of Lorain County introduced an amendment pro-

viding for the establishment of thirty-three senatorial

and one hundred representative districts. Each district

was to elect one member of the General Assembly.96

An amendment making the number of districts

thirty-five in both Senate and House was submitted by

Dorsey. He then discussed the question. The repre-

sentative districts he proposed were to "consist of so

many counties lying contiguous to each other as may

contain a population approximating as nearly as possi-

ble the ascertained ratio." He suggested that such dis-

tricts elect three representatives apiece.    If a district

contained three counties the nominations should be so

made that each county would have a representative. If

the Convention was one cause of the rejection of its work. Morrison R.

Waite, later chief justice of the United States, served as president. There

were 106 members. The political complexion was Republican 50, Demo-

crats 45, Liberal Republicans 5, Independents 5, Labor Reform 1, Powell,

T. E., The Democratic Party of the State of Ohio, I, p. 205.

95 Debates, Ohio Convcntion (1873) I, p. 47. Only two other commit-

tees were given this statewide membership. This indicates the importance

attached to the question.

⁹⁶ Ibid., I, p. 107.

260      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

composed of more than three counties no two represen-

tatives were to be citizens of the same county. In those

cases in which only two counties were in the district the

more populous was to have two and the less populous one

representative.⁹⁷ A phase of the subject that was des-

tined to become prominent in the later discussions was

introduced by the resolution of S. F. Hunt of Hamilton,

asking for the consideration of proportional representa-

tion to insure the safeguarding of the interests of the

minority.⁹⁸

The first report of the Apportionment Committee

was brought in on July 23. The ratio of the House was

to be obtained by dividing the population by 105. Each

county was to have at least one representative. A sys-

tem of cumulative voting was to be followed in counties

electing more than one representative. The votes could

be applied to one candidate or divided equally. This

would insure minority representation. It was also ap-

plied to the Senate which was to be composed of thirty

members from ten districts.99 A minority report was

presented by nine members of the Committee who agreed

with one another only in giving one representative to

each county.100 On August first a long discussion of

minority representation as applied to the election of com-

mon pleas judges came to an end. A resolution was pre-

sented providing for the separate submission of this

plan as applied to both common pleas judges and mem-

bers of the General Assembly. When a vote was taken

the resolution was defeated.¹⁰¹

97 Ibid., I, p. 139.

98 Ibid., I, p. 116.

⁹⁹ Ibid., I, pp. 954-955.

100 Ibid., I, p. 959.

101 Ibid., I, pp. 1106, 1116.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  261

The Convention then adjourned to assemble later at

Cincinnati. The apportionment debate was opened by a

motion of Asher Cook of Wood County, to strike out all

except section one in the majority report and substitute

the minority report.¹⁰² In the debate that followed, Dor-

sey referred to the gerrymandering before 1851. He ac-

knowledged that one representative to a county was a

concession to the smaller counties. This was sound pol-

icy, he contended, because the municipal wants con-

nected with county organization are the same in the

small as in the large counties. Furthermore, only Pauld-

ing County was not then entitled to a representative

on the basis of the Constitution of 1851. He believed

the growth of population would soon remedy this condi-

tion. Proportional representation was necessary to safe-

guard the rights of the minority. "We now propose to

return to the old Democratic principle, and henceforth

to represent the whole people in the offices and in the

councils of the state; and we hold that it is beyond con-

troversy that only in this way can the tyranny of one

portion of the people over another portion, be effectually

prevented." Later in the debate he admitted that the

majority report gave 1,015,000 people in fifty-one coun-

ties fifty-one representatives while 1,600,000 in the re-

maining thirty-seven received only fifty.103

When the motion to strike out the majority report

after section one carried, the second part of the motion

that provided for the insertion of the minority report,

failed. Thus far, as a result, the Convention had agreed

102 Ibid., II, p. 1577.  Born agreed in section one in making 105 the

divisor to determine the House ratio.

103 Ibid., II, pp. 1577-1584, 1601.

262      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

only in making 105 the divisor to determine the House

ratio.104

In the course of the debate John D. Sears of Wyan-

dot contended that as a voter in a large county voted for

more than one candidate he was fully compensated for

the assignment of one representative to each county

however small the population might be. J. W. Herron

of Hamilton believed that to attach one county, Pauld-

ing, to another county was to deprive the county to

which it was attached of the right to have one represen-

tative. The addition of the second county might be the

deciding factor in the outcome of the election.¹⁰⁵

Some members of the Convention sought to reconcile

giving at least one representative to each county with

equality of representation by placing the ratio very low.

This would have increased the size of the house. Neal

of Lawrence County who defended this solution of the

problem pointed to "the States of New Hampshire and

Vermont which have been noted for economy, frugality

and honesty in the administration of affairs."106

The single-member district in the populous counties

was presented in an amendment offered by J. D. Horton

of Portage. He believed this was the only alternative

to a system of minority representation. Otherwise one

party having a small majority would control the entire

delegation. Objections were at once made that this

plan readily gave opportunities for the gerrymander.

104 Ibid., II, p. 1589.

105 Ibid., II, pp. 1604, 1608.

106 Ibid., II, p. 1603. This remark drew from Voris of Summit the

query whether this was "the reason that New Hampshire and Vermont are

such good states to emigrate from, and their population has fallen very far

behind that of most other States in the Union for the last twenty years."

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio   263

Final disposition of this amendment was postponed at

this time.¹⁰⁷

Mr. Dorsey who was taking a prominent part in the

debate came forward with an amendment providing for

additional representation in certain sessions of the de-

cennial period. Objections were raised that if a county

were fairly represented when it had only one represen-

tative, there was no added value or justice in increasing

the number at certain times.  When it was alleged to be

impractical Dorsey replied that it had worked for twenty

years. Both the majority and minority reports had

rejected this feature. The amendment, however, was

adopted by a vote of 49 to 15.108

Another amendment of Dorsey, providing that

whenever a county fell below one-third of the ratio it

should be attached to the least populous of the adjoining

counties, was not so successful. In his remarks Dor-

sey recognized the development of manufacturing with

the concentration of population in the cities and the sta-

tionary or declining population of the rural districts.¹⁰⁹

Such a statement is of interest as it touched the situa-

tion which today is leading to a demand for a revision

of the system of representation in Ohio.

The debate then returned to the proposal of Horton

for single-member districts. Horton now pointed out

that Ohio was the only state in which there were large

cities that did not permit of their division. He conceded

107 Ibid., II, p. 1618.

108 Ibid., II, pp. 1620, 1622, 1625. The opposition came from those who

believed that every sufficient compensation had been made for giving at

least one representative to every county when two representatives were given

for one and one-half ratios.

109 Ibid., II, pp. 1625, 1627.

264       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

that gerrymandering was possible but contended that

this should not prevent the adoption of the proposal if

it were just.  It had not been a valid reason for reject-

ing it in congressional elections. In return, the oppo-

nents of this plan stressed the fact that to have the whole

delegation elected as a unit gave the entire county a

voice as a county. This was the case with the counties

having only one representative. The large counties

were entitled to the same privilege. The amendment

was rejected by the close vote of 30 to 33.110

The same fate at first awaited the amendment au-

thorizing proportional representation. It was proposed

to apply it only in cases in which more than two mem-

bers were elected. Later it was taken up and included.111

The Convention was now growing weary of the de-

bate which had little that was new to offer. A second

report of the Committee was brought in on May 4.

While agreeing in the main features the Committee dif-

fered on many details. This led to several additional

days of discussion. Finally on May 7 by a vote of 53

to 30 the Convention adopted the plan that was submit-

ted as a part of the Constitution.¹¹²    Its opponents en-

deavored to revive the discussion by a motion to recon-

sider the next day but failed in their attempt.113

110 Ibid., II, p. 1680. Hamilton County which would have had ten

members at this time was divided in its vote.

111 Ibid., II, pp. 1681, 1692: III, pp. 3240, 3315, 3348.

112 Ibid., III, p. 3353. The opposition came from Carroll, Cuyahoga,

Franklin, Clark, Butler, Washington, Defiance, Hamilton (2), Ashland,

Geauga, Licking, Wayne, Seneca, Adams, Monroe, Delaware, Erie, Frank-

lin, Meigs, Clermont, Highland, Montgomery, Lucas (2), Knox, Sandusky.

and Hocking. No geographical alignment of rural versus urban counties

is to be discerned.

113 Ibid., III, p. 3360.

266       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

denied representation in its own right. A county with

one and one-half ratios was to have two representatives.

Three ratios would entitle a county to three representa-

tives. An additional representative was to be given for

each additional complete ratio. Fractional ratios were

to be cumulative and afford additional representation at

certain sessions. This applied to both Senate and

House. When a county in a senatorial district acquired

a population equal to the ratio it was to be permitted to

form a separate senatorial district provided a full ratio

remained in the district from which it was taken. Pro-

portional representation was to be followed in any dis-

trict that sent more than two senators or in any county

that was represented by more than two members of the

House. The governor, secretary of state and auditor

or any two of them were to determine the ratio every ten

years on the basis of the federal census.114

The voters of Ohio rejected the Constitution sub-

mitted by this Convention. Proportional representa-

tion is listed as one of the many contributing causes of

the defeat.115 The work of the Convention was, never-

theless, not without its value. It covered in a thorough-

going manner all the difficult questions involved in har-

monizing representation based on population with rep-

resentation that must take cognizance of political divi-

sions created for other purposes. In venturing to pro-

114 Ibid, III, pp. 3353, 3354; Patterson, op. cit., pp. 219, 220.

115 Ohio Statistics (1874), pp. 152, 153. It carried with large majorities

in Hamilton and Cuyahoga Counties. The vote stood 102,885 to 250,169.

The charges that it was a lawyer's constitution, satisfaction with the exist-

ing Constitution, the opposition of the no-license people, the opposition of

the corporations, and the general conservatism of the people were other

causes, Patterson, op. cit., p. 176.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio       267

pose proportional representation it displayed a courage-

ous and progressive spirit that was seeking to protect

the minority in its rights.

The expectations in the Convention of 1873-1874

that the smaller counties would increase in population

and thus become entitled to representation in the House

in their own rights did not materialize.       Instead, with

the drift of population away from the country to the

cities the number to which representation was denied

by the Constitution of 1851 steadily increased. The

ratio in 1880 was 31,980. Geauga joined Paulding as

the counties that were united with others. Changes in

population now compelled a further union of senatorial

districts.116

By 1890 the list included Carroll, Geauga, Lake,

Vinton, Pike and Morrow. The growth of population

in the counties in the northwestern section of the State

enabled the counties there to elect members of the House

of Representatives in their own rights. As the popu-

lation suffered a comparative decline in the east and

southeast the counties there began to fall below the one-

half ratio.117

When the Governor, Secretary of state and Auditor

met to determine the senatorial districts they were un-

116 Ohio Statistics (1881), pp. 202-204. Geauga was joined with Lake

and Paulding with Defiance. Combinations of senatorial districts were as

follows: Fifteenth and Sixteenth; Seventeenth and Twenty-Eighth;

Eighteenth and Nineteenth; Twenty-fourth and Twenty-sixth; Twenty-

seventh and Twenty-eighth.

117 Ohio Statistics (1891), pp. 177-181. The map shows the arrange-

ments for the House of Representatives. On the whole they represent a

consistent application of the principle that a county should be united with

the least populous of adjoining counties.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  269

union of the Ninth and Fourteenth Districts. These

Districts included Athens, Hocking, Fairfield, Washing-

ton, Morgan and parts of Noble and Monroe. The

Eighteenth composed of Tuscarawas and Carroll was

united with the Nineteenth made up of Guernsey and

parts of Monroe and Noble. The Governor proposed

that the Ninth and Fifteenth each be given a senator

and that the Fourteenth and Nineteenth be united. In

1889 the Ninth had elected a Democratic senator as did

the district composed of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth.

The Fifteenth which was joined with the Sixteenth was

also Democratic.119  When the majority report was pre-

sented a suit was brought to compel a new apportion-

ment. It was argued that the plan violated the provi-

sion of the Constitution of 1851, which stated that the

senatorial districts should be composed of counties and

not of sections of counties. The plan proposed by the

Governor would have united the parts of Monroe and

Noble Counties.¹²⁰ The Supreme Court dismissed the

suit. In so doing it recognized the anomalous situation

that existed. The senatorial districts were arranged in

the Constitution before Noble County was created. The

people adopted the Constitution after this county was

formed but did not make any change in the arrange-

ments. The only remedy was an amendment to the

Constitution. Until this should be done the districts

could be grouped as might be advisable in view of popu-

lation and the political situation.121 In the election of

119 Ohio Statistics (1889), pp. 123, 125.

120 Noble County, the last of Ohio counties to be organized, was erected

April 1, 1851, after the Convention which formed the Constitution had ad-

journed.

121 Ohio Statistics (1891), pp. 171-225.

270       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

1891 one of these districts elected a Republican and the

other a Democrat. In each case the majority was

small.¹²²

With the growth of the population of the State and

the continued movement of the people to the cities a

further increase of the number of counties having less

than one-half of the ratio was inevitable. With the

ratio at 20,787 ten counties failed to qualify and were

united with others. Of greater significance as indi-

cating the trend of the times was the fact that forty-six

others had less than the full ratio but were given repre-

sentation since they surpassed the one-half ratio mark.¹²³

The recognition of this increasing decline of popu-

lation in the rural districts led to the submission of an

amendment providing that each county should have at

least one representative.    It was introduced     in the

House by Charles S. Rommells of the Hocking-Vinton

District. The House cast only four votes against it.

All of these came from   Cuyahoga County.¹²⁴    The vote

in the Senate was unanimous in its favor.¹²⁵

This amendment formed one of a group of five sub-

mitted in 1903. At this time the political parties had

the power of endorsing amendments. When this was

done the voter who voted a straight ticket supported the

amendments that were endorsed. This made the vote

122 Ibid., pp 273, 276.

123 Ohio Statistics (1901), pp. 220-229. Eighteen senatorial districts

were united. The ten counties that fell below the one-half ratio mark were

Carroll, Geauga, Harrison, Holmes, Madison, Morgan, Morrow, Noble,

Pike, and Vinton.

124 House Jorunal (1902), pp 402, 628. The four representatives were

Coughlin, Dunham, Kinney, Selzer. Eighty-three members of the House

voted favorably.

125 Senate Journal (1902), p. 882.

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio  271

on the amendment no indication of the true sentiment

of the people on this question.

The Republican State Convention unanimously en-

dorsed the amendment.¹²⁶ In the Democratic Conven-

tion the Committee on Credentials reported adversely.

This report was adopted after a minority report in favor

of the amendment had been rejected by a vote of 374 to

315. On motion of John A. Eyler a resolution that it

was the sentiment of the Convention that each county

should have a representative in the lower house was then

adopted. This permitted it to appear on the official

ballot as a part of the Democratic ticket.¹²⁷

This year saw the submission of four other amend-

ments. These provided for the single liability of stock-

holders in corporations, conferred the veto power on the

governor, permitted the classification of cities by the

Legislature and the classification of property for taxa-

tion.

There was no great amount of discussion of the

amendment on representation. In an election editorial

The Ohio State Journal endorsed it in these words:

"The abolition of the few joint legislative districts

would give the small counties of the state better repre-

sentation in the Legislature. The adoption of this

amendment, approved by both party conventions, would

be in accord with the principle of home rule."¹²⁸ The

Ohio Farmer, a representative farm journal, carried on

a strong fight against the taxation amendment. It be-

126 Ohio State Journal, June 5, 1903. In 1901 the Republicans had

carried six out of the eight districts into which these counties were grouped,

Ohio Statistics (1901), pp. 286-294.

127 The Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 27, 1903.

128 The Ohio State Journal, November 2, 1903.

272        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

lieved that the amendments conferring the veto power

on the governor and giving at least one representative

to each county were intended "to sugarcoat the whole

dose." In another editorial while urging the farmers

to come out and defeat the taxation amendment the

editor remarked, "The other amendments are good but

not important."¹²⁹ There is no indication that the rural

interests were vitally interested in the proposal to in-

crease their representation.

If such an interest existed the approval of both of

the major parties removed any necessity for intensive

campaigning in its behalf. The voters at the polls ap-

proved the amendment by the largest majority given to

any of the five. Of the votes cast against it 2395 came

from Hamilton, and 1733 from Cuyahoga Counties.¹³⁰

This decisive vote brought to an end one period in the

history of the representation of the people of Ohio in

the lower house of the General Assembly and opened

another.131

The Constitutional Convention of 1912 did not dis-

play any great interest in the apportionment question.¹³²

129 The Ohio Farmer, October 15, October 29, 1903.

130 Ohio Statistics (1903), pp. 413-315. The result stood as follows:

Representation                                      yes 757,505                    no 26,497.

Governor's veto                                    yes 458,681                    no 338,317.

Single liability                                     yes 751,783                    no 29,383.

Taxation                                                  yes 326,622                    no 43,563.

Municipal classification                    yes 21,664                       no 32,110.

131 How decisive was the change is shown by the fact that in 1920

forty counties had less than one-half of the ratio of 57,594. They were

Adams, Ashland, Brown, Carroll, Clermont, Clinton, Defiance, Delaware,

Fayette, Fulton, Gallia, Geauga, Harrison, Henry, Highland, Hocking,

Holmes, Jackson, Lake, Madison, Medina, Meigs, Mercer, Monroe, Morgan,

Morrow, Noble, Ottawa, Paulding, Pike, Preble, Putnam, Shelby, Union,

Van Wert, Vinton, Warren, Wayne, Williams, and Wyandot. The popu-

Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio            273

Early in the session Harris of Ashtabula County intro-

duced a proposal looking to a revision of representa-

tion.¹³³ It was referred to the Committee on Legislative

and Executive Departments.¹³⁴

This Committee reported back the resolution without

making any recommendations.¹³⁵ Harris then proposed

certain amendments to his original plan and discussed

the question. To equalize the differences that had

arisen in senatorial districts he would have districted

the State anew. The divisor would have remained at

thirty-five. Each county was to have at least one rep-

resentative. A county having one and one-half ratios

was to have two representatives. Additional represen-

tation was to be given in this manner. In counties hav-

ing more than one representative non-partisan boards

were to be appointed to divide the counties into single-

member districts.¹³⁶

Hursh of Hardin moved an amendment providing

lation in twenty-eight others was less than a full but more than one-half

a ratio. The effect of this situation on representation under the Consti-

tution of 1851 can be seen at a glance. Twenty senatorial districts were

united into districts of two in each one, while it was necessary to join the

Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twenty-eighth into one. Ohio

Statistics (1927) pp. 459-465.

132 The Convention of 1912 met as a result of the decision of the voters

on November 8, 1910. It was in session from January 9 to August 26, 1912.

Of the 119 members the majority were Democrats. Patterson op. cit., pp.

312-316.

133 Proceedings and Debates, I, p. 318.

134 The Committee on Legislative and Executive Departments was com-

posed of Harris of Ashtabula, Thomas of Cuyahoga, Harbarger of Frank-

lin, Rorick of Fulton, Kerr of Jefferson, Hursh of Hardin, Johnson of