Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1892-10-13
REASONS 0F
THE COURT
CONTINUED FROM THIRD PAGE.


contemporanous understanding is ma
terial." If the words convey Il definite
meaning which involves no absurdity,
nor any c0nraditi0n Of other parts Of
the instrument then that meaning APP
parent on the face Of the instrument
must be accepted, and neither the courts
nor the legislature have the right to add
to it or take from it." Lake Co. Y. ROl-
Inns, 80 II. S., 60; State eX rel Weiss
V. District Board rs Wis, 2OS-9. Since
a constitution is for the very purpose
of preventing any enactment contrary
to its provisions it is very certain, that
the meaning of language therein which
is plain and mambiguOus, can never be
perverted, much less destroyed, by long
continued Infringement Assuming, there
fore, for the purposes of this case that
the inequality of representation under
the last apportionment act, is no great
er than under former app0rtiOnment
acts, still the fact is irrelevant and i'm
material to the consideration of this
case, unless on examination it is found,
that the language of the constitution
securing such equality is ambiguous and
doubtful; and long continued legiSla-
tive construction has been given to it.
5. This brings Us to the consideration
of the validity of the act of July , 1892.
If this opinion which has thus far been
devoted to preliminary considerations
is unusually long, it is because the de-
Tense in this cane has been almost Who'll
~ devoted to such considerations The
subject Of inequality in representation
was ably argued and carefully cOnsid-
cred in the former case. Mr. ustice
Orion, giving the leading opinion in
that case, among other things, said:
but, again, this apportiOnment act
violates and destroys one of the high
est and most sacred rights and priv
ileges of the people of this state, guar
anteed to them by the Ordinance OF
1877 and the constitution, and that is
equal representation in the legislature
This a matter of the highest public in
tercSt and concern to give this court
jurisdiction in this case. 1t is proper
to say that perfect eXacneSS in the APP
portionment according to the number
OF inhabitants is neither required nor
possible But there should be rs close
an approximation to cXactneSS as pos
sible, and this is the utmost limit for
the exercise of legislative discretion. If,
as in this case, there is such Il wide
and bold departure from this constitu-
tional rule, that is cannot possibly be
justified by the exercise of any iudg-
ment or discretion, and that eyinces an
intention on the part of the
Legislature to utterly ignore and
disregard the rule of the
constitution in order to promote some
other object than Il constitutional APP
poitionment, then the conclusion is in
eyitable that the legislature did not use
any judgment or discretion whatever.
The above disparity in the number OF
inhabitants in the legislative districts
is SO great that it cannot be overlooked
as mere careless discrepancies or slight
errors in calculation. The differences
are too material, great and glaring, and
deprive too many of the people of the
state of all representation i'll the legis.
laturc, to be allowed to pass as mere
errors Of Judgment They bear upon
their face the intrinsic evidence that no
Judgment or discretion was exercised
and that they were Intentionally and
Wilfully for some improper purpose OF
for some private end foreign to con
stitutional duty and obligation. 1t is
not IN apportionment in any sense of
the word. 1t is 4 direct and palpablc
violation Of the constitution" 81 Wis,
1851. IN the same ease, and after re-
ferring to the clause of the ordinOnce
of 1877, giving to the inhabitants the
benefits of proportiOnate representa-
ton i'll the legislature, and the organc
act Of the territory of Wisconsin, pro
yiding for IN apportionment that should
be AS nearly equal as practicable .
Mr. Justice Pinney said: Though OBJ
Garded rs II pari materia, and helpful
and Of historical value, in constituting
sec. So Of art. t of the constitution
which came in to take the place of the
provisions briefly quoted" Then, aftel
referring to the language of these con,
Situtional provisions he further said,
Looking at the scope of these limita-
tons, it is obvious that it was intended
to secure i'll the future that which had
been adopted and secured and enjoyed
almost from the origin of popular rep
reSentaiyc government i'll this cOun-
try, to the time the constitution was
adopted, prOpOrtiOnate representation.
and apportionment as nearly equal as
practicable among the several counties
for the election of members of the leg
iSlature rs it had existed i'll Wisconsin
since 1886 The provision of sec for
an apPOrtionment according to the
number of inhabitants is the exact
equivalent of the provisions of the
ordinance Of 1877 of Il proportionate
representation of the people in the
legislatures. And then after referring
to the veto by Governor Dewey of the
first apportiomment bill passed, las not
being according to the number of in
habitants, and therefore uncOnstitu-
donal, and other matters, he fUlrther
said: THE very great diSprooortion in
the number of inhabitants in certain
assembly districts mentioned in the
opinion of the chief justice. must, it
seems to me, be regarded rs in violation
of the mandate of the constitution to
apportion members of the assembly
according to inhabitants. There is, no
doubt, wide distinction between the
exercise of 4 fair, just and necessary
discretion within the rules of constitu-