Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-03-25
BY JUSTICE ORION.
THE MATTER OF JURISDICTION DISCUSSED
AT LENGTH.

Justice orion, in his opinion dwelt
at length on the point of jurisdic-
ton Of the court. In substance he said:
This case comes into this court within
its original jurisdiction by bill IN chan
Gerry, on the relation of the attorney
general on behalf of the state praying
for an injunction against Thomas j.
Cunningham, secretary of state, TO re
strain him as such officer from carrying
into execution chapter 402, laws of 1891,
commonly called the " appOrtiOnment
act, on the ground of its unconstitu-
tiOnallty; and more particularly that he
refrain from giving the notices of the
election of members Of the senate and
assembly as appOrtiOned and districted
by said act. The complaint informs the
court, in substance, that the legislature
Of 1891, in attempting by said act, to APP
portion and district anew the members
of the senate and assembly, according
to the enumeration of the population of
/. the state by the United States census of
1890, did so in violation Of the restric-
lions contained in section 3, and 5, of
article 4, of the constitution of this
state, in the following particulars, viz:
list. The senate and assembly districts
were not made according to the
number of Inhabitants, excIud-
ing Indians, not taxed, nor soldiers
and officers of the United States army and
navy" I'd. The assembly districts were
not bounded by county lines" Sd.
They were not made - to consist of con-
tiguOus territory" 4th. They were not
made & in as compact form as practic
able" 9th. The senate districts were
not made of convenient and contiguous
territory" The complaint more partIC-
ularly shows, that by the last census, the
state contained population of $3.50, $50,
and by an equal appOrtiOnment of the
| inhabitants, each senate district should
have contained lily; and each assem-
bly, district 16, 1858 inhabitants, as near as
may be. By said appOrtionment many
senate districts contain the number of
inhabitants, emitting fractions of a
thousand, as follows: I'd district, SO goo;
9TH district, $4,000; 18th district. 5000;
Sth district, 43 900; 18th district, AZ ,000
18th district, 40, 900; 10th district, 81 900;
18th district, 81 600; 18th district, A 900;
goth district, 40 900; 22d district, 81 600;
| 24th district, eco; 9th district, sc, 900;
32d district, 80, 900; SD district, GO, 900.
Many assembly districts contain the
number Of inhabitants as follows: 80 900,
5000, %. 900. 1000, a, 900, II 900, % 900,
1000, $4,000, 1000, $4,000, 1000, 49,
600, 1000, % 600, II 900, q 900, 10000,
1000, 1000, 10000, II 900. The high
est difference between in both the senate
and assembly districts is over 1000.
The case was heard on demurrer to the
complaint admitting the facts based on
the grounds to the effect, LIST that the
court has no jurisdiction of the subject
matter; and, end that the complaint
fails to show any violation of the cOnsti
tuition. These two general questions, as
well as others subordinate thereto, were
very ably argued by eminent counsel on
both sides; and their arguments and the
authorities cited by them have rendered
the court very great aid in the elucida-
! ton and decision of the case. As pre-
lminary question it has already been de-
clded, that this case could not be brought
by private relator, because no one
has any private interest in the sub
Ject matter. The matters being exclu-
sively publici juris, the case must be
brought by the attorney general. on his
own relation, representing the whole
state and the people thereof. This
is the form and title in which the
case now stands in this court, and IN
which 1t must be sustained, II at all.
i That being the most difficult and i'm
pOEldHG Il ueSIIOn. we snail eIIGeI dC OHCt
upon the consideration of the original
jurisdiction of this court, to issue the in
junction to restrain the secretary of
state from executing the said act, which
is the first ground of the demurrer. In
almost every case which has been
brought in this court, within its original
jurisdiction, on the relation of the at
torney general in the name of the state,
| the jurisdiction of this court has been
| challenged and discussed by able coun
sci, and sustained by the court IN many
learned and elaborate opinions. The
subject matter of these cases
were claimed and held to
be publici juris and involved the original
jurisdiction Of the court to issue the
various writs of habeas corpus, manda
mus. injunction, quo warranto and GER
tlorari. 1t would seem, therefore, that
the jurisdiction of the court and its linn
ltatlons IN nearly all matters of great
public interest and concern had been
already judicially determined. The high
est authority that can be consulted on the
question of the courts jurisdiction IN this
case are these various decisions OF the
court. The precise subject matter OF TINS
case was not in any of these cases, out
the analogles are sufficiently close TO
make them of the highest authority IN
this case, and some of them are clearly