Radio Script #727

Little Talks on Common Things

April 23, 1967

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision of equal voting power for every voter has caused great agitation allover the nation about reapportionment of representatives in the state legislatures. As I am sure most of you know, a movement led by the minority leader in the U.S. Senate, Senator Dirksen of Illinois, was started to put into the federal constitution an amendment permitting one branch of each state legislature to be elected on some formula other than population. To the surprise of politicians, that plan rapidly gained the support of state legislatures, so that the necessary two-thirds to petition for such an amendment was soon in sight.

I bring this contemporary issue to your attention today merely to emphasize the fact that this is by no means the first time that legislative apportionment has been a hot subject in Maine; and I want to tell you about the agitation it caused 136 years ago in 1831.

Maine had been a state for only a single decade when its legislature convened in January. 1831. The story I want now to tell you comes from a pamphlet published in Portland in that year under the title “Extraordinary Doings of the Maine Legislature of 1831”.

Quoting the words of the old pamphlet, this is how the trouble began: “Immediately after its organization, the Legislature turned to the business of the Committee on Apportionment. There was dissatisfaction from the start. The farm interests complained that they did not have a fair proportion of senators.”

As we read on, we discover that even before the committee had held a single meeting, a bombshell of controversy burst forth. The laws enacted by the preceding legislature were called into question, angry partisans proclaiming them illegally adopted. They attacked especially the 1830 law pertaining to reapportionment.

The old pamphlet says: “On Thursday morning the House assembled amid great excitement, one side angry at what they termed a mighty obnoxious bill, and the other side eager to pass a measure they considered necessary for the dignity of the state. Mr. Holden of Brunswick introduced an order calling for the Judges of the Maine Supreme Court to decide whether any legislature can legally invalidate the acts of its predecessor. A furious debate ensued, more turbulent than any political caucus. The original bill, to set up a committee to investigate the whole matter of validation of the acts of the previous legislature soon got the derisive name of the ‘healing act’, on the assumption that there was something sick about that legislature’s action that now needed to be cured. The healing act was denounced as a political maneuver, making way for politicians to ride into power. Argument, ridicule, and railery were used against it. It was called a creature without a head, hoof or horns. Finally a vote was taken on Mr. Holden’s order to consult the judges. It was defeated 82 to 64 on a straight party vote, the Jacksonians being clearly in the majority.”

After a hasty and noisy adjournment, the legislature slept on the issue. The more moderate members hoped that overnight would come a cooling of tempers and more rational facing of the issue. The pamphlet tells us what happened when the House convened on the following morning: “A huge crowd assembled to hear the expected debate. Mr. Bourne of Kennebunk attacked the validation bill as an underhanded caucus measure, planned to be pushed through by log-rolling agreements reached in the corridors. ‘Of course’, he said, ‘some members expect to be awarded by executive patronage, and they probably will be.’ Mr. Scammon of Pittston said: ‘The preamble of the bill tells us that the last legislature was not constitutionally organized. If that is the case, we then had no Governor’s Council, no Secretary of State, no State Treasurer. Whoever heard of legislation to remove doubts about unconstitutional laws? Such is mere quackery. If we pass this bill, we are the ones who will be exceeding constitutional powers.'”

Last week I referred to Timothy Boutelle’s attack on the Jacksonian spoils system in that same legislature of 1831. Boutelle had a part also in the reapportionment controversy. Here is a portion of his speech in the House: “You have no constitutional right to pass this law because it exercises judicial, not legislative power. This measure, instituted for party purposes, is fraught with mischievous consequences. The party dominant at any particular time, flushed with recent victory, will always be able to find legislation previously passed by vanquished foes something to arraign and condemn.”

After quoting Boutelle, the pamphlet pointed out that the Jacksonians had introduced the bill on the alleged grounds that the actions of the preceding legislature were unconstitutional, but their real purpose was to control the coming reapportionment.

In 1831 the Maine Legislature was still meeting in Portland, the original capital of the State. In a few years the move would be made to Augusta. That venerable newspaper, the Portland Argus, commented: “Though the weather was stormy and our streets were almost impassable, few were absent. The angry debate went on and on, and not until midnight was any vote taken. Then, with the Jacksonians triumphant, the bill was passed to be engrossed.”

The bill then went to the Senate, where long and angry discussion followed. A number of amendments were unsuccessfully offered, and the Senate finally passed the bill just as they had received it from the House. The defeated anti-Jacksonians were bitter and they would not accept their defeat without loud, public protest. Sixty-three members of the House and nine of the Senate issued a violent denunciation that fills eight pages of the old pamphlet.

Their principal argument was that the whole business was unconstitutional just as Timothy Boutelle had said. Having passed their “healing act”, the Jacksonians proceeded to the real business they had in mind all the time — reapportionment of the Legislature. Their bill presented arrangement of legislative districts skillfully gerrymandered to assure Jacksonian legislatures for years to come. At least so they hoped and intended. Maine in 1831 had not sixteen, but ten counties. Six of our present counties had then not been formed. The territory now contained in Sagadahoc, Franklin, Androscoggin, Knox, Piscataquis and Aroostook was then included in one or another of the ten older counties. In all of what is now Aroostook, there was not a single incorporated town.

The Jacksonian reapportionment plan called for 186 representatives in the Maine House. Then, as now, Cumberland County had the largest population, but it led Lincoln County actually by less than 3,000. Cumberland had 59,600 people, Lincoln 56,800. Kennebec County was third with 52,400. The smallest in population was Washington County, with only 20,000 people. The census of 1830 counted 396,632 in the entire State of Maine. Dividing that total by 186, the number of proposed representatives, 2,132 people appeared to be the number each member of the House should represent, if equal apportionment should be achieved.

A little figuring showed that it was possible to distribute only 180 representatives among the ten counties without splitting up towns, an unthinkable device. The question was what should be done with the remaining six representatives.

It was obvious that, in any event, the four counties of York, Cumberland, Lincoln and Kennebec would, by sheer preponderance of population dominate the legislature. They were indeed entitled to 101 of the properly distributed 180 representatives. The prevailing sentiment in the legislature of 1831 at first seemed to be to assign the six left-over representatives, one each to the six counties where population had been increasing most rapidly. But that was not what happened. Let us see what the old pamphlet had to say about it: “Instead of assigning the six representatives one each to the fastest growing counties (Kennebec, Somerset, Waldo, Hancock, Lincoln and Penobscot), the Jacksonian bill gave Penobscot two representatives and Hancock none. The explanation is easy. Penobscot has a heavy majority of Jackson voters and can create any Jackson districts they choose. Hancock, on the other hand, is solidly anti-Jackson.”

Now let us see what the old pamphlet says about our own county of Kennebec: “The four largest towns not entitled to a representative in Kennebec County are anti-Jackson. That party can gain nothing in Kennebec. Why is a fraction assigned to Oxford, but not to Kennebec? Oxford certainly does not increase in population as fast as does Kennebec. The answer is that in Oxford the Jackson men can set up as many districts as they want. Even the town of Buckfield is allowed a representative, although it has only 1,500 people.”

The pamphlet, obviously a Whig publication, then proceeded to an even more violent attack: “The Jackson men have been ruthless in their scheme to control the House. They have taken care that no Jackson town shall be swallowed up in an anti-Jackson district. They have made every anti-Jackson district as large as possible. It takes 2,240 anti-Jacksonians to elect a representative, but only 1,994 Jackson men.”

To us, 136 years later, it is interesting to note the size of some of our Kennebec communities in 1831. The largest was not Augusta, but Hallowell with 3,964 people. The only other Kennebec town that had more than 3,000 was Gardiner. Hard as it is for us now to believe, both Vassalboro and China then had more people than Waterville.

Now let us take a look at the wild gerrymandering done to set up the legislative districts in 1831. Some of the towns put into a district were not even contiguous. One district was made up of Winslow and Wayne; another of Chesterville. Vienna and Rome; a third of Albion and Windsor. No wonder the old pamphlet observed: “The reapportionment forces have gone to such extremes that anyone who can add will see the extent of their wicked scheming. Enough! Enough!”

Of course, because the Jacksonians had the votes, all protest was in vain. All the Whigs could do was wait for the election of 1840, when, as the newspapers put it, Maine went “hell bent for Governor Kent”, and the Whigs reapportioned the Legislature to their own advantage. There was no use for the pot to call the kettle black. Both parties used the same tricks.

Is the recent Maine reapportionment, caused by the Supreme Court decision, any improvement? Let us wait and see.

Year: 1967