St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-04-04
Mr.. Reyes excused from voting.

I'LL my CD CASuoO0 lIOIu NOIluS
| There was an attempt to fili5ustes
when the bill OH the calendar of the
house was reached early in the morn.
ing. Attempts to force recess failed,
and members hostile to the measure
| were kept in line. But before debate
began, by unanimous consent a recess
was taken until 2 80, at which time Mr..
Reyes began his argument against the
constitutlonality of the bill. Mr.. KeyeS
had loaded himself for the occasion.
Law books were heaped up around his
| desk. He quoted from an extensive
number of them opinions to sustain hiE
assertions.
Il have expressed but one opinion,
hold but one, and shall not until the
courts decide it. [ hold that at this
session of the legislature reapportiOn-
ment is unconstitutional. Section 2 Of
article 4 of the constitution reads:
! Cribs section is one fixing the represent
tation i'll the legislature.) That is all
| the constitution has to say upon this
and the question hinges upon this por-
ton of it. AT their first session after
each enumeration Census, state) SO
made, and also at their first session
after national census, the legislature
shall have the power to prescribe the
bounds of congressional, senatorial and
representative districts, and to appor-
ton anew, etc. 1t will be said that
there is no prohibitory provision con-
tanned i'll this and that, therefore, this
apportionment may be had now. But
what is the object OF this time
limit if this be the casee
Is it not the spirit OF
this constitutional provision that reap
portionments should always follow
census years when there is basis of
population to figure upon? My PROPOSE
ton is that this portion of the cOnstitu-
ton Is nullified il reappOrtiOnment is
not had at the session following the
census year. The trainers of the con-
stitution in the broadcast sense of the
law intended this to be the case. 1t was
useless to insert this provision if such
was not intended to be the case. in
Sist that the fixing of a time in the con-
StitutiOn for the performance of an act
constitutes as absolute prohibition for
its being done at another time as though
it were expressed there in so many
words. The expression of one thing in
the constitution is the exclusion of all
other things uneXpreSSed. To interpret
the constitution other than this is as
wrong as it would be for us to say that
we may elect two governors because the
constitution does not prohibit US in
words from doing so. ANY act Of this
legislature must be under the constitu-
ton. If we are to disregard this consti-
tuition then we discard the first princi.
pies of government"
Mr.. Forbes followed Mr.. Reyes, his
argument being on the same line;
Il took an oath to support the coEstitu-'
ton when [ became a member of this
body. Now, l admit the inequalities OF
your present representation, but the
remedy does not lie with us, but with
the legislature of two years ago, which
failed to perform its constitutional duty.
When the constitution says that this
shall take place after an enumeration,
it prohibits us from ever doing it at any
other time"
Mr.. Stevens held that the intent of
the constitution was purely to prohibit
more than one reapportionment within
five years, but that it did not fix any
specified time without change from that
specification for said reappOrtionment.
Mr.. HOyt denounced the bill as iniqui-
tous and unjust. On the previous ques-
ton being moved the vote was taken.
AS the reapportionment was made upon
the basis of the population of 1885, the
Inequalities of the representation are
shown i'll the following table made upon
that basis: