Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1892-02-18

ture among he people Of the state, by
grouping them into districts composed of
convenient and contiguous territory,
having equal population. and a COM
munity of local interests.
Mere statement of the question shows it
to be Judicial, not political. In its broad
est sense it is, has this court rightful au-
thority to determine whether the leglsla =
ture has exceeded the limits expressly
imposed by the constitution upon the
exercise of its pouers? As we have al
imposed by the constitution upon that
power. They were imposed solely for the
purpose Of confning the legislature with
in them. Whether, in given case it has
acted within them is purely
a judicial question for the courts
to determine and not the legislature. So
completely is this judicial question that
courts are justified in interfering only to
determine whether the Legislature has
acted within its constitutional limits, or
as said by Judge Cooley, in his Constitu-
tional Limitations, page l06:
''lt is only where they (the courts find
that the Legislature mas failed to keep
within its constitutional limits, that they
are at liberty to disregard its acton; and
it doing so, they only do what every pri-
vate citizen may do in respect to mandates
of the courts, when the judges assume to
act and to render judgments or DEGREES
without jurisdiction.
Continuing, Col. Bird said that if the
constitution entrusted to the Legislature
the general, unrestricted power to appor-
ton, if it had stopped with the language
''the legislature shall apportion and dis
trict anew the members of the senate and
assembly, 1T might, with more force,
perhaps, be contended that the power was
a purely political one, confded exclusively
to the discretion of the legislature. But
when the constitution restricts the power,
it is not a matter of discretion with the
Legislature whether it will act within the
restrictions or not. So long as it does act
political and discretionary power, and the
courts may not control its action within
those limits But at once it oversteps
those bounds, it has not only no discretion
to exercise, but no power to act at ALL
And the courts, in voiding It's act, do not
interfere with its right to exercise It's dis
cretion or political power where it las the
right to exercise either or both, but deter
mine only that it hal passed the limits
where It was entiCled TO exercise either.
Such determination involves only
question of law, aud the exer-
else of a strictly judicial power
The power to form cities, towns and
counties, and to fix and alter their boun-
diaries, Is essentially legislative and po-
litical power. The courts cannot exercise
it, neither can they be authoriz I'd by the
legislature to exercise it. But when ex-
exercised by the legislature the court may
determine whether it has exceeded It's
powers.
New York provide for decennial appor-
tionments after each federal enumeration
They also contain express prohibitions
against altering legislative districts once
formed until the next enumeration. The
courts of those states have held that they
will enforce this time limitation even to
the extent Of holding invalid a law passed
to change the boundaries of towns, under
conceded Legislative authority, because it
directly altered such districts.
Courts have also taken jurisdiction 70
determine whether apportionment acts
exceed constitutional limitations otherwise
than as to time of passage, and citations
were made to prove the fact.
Col. Bird admitted that the legislature
while acting within the limits prescribed
by the constitution is not answerabie to
this court. But the moment it steps out,
side of those limitations, then, as held in
the above case, they are answerable to this
count as well as to the people. As held in
the Ohio case, this court has rightfui
authority to hear and determine the
question whether, in making an appor-
tlonment the limitations of the statute
have been observed, and if there has been
disregard of those limitations, then so to
decide and hold the apportionment void.
Ex-senator Spooper's Views.
Ex-senator John C. Spooner, also ap-
pearing for the relator, spoke till adj
tournament, at $50. He remarked in open
ing that this court seems to have settled
that this case is one of great public con-
Germ by the brief opinion filed upon grant
ing the application of the attorney general
for leave to bring suit If there were a
doubt about it, however, it would be re-
moved by reference to the long line of de-
cisions of this court, as to what constitutes
in its view a matter publici juris, warrant
ing the exercise of its original jurisdiction
in mandamus, quo warranto, injunction,
habeas corpus and the like, collated in the
brief of the lamented Judge Dixon in
Attorney General VS.. The City of Eau
Claire, PIP. 407, 4O9.
Senator Spooner argued that the objec.
ton that the cause must fail for want of
sufficient interest in tn, county of Adams
or its district attorney, s. W. Pierce, to
| L. - l. - Il l.