Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-10-14

attorney general on behalf OF the pubic.
The public suffers the wrong, the public
must bring the action to REDRESS it.
But II Is cIaIlned that because by
our constitution the writ OF injunction
las ben cIiSSeu Win Tie purely pre-
foSd1Ve coulllIUn law wits, Ike man
uduuS, quo NdrrautO, etc., and las
thus acquired the udL.,Ie OF Il prerv.dtlNe
VIII some chdAse u;ts necessarily taken
place Ill the nIdnner Oh lis use. Not 50
uOAeteI, no SUCH change Is lilIlcateu
Iii the CONSTITUTION nor III our statutes,
aud The very decision which sett4eu inc
status OF tie VIII as Il quasi prefUglllVG
VIII, l. e. Attorney General vs.. I.aII-
, way ColnpdilAes, containing The 1OIlOW-
ing apt ANA sensible remarks Oh tuiS
! very queSuOn: III Is therefore PLAN
that the original Jurisdiction OF tni.,
court Is DOlA IeSi1 and equitable, Within
certain hints; iCSdI lUr me use OF TIE
COMMON law Wits; equitable Tor the
use oI The cu;tncery writ. Inc use 'Ot
the forlIlri' must De according 10 the
! course Oh common law courts. The
| use Oh The latter, according to- the
course OF courts Of equity; i'll each case
subject to statutory mOdlucatlOnS OF
the pract1Ce, Wnicn do hot impair the
jurisdiction granting them"
Neither Tie suggestion III State V.
| Baker, IS Wis, IL, nor the opinion i'll
! State v. Doyle, H. W Is, 1Io, uelp the
rclatorS position LII this action lii the
! least. These We're applications for the
! true prcrOSatlYe Wits OF quo WsurantO
F., ana lnanuamuS, respectively, Which are
purely common law wits. AS Indicated
~ Clliet Justice Ryan, their use must
be according TO the course OF the COM
/ mon law courts. 1t seems To be Il TACT
/ that these common law WritS Were
| often issued by the common law courts
on relation OF Il private citizen 10 en-
force Il public right; hut the injunction
Was remedy applied only 10y Tie court
OF cnancery according TO its own rules,
ANA one OF these rules was that III mat
tefS OF purely public right, ii must be
sued out by Tie attorney general. |
| tIInk L can say confidently that 10 case
OF authority can be found To the con-
/ truy OF this doctrine. L am SratitIvu
tt1oO
| question seem to have been Shared as
recently us March last By my colleagues
OH the bench. In the former case OF
! the State V. Cunningham, 81 Wis, 44U,
| Nj. Justice Orion said, upon page HI:
! AS Il preliminary question, 1t has
| already been decided that this case
could not be brought by Il private re
h1(llISn 1 IL
interest III the subject matter. Tie
matters beng exclusively puDlICi JuriS,
the case must DC brought Dy tie attOr-
npy general on Lis own relutiOn, repre-
setting The Whole state ana the people
thereof. Tins Is Tie form ana tue III
Which tie case ROW stands III tins court
and III winch ii must DC Sustained, Ii at
All And Nh. Justice llnnty, On page
| 4Sl, was even more Gnpnauc: lie
suit is one Instituted i'll TINS court III
| the name OF the stale by the attorney
| general, upon leave granted, III relation
| TO Il matter OF RuDnc concern, Involving
the rights and liberties of the people OF
! the state, concerning matters strictly
| publici jllIis, and i'll Which 10 one cit
zen has amy special OF peculiar right OF
| interest TO be protected OF indicated
other than that which is common to
| citizens i'll general, and i'll relation to
which no private person can have or
maintain an action, and no suit OF pro
ceeding can be maintained save i'll the
name OF the state, prosecuted 10y the
attorney general" And Nh. Justice
| Cassoday said that the decision was in
full accord with his Judgment.
1t is to be remembered, also, that in
| the case III which these opinions We're
| written, application was 1rSt made by
! Il private relator Tor leave to bring the
| action, 50 that the remarks above
quoted must have been made adviSedly.
My views are the same now as then
upon the proposition, but the views Of
! my associates seem TO have changed.
| However, if this were the only point
upon which | differed with the decision
! OF the majority of the court, l should
write no opinion, but content myself
| With q simple dissent. But my views
| us to the merits of the action are total
! ly at variance with those of my col
| leagues, and to that question | add
| dress myself. In the former case OF
| State v Cunningham, 81 Wis, 44O,
! it was held that the dpportionment
act of 1891 was invalid because it VIC
| lated a positive command of the con
| Stitution, namely: the command that
| county lines should not be broken i'll
the formation of assembly districts.
! AS to the correctness of that decision,
| have no doubt. But that question is
not before us now. The controlling
| question in this case is, whether the
! law is unconstitutional because of the
| disparity Of population between the
districts formed by IL. In the case
| just cited it was, said by Mr. Justice
| Pinney, in the course of his opinion
with reference to this very question:
| whether this court can declare an
act of apportionment void in such
| cases, is a question not material to the
decision Ct this case, and which will
! require further discussion and con-
sideration, and need not be now de-
ternined." In these views l concurred.
The question thus suggested is now
presented
Every law passed by the legislative
branch of the government and APP
proved by the executive, is presumed
to be constitutional. Every intend
ment is in its favor. 1t is not to be
lightly set aside. 1t should be sustain
I'd, unless it is clearly in violation OF
the constitution, and it is frequently
said that it's uncOnstitutionality must
oil