The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1892-03-26


be as close an approximation to exact
ness rs possible, and this is the
utmost limit for the exercise
of legislative discretion. IT, as in this
| case, there is such a wide and bold de-
parture from this constitutional rule
that it cannot possibly be justified by
the exercise of any judgment or di :
cretion, and that evinces 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 a constitutional ap-
portlonment, then the conclusion is in
| evltable that the Legislature did not use
any judgment or discretion whatever.
The disparity in the number of in
habitants 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 representation in the legisla-
ture to be allowed to pass as mere errors
| OF judgment or discretion, and that they
were made Intentionally and willfully
for some improper purpose or for some
private end foreign TO constitutional
duty and obligation. it is not an zap
portlonment in any sense of the
word. 1t is direct and palpable
violation Of the constitution. The
breaking up of the lines and boundaries
of counties by the new Assembly dis
trlcts must have been intentional. 1t
was not necessary in single instance,
and there is no possible margin for the
exercise of any legislative discretion.
The people have a commendable pride
in their own counties and have more or
less common feeling and interest and
particl pated together in all their county
| affairs.
They have right to be represented by
their own members of the legislature
and the members themselves can bet
ter represent them and promote and
protect their interests. They know
each other and have close relations
with each other. These consider
| ations, though common, must not be
restrictions were under discussion IN
the constftional convention; they
were supported and adopted upon the
| express ground that they would prevent
the Legislature from gerrymanding the
state. These restrictions were regarded
by the very able members of the con
ventod as absolutely necessary to Sc
cure to the people the sacred rights OF
a free people, Of equal representation in
the Legislature. The right of the
people to make their own
laws through their own represent,
atives is fundamental in and essential
10 a free government. The convention
sought to guard these restrictions. That
most dangerous doctrine that those and
| other restrictions upon the power OF
| the Legislature are merely declaratory
and not mandatory should not be en-
couraged, even to the extent of discuss
| ing the question. The convention in
| making constitution had a highe~
duty to perform than TO give the
| Legislature advice. Judge Cooley, IN his
great work on constitutional limitations,
says: The courts tread upon very
dangerous ground when they venture
to apply the rules which distinguish b
| between mandatory and directory
statutes to the provisions of the cousti-
| tuition
1--WE have attempted to show that
| this court has jurisdiction of the sub
! iect matter of this action to declare the
said apportionment act unconstitutional
and void and TO enioin the secretary OF
state from giving the notices of the elec-
| ton for members of the Senate and
Assembly under the same. We hold,
therefore, according to the complaint
| first, that the court has jurisdiction of
the subject-matter of this action, sec
ond, that it has the judicial power to
declare said apportionment act uncon-
stitutional, and TO set it aside
as absolutely valid; third, that the duty
of the secretary of state in giving out
| notices of election is purely ministerial,
aud may be centraled and restrained by
injunction; fourth, that the apportion-
ment act is like any other act of the
Legislature and is passed by the Legisla-
ture in the exercise of its legislative pow
er; fifth, that the restrictions on on the
power of the Legislature to make an APP
portonment found in sections and ) OF
Article ". of the constitution are
mandatory and imperative, and are not
subject to legislative discretion; sixth
that SAID apportionment act is in con-
fict NTH these instructions and in yio-
lation of the constitution, and is there
foro void