Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-11-03
THE LEVERSON CASE AND THE SU,
PREME COURT


The Supreme Court has decided the
Leverson Congressional case, and against
the claim Of that erratic individual Lev
erson and others claimed to have been
elected to Congress though they received
but handful of votes Their claim was
that the present Congressional districts
were not constitutionally established, and
that they were entitled to certificates I'M
der the Act of 1872 creating certain Con
gressional districts. One of the claims was
that the Act establishing the present dis
tricts was not passed with all the formal
ity, and according to the routine required
for 4 valid Act, as provided by the Consti-
tuition.
The Supreme Court holds that even if
it is conceded that the Act of 1888 is in
valid, still the electors Of the State did not
vote for Congressman under the Act of
1872, nor by districts provided by that law.
a notice by proclamation is necessary
precedent notice to the electors fOr valid
special election, the law itself not consti-
tutin3 sufficient notice of Il vacancy in
Office, and this is true, although the special
election occurs at the same time with the
general election. While the eIector is
presumed to know the law, the Court re-
fuses to hold that as matter of law the
electors knew that an Act (lSS3), certified
IN due form and fortified by a proclama-
ton Of the Executive, was void because Of
matters not appearing ON the face of the
statute, but only ascertainabIe by exami-
nation of the journals of the two houses.
SO no Court can hold that the. electors
were bound to take notice that the Act of
1872 was still in force. To hold that the
duty was imposed upon all the electors to
inquire into the matters in the record
the iournalS-and to vote for officers not
named in the Governors proclama-
ton, you'll be an acknowledgment by
the Court of results which cannot be
treated as an intelligent and binding ex-
preston of the voice of the people, and
which are entirely beyond any consequence
legitimately derivative from the maxim
that all are supposed to know the law"
The Court adds: Whether anybody else
was or was not elected TO the House of
Representatives of the United States at
the general election, we are quite certain
the petitioners were not"
Justice Ross, in 4 concurring opinion, goes
further, and holds that the Act of 1888 is
valid law and was passed properly. The
law provides that every bill shall be read
on three several days in each house. The
petitioners claimed that this means that
every amendment must be read three times
on several days in each house. Justice
Ross replies that it is certain the Constitu-
ton does not so provide. Express provi-
sion is made for amendments, and it is
specified that no bill shall pass until it
has been printed nth the amendments there
TO- Had the intention been to have every
amendment read three times in each house
on three several days, it weuld have been
an easy matter to have said so. But the
omission of the italicized words in the first
place, when speaking of bills being read
and their insertion in the last clause Of
the provision of the Constitution concern
ing final passage and printing, is evidence
tn was net intended that the reading
referred 10 SbouIJ a,,,,I,. - ~
amendments The amendments did not
make new bill, but simply changed Ger
tain district lines in the original bill The
subject matter remained the same, and
therefore no new readings, as in the case
Of new bill, became necessary. Justice
1Ivrick concurs with Justice Ross in thi:
riew of the case.
1t is to be regretted that a majority o