OCR Text |
Show CLIFF MEMMOTT, Editor WHAT OTHER EDITORS SAY .... This week I am digressing somewhat from the regular procedure in writing my column, and have clipped a few pertinent thoughts as expressed by Charles W. Claybaugh, editor and publisher of the Box Elder News and Journal at Brigham City, on the proposed "Reapportionment of Utah's Legislature." . . . Charley's thinking goes along very closely with mine on this subject, and I'm sure most of the small town publishers in the so-called "Cow Towns'' in Utah. I give' you his ideas and urge our own legislators, if the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce succeeds in getting the governor to call a special session of the legislature, to get the thinking of their people before going into a session to change what has already been proposed to present to the people of Utah. . . Following are' Charley's thoughts as found in his "Personally Speaking" column: I see by the papers that the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce has joined and added prestige to the minority movement asking for a special session of the legislature to seek a "compromise" on the legislative reapportionment issue. This said compromise must be the one proposed by Sen. R. N. Maybe, Bountiful, who would change the present constitutional amendment, giving each county one state senator. sen-ator. This measure was passed by the legislature and apparently ap-parently the urban areas are afraid it will pass a vote of the people. In its place, Maybe would substitute an amendment which would give rural communities only one more senator sen-ator than in the present legislative makeup, combining San Juan, Emery and Grand in one district; Duchesne, Uintah and Daggett in another; and create a third district of Was- atch, Summit, Morgan and Rich counties. In this way, the senator has it figured out, he could eliminate seven senators from strictly rural areas, who might not see eye-to-eye with the city boys on legislative matters. In supporting this "compromise" and urging a special session to' reconsider the matter, the: board of governors of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce point out that the present constitutional amendment "will give disproportionate disproportion-ate representation from the less populated areas." I'd like to point right back that the "more populated areas" now have control of both the senate and the house and that if the amendment carries, they will still have complete control of the house and you can's pass any legis-, lative matter without the two concurring, so ' they haven't a thing to worry about if they are concerned, as they say, with being completely "fair about the whole matter. The Salt Lake Chamber action was a victory for the Salt Lake Tribune which has been plugging the proposal for several months. They gloat over the decision, which certainly came as no surprise, by saying editorially: "The (Salt Lake) Chamber's action should be helpful also in dramatizing to the residents of cities and towns the seriousness of the threat embodied in the proposition now before the people, not only affecting urban interests but th balance and welfare of the the state as a whole. The editorial continues with this gem: This would give rural counties excessive control of the upper h6use and therefore the legislature, but worse, in a practical sense, it would make the setup practically permanent." I fail to see any logic to the argument that it's bad for the rural counties to' control one legislative body while the urgan areas control the other, that the only good way to do it is to leave control of both, sides in the hands of the urban areas so that they could maintain the "balance and welfare of the state as a whole." , Perhaps if I were publishing a newspaper in Salt Lake City I could see the light. Until I do, I can't go along with the statement that the "worst" thing about the whole affair is that it would make the new setup "practically permanent." 30 |