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.
234 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications nities were the union of Holmes with Knox and of
Rich- land with Crawford. The combination of Tuscarawas with Carroll and of Lake with Ashtabula represented the formation of safe Whig districts. The Democratic advantage in Marion was overcome by joining it with Union which the Whigs controlled. Fairfield, Perry, and Hocking constituted a strong Democratic center. Any chance of the Democratic majority in Hocking be- ing large enough to overcome the Whig lead in Ross with which it was united in 1844 was thus destroyed. In Trumbull County the two parties were evenly bal- anced. By uniting Trumbull with Geauga which was more than two-to-one Whig the Whigs felt assured of two representatives from the district. A similar
rea- son led to the union of Fayette and Highland. The practices in the case of the Senate were similar to those in the House. A table has been prepared to show the senatorial districts.* Senatorial districts under the Apportionment Act of
1848 (O. L. XLVI, 57-64) |
Hamilton 2 Butler Licking X Muskingum X Stark X Cuyahoga Montgomery and Preble* Clermont and Brown Franklin and Delaware* Ross and Pickaway* Highland and Fayette* Morgan and Washington Coshocton and Guernsey X Tuscarawas and Carroll* Jefferson and Harrison Columbiana and Mahoning |
Trumbull and Geauga* Portage and Summit X Medina and Lorain X Huron and Erie* X Warren, Greene and Clinton Crawford, Clark and Madison* Miami, Darke, and Shelby X Fairfield, Perry, and Hocking* Seneca, Hancock, and Wyandot Logan, Hardin, Union, and Marion Adams, Pike, Scioto, and Law- rence Jackson, Gallia, Athens, and Meigs* |
Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio 235 |
Belmont and Monroe Wayne and Ashland* Knox and Holmes* X Richland and Crawford* Ashtabula and Lake* x |
Lucas, Henry, Wood, San- dusky, and Ottawa Allen, Mercer, Auglaize, Van Wert, Putnam, Defiance, Paulding, Williams |
* also combined as a representative district. X same as under the act of 1844. Ten districts remained as under the Act of 1844.34 The other counties were grouped into new
combinations so as to insure Whig control of the upper house.
Such practices, however, were only those which the Demo- crats themselves had approved by use at former
times. They did not affect Hamilton County. This county had a safe Democratic majority.35 It was entitled to two senators and five representatives. How could the
Whigs cut in on these and hope to secure a part of this
delega- tion and thus strengthen their slender majority? The answer was found in the fact that certain parts of the county normally returned a Whig majority. The division of the county into districts would give the
com- mercial and manufacturing interests in the city an
oppor- tunity to send Whigs to the General Assembly. In the past the Democrats in the rural sections had
controlled the county.36 The Act gave to Hamilton
County two senators and five representatives. For electoral
pur- poses the county was divided into two districts. The First was composed of wards one to
eight. This 34 O. L.,
XLVI, 57-64. Fourteen of the senatorial districts corresponded to representative districts of one form or another. 35 In 1846 William Bebb, Whig, received 5,289 and
David Tod, Demo- crat, 7,184 votes in Hamilton County. Bebb was
elected governor by a close vote of 118,869 to 116,484 with Samuel Lewis,
Abolitionist, polling 10,797 votes in the State. 36
Census of 1840. p. 78. The
population of Hamilton County in 1840 was 80,145. Of these 46,338 lived in the City of
Cincinnati. |
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.
Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio 249 least one-half of the ratio was to be entitled to a rep- resentative. One and three-fourths would give two rep- |
|
resentatives. Three ratios would secure three and so on. Fractional ratios were to be combined to give additional representation in certain years of a decennial period. |
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.
Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio 253 the fractional ratios could not be fairly represented un- der it.81 When the first vote was taken on the plan it |
|
81 Typical speeches in defense of the single-member districts were those of Green of Ross, Hitchcock of Geauga, Reemelin of Hamilton, and Mason of Clark, Ibid., II, pp. 752, 756, 759, 780. Strong opposition was offered by Dorsey of Miami, Groesbeck of Hamilton, Holmes of Hamilton, and Ramsay of Trumbull, Ibid., II, pp. 758, 762, 764, 770. In supporting the single-member district Reemelin differed from the majority of the |
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.
Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio 255 the ratio it might be formed into a separate district. The map shows the arrangement of senatorial districts.86 |
|
The divisor for computing the ratio for the House of Representatives was fixed at one hundred. Each 86 On the basis of the vote for governor in 1850 the arrangement fa- vored the Democrats. The first senate under the new constitution was controlled by that party. The new alignments in political parties due to the revival of the slavery question makes any pronouncement on advantages resulting from this arrangement impossible. |
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.
Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio 257 tation in its own right, were utilized. The representative districts as arranged by the Convention are shown on the map. |
|
They favored the Democratic party on the basis of the election returns of 1850. Efforts were soon made to amend the section of the Constitution of 1851 dealing with apportionment. Only one attempt succeeded in getting the matter before the Vol. XL--17. |
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.
Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio 265 The section of the Constitution dealing with the membership of the Senate provided that the ratio should |
|
be obtained by dividing the population of the State by thirty-seven. The divisor for the House of Representa- tives was one hundred and five. No county was to be |
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.
268 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications able to agree.118 Governor James A. Campbell was a Democrat, while the secretary of state, Daniel J. Ryan, |
|
and the auditor, Ebenezer W. Poe, were Republicans. The Governor disagreed with his colleagues over the 118 This was the first dispute under the Constitution of 1851. At pre- vious apportionments all of these offices were in the hands of the Republi- cans. They controlled them again in 1901 and 1921 as did the Democrats in 1911. |
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
Williams, Stokes of Montgomery, Cody of
Union, Fox of Mercer, Holtz
of Seneca, Kramer of Richland, Miller of
Fairfield, Norris of Marion,
Price of Perry, Roehm of Montgomery,
Lambert of Jackson. Ibid., p. 93.
135 Ibid., II, p.
1326.
136 Ibid., II, pp. 1326, 1683-1684.
Vol. XL--18.
274
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
that the ratio for a senator should be
secured by dividing
the population of the State by thirty.
Senatorial dis-
tricts were to be equal in population
in so far as this
could be secured by following county
lines. They were
to be of compact territory. The divisor
for the House
was to be fixed at seventy-five. No
county with less
than one-half of the ratio was to be
entitled to a repre-
sentative. It was to be attached to the
smallest adjoin-
ing county having less than the
one-half ratio. He be-
lieved that the Convention would be
forced to do one of
three things. "We have either got
to admittedly give
many country districts three or four
times as much rep-
resentation according to population as
the larger dis-
tricts have, we have to combine the
smaller districts, or
have to make the representation larger.
I have chosen
the course of making the representation
smaller and
combining the counties."137
In the brief debate there was plainly
manifested a
strong desire to avoid any
consideration of a question
that could so easily assume a partisan
tone. How
readily this crept in was shown by the
remarks of
Roehm of Montgomery County. He asserted
that the
scheme was unfair to the Democratic
party. This was
the party to which he adhered. It would
permit the
Republicans to secure two of the three
representatives
of the county which then was controlled
by the Demo-
crats. He therefore moved the
indefinite postponement
of the original resolutions and of the
amendments.
Brown of Highland moved that they be
tabled. This
motion was carried by a vote of 57 to
35.138
They were
137 Ibid., II, p. 1686.
138 Ibid., II, p. 1690.
Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio 275 not taken up again. The map shows the distribution of the vote on the motion to table. It indicates that the delegates from the cities were strongly against any |
|
change. As a result of this action there was no refer- ence to apportionment among the amendments submit- ted to the people by this Convention. The apportion- ment system remained as in the Constitution of 1851 |
276 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
plus the amendment of 1903. There has
been no change
in the system of membership in the
Senate or the House
of Representatives since 1912. A
movement in 1921
to redistrict the state for senatorial
purposes did not
succeed. A resolution to divide the
state into twenty-
five senatorial districts was
introduced by Senator M. B.
Archer of Noble County. He represented
the Ninth
and Fourteenth Districts. The resolution
as amended
to form twenty-six districts passed the
Senate by a vote
of 28 to 6. It then went to the House.
Here further
changes were made. The vote on its
passage was 83 to
7. A conference committee agreed on the
final form
which was accepted by both houses.139
The table shows
the changes in the resolution during
the consideration.
When submitted to the people the
amendment was de-
feated. The vote stood 336,754 for and
518,524
against.140
The situation today in Ohio is not
unlike that in
every state in which there has been a
marked transition
from agriculture to manufacturing as
the major eco-
nomic activity. The census of 1920 gave
a ratio of
57,594 for one representative.141 There
were 68 coun-
ties in the State with less than this
population. Of
139 Senate Journal (1921), pp. 90, 213, 282, 523, 594; House Journal
(1921), pp. 405, 607, 613, 698, 721. The
negative vote in the Senate came
from Crawford, Perry, Muskingum, Pike,
Highland, and Cuyahoga Coun-
ties.
140 Ohio Statistics (1922), pp. 253, 254. The amendment carried in only
five counties: Jefferson, Lake, Lorain,
Summit and Trumbull. For com-
parison the affirmative and negative
votes from four large and four small
counties are given: Cuyahoga, 50,806 and
71,625; Hamilton, 48,297 and
48,375; Lucas, 16,959 and 26,049;
Franklin, 14,583 and 24,529; Pike, 873
and 1,664; Vinton, 375 and 1,649;
Carroll, 891 and 1,539; Geauga, 848 and
938.
141 Ohio Statistics (1927), p. 819.
Membership in the General Assembly of Ohio 277 these, 41 did not have one-half of the ratio. On the basis of this population a map has been prepared show- ing the counties that are over-represented, those that |
|
are under-represented, and those that have a fair repre- sentation. The senatorial ratio in this same year was 164,554. How antiquated are the districts as arranged in 1851 |
278 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society
Publications
may
be shown by citing the Fourth composed of Cler-
mont
and Brown which had 50,912;
the Seventeenth
made
of Knox and Morrow with only
45,510; and the
Twenty-Eighth
formed of Wayne and Holmes with 58,-
281.142 By no possible stretch of the political
imagina-
tion
can there be said to be any municipal interests that
unite
the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth and
Twenty-Eighth
for representation by the same two sen-
ators.
The same may be said of a combination such as
that
of the Second and Fourth or of the Twenty-Fourth
and
Twenty-Sixth.
THE
EVOLUTION OF THE APPORTIONMENT AMENDMENT IN
1921
(Senate
Journal (1921), pp. 90, 291: House
Journal (1921), p. 721)
As
introduced Passed by
Senate Final Form
Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton
Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery
Franklin Franklin Franklin
Stark Stark Stark
Mahoning Mahoning Mahoning
Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Cuyahoga
Lucas Lucas Lucas
Carroll,
Columbiana, Carroll,
Columbiana, Carroll, Columbiana,
Tuscarawas Tuscarawas Tuscarawas
Adams,
Brown, Clinton, Adams, Brown,
Clin- Adams, Clinton, High-
Highland,
Greene ton, Highland, Fay- land, Scioto, Pike
ette,
Madison
Clark,
Fayette, Madison, Clark, Champaign, Lo- Clark, Champaign, Lo-
Pickaway gan, Auglaize gan, Auglaize
Darke,
Auglaize, Miami, Darke, Preble,
Miami, Darke, Preble, Miami,
Mercer,
Shelby Shelby Shelby
Allen,
Hancock, Pauld- Alien, Mercer,
Van Allen, Van Wert,
ing,
Putnam, Van Wert, Paulding, Mercer, Paulding,
Wert Defiance,
Williams Defiance, Williams
Defiance,
Fulton, Henry, Henry, Fulton, Put- Henry,
Fulton, Put-
Williams,
Wood nam, Hancock, Wood nam, Hancock, Wood
Fairfield,
Hocking, Pike, Fairfield, Hocking, Fairfield,
Hocking,
Ross,
Scioto, Vinton Morgan, Athens Athens, Perry
142 Ibid.,
pp. 815-817.
Membership
in the General Assembly of Ohio
279
As
introduced Passed by
Senate Final Form
Athens,
Gallia, Jackson, Jackson,
Vinton, Gal- Jackson, Vinton,
Meigs,
Lawrence,
Meigs lia, Meigs,
Lawrence Gallia, Lawrence
Guernsey,
Harrison, Mor- Guernsey, Harrison, Guernsey,
Morgan,
gan, Monroe,
Noble, Monroe, Noble, Noble, Monroe,
Washington Washington Washington
Belmont,
Jefferson Belmont,
Jefferson Belmont, Jefferson,
Harrison
Licking,
Delaware, Mus- Licking, Muskingum, Licking,
Muskingum,
kingum,
Perry Perry, Coshocton Holmes, Coshocton
Hardin,
Champaign, Lo- Hardin, Seneca, Marion, Hardin, Marion, Mor-
gan, Marion,
Union, Union, Wyandot, row, Union, Knox,
Wyandot,
Crawford Crawford Delaware
Holmes,
Wayne, Knox, Holmes, Wayne,
Me- Wayne, Medina, Lorain
Morrow,
Coshocton dina, Lorain
Summit Summit,
Geauga, Lake, Summit, Geauga, Lake,
Portage Portage
Ashtabula,
Geauga, Lake, Ashtabula, Trumbull Ashtabula,
Trumbull
Portage,
Trumbull
Ashland,
Lorain, Medina, Ashland, Knox, Dela- Ashland,
Seneca, Craw-
Richland ware, Marion, Rich- ford, Wyandot, Rich-
land land
Erie, Huron,
Sandusky, Erie, Huron,
Ottawa, Erie, Huron, Ottawa,
Seneca,
Ottawa Sandusky Sandusky
Ross,
Pickaway, Pike, Ross, Pickaway, Madi-
Scioto son, Fayette, Greene
The
situation may be presented in yet another way.
The largest
county, Cuyahoga, had a population of 943,-
495 in
1920. The ratio gave the county seventeen rep-
resentatives
at each session of the General Assembly
during the
present decennial period. Over against this
are to be
placed the seventeen rural counties of Adams,
Ottawa,
Fayette, Carroll, Geauga, Harrison, Holmes,
Madison,
Morgan, Morrow, Noble, Paulding, Pike,
Vinton,
Union, Wyandot and Monroe with a total popu-
lation of
307,337.143 According to the Constitution
143 Fourteenth
Census (1920), I, p. 123. The
unofficial census returns
in 1930 will
give Cuyahoga County eighteen representatives and require
sixty-eight
to equalize the strength of the eighteen small counties. Spring-
field Daily
News, July 18, 1930.
280 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications each of these counties has one representative. This makes a total of seventeen for these counties. Were |
|
the people of Cuyahoga represented in the same pro- portion they would have not seventeen but fifty-one rep- |
Membership in the General Assembly of
Ohio 281
resentatives. The situation in
Hamilton, Lucas, Sum-
mit, Franklin, Mahoning and other
highly industrial
counties is different only in degree.
The industrializa-
tion of the State has led to the
concentration of the peo-
ple in a few cities. Slightly more than
50% live in
eight counties. Yet these counties had
only forty-eight
representatives in the 1929 session of
the General As-
sembly. A minority of the people living
in the remain-
ing 88 counties sent eighty-five
representatives to form
a block that could control that body on
any clear-cut
issue between the rural and urban
districts.
This disparity in representation
appears also when
the situation is studied in the light
of the total voters
represented by a member of the House.
The represen-
tative from Vinton County in 1928 was
elected by
2,532 votes to his opponent's 1,844. On
the other hand
the lowest successful candidate on the
Republican ticket
in Hamilton County received 141,409 and
the highest
unsuccessful Democratic candidate had
102,668 votes
to his credit. In Cuyahoga County the
figures were
171,420 and 147,427 respectively. The
disparity also
applies to the counties in which the
population is grow-
ing as compared with those in which it
is declining.
Belmont County with 93,193 people had
its one repre-
sentative as did the 12,075 in Vinton.144
The constitu-
tional provision which permits the
combination of the
senatorial districts has prevented
these conditions from
developing in the State Senate.
There does exist, however, in the
Senate a condition
that requires notice. In the election
of 1928 the Re-
144 Ohio Election
Statistics (1928), pp. 85-89.
282
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
publican candidates polled 61% of the
total votes for
senatorial candidates. The remaining
39% went to
their Democratic rivals. Yet not a
single member of
the State Senate was a Democrat. The
Republicans
controlled every seat.145 In
other words, 39% of the
population of Ohio had no voice in the
State Senate.
The actual strength of the vote for
Democratic mem-
bers of the House of Representatives,
likewise, was not
indicated by the party roll of eleven
members of that
body. A total of 149,315 votes in
counties returning a
single member each gave the Republicans
thirty mem-
bers of the House. In Cuyahoga County,
one of the
Democratic candidates, Miss Margaret R.
Lawrence,
polled 147,427 but was defeated. This
number of
Democrats, consequently, had no voice
in the lower
house of the General Assembly.146
This situation furnished the strength
for the famous
"Cornstalk Brigade" in the
last session of the General
Assembly. It led to a movement,
sponsored by State
Senator George H. Bender of Cuyahoga
County, for the
amendment of the Constitution so that
such conditions
would be eliminated. The proposal
advanced by Sen-
ator Bender would have provided for the
combination of
counties into senatorial and
representative districts as
nearly equal in population as possible.
The governor,
auditor, and secretary of state would
have apportioned
the members of the General Assembly
after each federal
decennial census.147
145 Ibid., pp. 78-84. This
situation was altered by the election of 1930,
which gave the Republicans only a small
majority.
146 Election
Statistics (1928), pp. 85-89.
147 Based on the summary of the proposal
made by Attorney General
Bettman. This proposal was advocated by
Bender in 1929 and again in
Membership in the General Assembly
of Ohio 283
The history of apportionment in Ohio
thus shows a
number of attempts to solve the
difficult problem of
reconciling representation based on
population with rep-
resentation based on well-defined
political and geo-
graphical areas. The apportionment has
been left in
the hands of the General Assembly,
fixed by the Consti-
tution within certain limits, and
entrusted to a commit-
tee from the executive department. The
experiment of
combination of counties for membership
in the House
has been tried as well as the election
of at least one rep-
resentative by every county. Senatorial
districts have
been changed at the will of the General
Assembly or un-
alterably fixed by the Constitution.
The members of
both the Senate and House in-counties
or districts en-
titled to more than one member have
always been elected
in a block.
There has been no attempt to put into
practice the
single-member district except in
Hamilton County under
the act of 1848. It can scarcely be
said to have had a
fair trial at that time. As the
Constitution of 1873-
1874 was rejected at the polls the
effort to solve the prob-
lem of safeguarding the rights of the
minority by a sys-
tem of proportional representation has
never been made.
Ohio still waits for the day when a
courageous attempt
will be made to move nearer to a
perfect democracy
through an acceptable solution of the
apportionment
problem. The past affords many valuable
object-les-
sons for the constitution-makers who
would give Ohio
that which all believers in democracy
seek to discover.
1930, but never submitted to popular
vote. It has now, apparently, been
abandoned.
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)