morning, it will no longer be possible for anybody truthfully to say that it is not possible for cream to rise upon spilled milk. Mr. Quigg - Mr. Chairman. The Chairman - Mr. Quigg. Mr. Quigg - So far as Mr. Smith's amendment and the Committee proposition are concerned, it is tweedle dum and tweedle dee. We shall find New York, under either provision, with precisely the same representation. There is nothing in the controversy. I am inclined to vote for Judge O'Brien's amendment. What I mean is this: The city of New York is going to get it sooner or later. A city which is going to control the world from Gravesend Bay to Calcutta and back again, sooner or later is going to control the country districts of the State of New York. I do think that the gradual process is the better process. It will come sooner or later and it looks to me as if it were coming very soon. We are disturbed, of course, by the shifting population there, the foreign population, but it is getting into attune with the rest of the country and the rest of the State. We have a most signal illustration of that here. This Senator, (Mr. Wagner) that has led his party, born in Prussia, coming here when he was eight years old and rising to the distinction that he has, not only in the Legislature and before the people of New York, but right here in this Convention, is an illustration of the fact that we are all getting together, that the melting pot is working, and that sooner or later the political consideration that controls us has got to pass away and we have got to submit to the political determination of the population of New York city. It is coming, and it is coming fast. Whether we should restrain it twenty years or not, is, to my mind, not an important consideration. Mr. Wickersham - Mr. Chairman. The Chairman - Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Wickersham - The other day when my friend, Mr. Quigg, made the charming and beautiful allegorical speech, after the spell had somewhat subsided, the question on everybody's lips was "but where was the mountain lion?" So compelling was the charm of his oratory at the time that it stilled the inquiry which rose to our lips then and it was not made until too late. To-day, Mr. Chairman, he has revealed it to us. It is the Empire; . it is this great political control that is going to extend from Calcutta to Gravesend, and it is the artful suggestion of that mountain lion with which he seeks to affright the representatives from the country districts. Now, gentlemen, perhaps it is just as well that we had these little political fireworks this morning. It is out of our system. Now, let us go back to the conclusion we reached some weeks ago when we debated this out and decided that the only barrier we needed against this growing imperial control of the State was to be found in the existing prohibitions in the existing Constitution and all that is necessary is to make the language of that section applicable to present conditions. I ask that we now proceed to a vote upon that question, and then let us run on and get through with this article and proceed with the order of business which requires us to accomplish a great deal of work before we take our adjournment to-morrow night. Mr. F. Martin - Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman answer just one question? Mr. Wickersham - Yes. Mr. F. Martin - When this matter was up some time ago was it not practically agreed that the present language of the Constitution, that no two counties or the territory thereof as now organized should have more than one-half the Senators, should be retained instead of altering so that it will include the county of Bronx, making it three counties? Was not that the agreement here? Mr. Wickersham - I was not a party to any such agreement and I do not know of any such agreement. Mr. Chairman, I have always supposed that the result of the debate we had some weeks ago was a general acquiescence that the Constitution in that respect should be left with the present provision and I am happy to say, Mr. Chairman, that, with the elimination of the political controversy over that matter, we have gone on in a spirit of nonpartisan effort to produce for the people of New York the best Constitution that we were capable of formulating. I am happy to say now, and I shall be happy to testify hereafter, to the spirit in which both Democrats and Republicans alike have united in this work. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that nothing at this late hour will arise to disturb that spirit, because I think it has made for the benefit of the people of the whole State, and the people of the State will applaud our efforts, carried on as they have been in that spirit. Mr. Schurman - May I ask a question of Mr. Wickersham? Mr. Schurman - I should like to ask Mr. Wickersham, confronted as we are with this multitude of amendments, what language or what amendment, in his opinion, is best adapted to leave the Constitution as it is in this respect? Mr. Wickersham - Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment proposed by Mr. E. N. Smith, supplemented by that of Mr. Herbert Parsons, will accomplish that purpose. Mr. Unger - Mr. Chairman. The Chairman - Mr. Unger. Mr. Unger - General Wickersham, will you do me a favor and see that this proposal and the short ballot proposal are submitted as separate propositions? Mr. Wickersham - That is not for me to say; that is for the Convention to decide. Mr. Wagner - Mr. Chairman, just a moment. So that there may be no misunderstanding about the members of the minority here who represent the city of New York, they never have been, and I am sure they never will be, a party to an agreement that there shall be any limitation placed upon the representation which the citizens of that city should have in the State Legislature. Any suggestion here that any of us entered into an agreement to accept one limitation as against another is not based upon any facts. We are as much opposed to-day as we were on the day that the original argument on reapportionment came up, to the unjust limitation placed upon the citizens of the city of New York. We did discuss it. We had it all out, and a vote 'was taken which indicated that it was the sentiment of this Convention that they would not take out that limitation or at least relieve the citizens of New York city from that restriction now imposed upon them. From the beginning of the Convention, in many of the matters we have been absolutely non-partisan; with the exception of the home rule measure and the provision as to the sinking fund which I urged upon the Convention to adopt, we have been acting in a spirit of non-partisaship. But upon this question, it is purely politics and I hope that no one will be deceived by the restriction you are placing upon New York. It is not a territorial restriction, but it is merely because it is a Democratic comunity, and the restriction upon it will prevent us, except under extraordinary conditions in this State, from ever getting control of the Legislature of this State. That is what dictated the crime of '94 and that is what dictates its retention in the present Constituion. Mr. R. B. Smith - Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. R. B. Smith - Under the proposal of E. N. Smith for three counties, do you mean to say that New York city will not have at least twenty-six Senators in 1926? Mr. Wagner - As between the two, Mr. Smith, of course the E. N. Smith proposal is the lesser restriction; and of two injustices, it is the less unjust. That is the only merit of it. Upon the great principle, I hope that no one here will understand the position of the minority to be that we concur in the crime of '94. Mr. Deyo - Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. Deyo - Did not the people of the city of New York in 1894 vote by a majority of upwards of fifty thousand to place this restriction upon themselves? How can the gentleman refer to that as a crime when the people themselves in the city of New York voted for it by that large majority? Mr. Wagner - Mr. Deyo, I hope that you will separately submit a proposal to the citizens of the city of New York as to whether there shall or shall not be this restriction upon their representation, and I will show you then, as the result of that vote, what the sentiment in that ciy is. Mr. Deyo - Will the gentleman yield for another question? Mr. Deyo 1894. Was not that question submitted as a separate proposition in Mr. Wagner - I am not speaking of '94. Mr. Byrne - Will the gentleman yield for another question? Was there anything in the wording of the Constitution at that time which said that the cities of Brooklyn and New York should never have half the representation? Mr. Wagner - There was not. Delegates - Question. The Chairman The question occurs upon the amendment of Mr. Wagner. The Secretary will read the amendment. The Secretary - On page 11, line 10, after the word "territory" eliminate the words "and no county ". Mr. Wagner - The substitute offered by Judge O'Brien covers the same point, perhaps better than my amendment, and I suggest that, instead of taking a vote upon my amendment, a vote now be taken first upon Judge O'Brien's proposal. The Chairman - The Chair is unable to put the question in that order. Wagner's motion. Mr. Wagner - I will accept it as a substitute for my amendment, or as an amendment. The Chairman Mr. O'Brien's amendment is offered as a substitute for the amendment of Mr. Wagner, which Mr. Wagner accepts as a substitute? Mr. Wagner- Yes. The Chairman - The Secretary will read the substitute for Mr. Wagner's amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien. The 'Secretary - Mr. O'Brien moves to substitute for Section 4 the following. Section 4. An enumeration of the inhabitants of the state shall be taken under the direction of the secretary of state during the months of May and June in the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five and in the same months every tenth year thereafter and the said districts shall be so altered by the legislature at the first regular session after the return of every enumeration that each senate district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants excluding aliens and be in as compact form as practicable and shall remain unaltered until the return of another enumeration and shall at all times consist of contiguous territory. No town and no block in a city enclosed by streets or public ways shall be divided in the formation of senate districts, nor shall any district contain a greater excess in population over an adjoining district in the same county than the population of a town or block therein adjoining such district. Counties, towns or blocks which from their location may be included in either of two districts shall be so placed as to make said districts most nearly equal in number of inhabitants excluding aliens. The ratio for apportioning the senators shall always be obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, by fifty, and the senate shall always be composed of fifty members; except that if any county having three or more senators at the time of any apportionment shall be entitled on such ratio to an additional senator, or senators, such additional senator or senators shall be given to such county in addition to the fifty senators and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent. Delegates - Question. The Chairman - All in favor of the amendment will say Aye. Mr. Wagner - Division. The Chairman - All in favor of the amendment will rise. The gentlemen will take their seats. All opposed will rise. It is unnecessary to count. The amendment is lost. The question now occurs on the amendment of Mr. Haffen. The Secretary will read. The Secretary - On page 11, line 1, strike out the word "six" and substitute in place thereof the word "two", reading "one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two". On page 11, lines 5, 6 and 7, strike out the following: "according to the last state enumeration, or if no state enumeration shall have been taken within a period of five years prior to such apportionment, then according to the preceding federal census". Mr. Haffen - I ask for a separate vote upon those two. I ask for a vote first on substituting 1922 for 1926. The reason why I introduced that amendment was to have a proper apportionment of the State by the next Legislature after the Federal census of 1920. I would like to have those divided because I believe there is no opposition to the second amendment I introduced, in accordance with the preceding Federal census. The Chairman Mr. Haffen, you desire the question to be divided? The Chairman What is the first question? The Secretary will read the first question in Mr. Haffen's amendment: The Secretary - On page 11, line 1, strike out the word "six" and substitute in place thereof the word "two", reading one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two". The Chairman - All in favor of the amendment as read will say Aye, contrary-minded No. It is lost. The second part of Mr. Haffen's amendment will now be read. The Secretary - On page 11, lines 5, 6 and 7, strike out the following: "according to the last state enumeration, or if no such enumeration shall have been taken within a period of five years prior to such apportionment, then in accordance with the preceding Federal census ”. Mr. Haffen I understand that is the one that is agreeable. The Chairman - All in favor of this motion will say Aye, contrary-minded The Chairman-All in favor of this part of the amendment will rise. The gentlemen will be seated. Those contrary-minded will rise. The amendment is lost. The question now occurs on the amendment by Mr. E. N. Smith. The Secretary will read. The Secretary - On page 11, strike out the brackets in lines 24 and 25. On page 12 strike out the brackets and italicise the words in lines 1 and 2. Strike out the words "fifty-one" on lines 4 and 5 and insert the word "fifty" in place thereof. Strike out the brackets in lines 5 and 10. Delegates - Question. Question. Mr. E. N. Smith - The last amendment ought to be read also. The Secretary - On page 11, line 24, strike out the word "now" and insert after the word organized" on line 25 the words on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five." Mr. Barnes -A point of order, Mr. Chairman - Mr. Barnes - Mr. Chairman, there are two subjects involved here: The first proposition is whether Queens and Richmond shall be included, and second is, the method of making an apportionment. Mr. Wickersham -A point of order. It seems to me that the division is not included in the amendment, it refers to the whole section. There is nothing about the question of Richmond there. Mr. Barnes - Why, certainly. If the bill as reported by the Committee on Legislative Organization remains as it is, Queens and Richmond are in cluded. |