St. Paul daily globe., 1892-10-08
OPINION IN WAITING,
Badger Supreme Court Files
Its Decision in the Appor-
tionment Case.
The Question Of Jurisdiction
Considered at Great
Length.
All Appointments for the
Last Forty Years
Are Void.
Senator Hills Latest Deal
Not Intended to Hurt
Cleveland.

MADISON. WIS.,, Oct. THE supreme
court today filed its written opinion in
the case which it decided week ago
declaring unconstitutional the legis
lative apportlonment laW enacted
at the special session of the
legislature last June. 1t was written
by Justice j. B. Cassady, and its con-
clusion met with the assent of three of
the remaining members of the court,
and the dissent of the fourth, Justice
Winslow. The latter is buSily employed
in recording his views and his opinion.
which will doubtless be filed tomorrow.
The majority opinion is long enough
to cover one entire page of a news
paper. aud nearly one-half of it is de-
voted to the single phase as 10 whether
ornot the court had jurisdiction of such
a case as this one, in SO far as it was
brought by private citizen on behalf
of the state, in defiance of the consent
of the attorney general.
This Case Differs
from the first apportionment case, in
this important particular-namely, 1t
was not brought in the name of the at
torney general as the law officer OF the
commonwealth, while in the other the
attorney general formally consented to
such use of his name. The court quotes
many authorities to justify it in taking
Jurisdiction, and especially adopts the
views presented by the late Chief JUS
tice Ryan, of Wisconsin, who in one case
said:
1.-The jurisdiction conferred on this
court by the constitution is of lnforma-
tions in the nature quo warTanto, as
substituted in modern times for the
use of ancient writ itself and issued
when the constitution was framed.
This was prerogatlve proceeding,
quasi civil in its character according
to its use. but always classed
with criminal informations. The mode
of proceeding under the jurisdic4on
jurisdiction itself could not be refuted
or abridged. 1t was
Undoubtedly Competent
for the legislature to give quasi civil
proceeding in such cases, but not ID
abolish the quasi criminal jurisdiction
verdict in the court by the constitution.
This proves to be matter of SubStan, G,
| not of form.
Ryan then referred to a statute eX-
pressly authorizing such quasi war
ranto in the name of the state by pri-
| vate person, when the attorney general
refused to act:
before such statute the citizens of
the state might have authorized pro-
| ceedings in the name of the attorney
general if that official wIongfuly re-
! fused 10 act, and it is necessary to pro-
| ceed in his name.'
/ In the same case Ryan held that,
| while the legislature might regulate the
mode of procedure III special cases, ii
! could not defeat nor abrldge the juriS-
diction itself; that the appearance in
the case by the attorney general or his
| consent was mere matter of form, and
not of substance. and hence could be
supplied upon the hearing nunc pro
| tune. After several paragraphs de-
voted to the question of jurisdiction, the
court continues:
Had Jurisdiction.
"We must hold that the refusal OF
the attorney general to bring Or con.
sent to the bringing of this suit did moi
| prevent this court from Iightfuily
taking jurisdiction of the same upon
the relation of a private citizen in
the name of the stale. This ruling
relieves any attorney general from the
charge OF preventing suit for an
alleged invasion of the sovereignty OF
the state or the franchises or liberties OF
its people. The present attorney gen
eral certainly has the right to exercise
the Judgment and discretion vested in
him by the law in the prosecution OF
such in this as we'll as other courts.
at is cOntended that is mere'politica
action to effect a political object, and
| therefore cannot be maintained We
may not understand what is here meant
by political action. We readily per
ceive that the determination of an ac
tion may have political effect, and .iua
sense may effect political object, bu