The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-12-18
THE COURTS DECISION.
Majority Opinion as Written BY Judge
Coffey In Full
The decision of the majority of the court,
- written by Judge Coffey, Is as follows:

This was an action by the State OF Indiana on
the relation OF Simon T. Powell. a legal voter of
q Pssker a. sisrt Of tbs CIrcnit Conrt ~ that
annnty, William Reinwalt as sheriff and Rich
mo4d Wisenart as auditor, to compelthem by writ
Of rnsRdamus as such officers TO take the neces-
sary sRps to hold the election OF 1892 for sena-
tors and Representatives under the act OF the
Generd Assembly for the apportionment of Sen
htors and Representatives. approved March 8,
1879. AMI TO enjoin them from proceeding under
tAe act 81 the General Assembly for the appor-
comment OF Senators aud Representatives
passed. Notwithstanding the Governors veto,
March 3, 1891.
It is alleged that the appellants as such
officers are threatening and are abont TO issue
and give the necessary notices and take the
necessary steps 10 hold the election of November,
1892. for Senators and Representatives under
Tie apportionment made by the latter act, claim
Ing and asserting that the first named act was
repealed by the act of the General Assembly or
the State for the apportionment OF Senators AID
Representatives. approved March 8, 1885.
IL Is alleged that the act of March 9. 1885, as
well ii the act OF March ;, 1891. is void. being
In conflict with the Constitution OF the state.
The matters wherein each OF these acts are sup
posed 70 be In conflict with the Constitution are
tully and infinitely set forth IN tie complaint.
The opinion here sets out the allegations
OF the complaint as to inequalities, and
then continues:
THE COURTS JURISDICTION.
Prayer was made for an alternative writ OF
mandamus requiring the appellants to show
cduSo my tuty suOulu not pfOceeu 10 nOlQ the
election for Senators and Representatives at the
election 10 be held on the 5th day OF November,
1892, under the apportionment as fixed by the act
Of 1879. and that they be enjoined from proceed
Ing under the act OF 1891. or the act OF
1885. Upon this complaint the court issued
the alternative writ as prayed. To which
Mr5 the court overruied . demurrer interPosed
falling and refusing 20 answer or plead further,
aperemptory writ was ordered and a decree en-
tered ent0intng the appellants from proceeding
under either the act OF 1855 or the act of 1891,
above referred to. The only causes of demurrer
which need be considered In this opinion are
two. namely: First, that the court has no juris-
diction OF the subject-matter OF the action; sec
ond. that the facts stated IN the alternative writ
OF mandamus and the COMPLAINT filed in the
cause are not sufficient 70 constitute q cause OF
action
1t is not claimed that the Circuit Court has no
Jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and TO
grant injunctions In all proper cases. nor is IL
claimed that this suit was not properly brought
BY the State on the relation OF Powell against
the appellants, but the contention IL that the
Euit Involves q political question over which the
courts have no jurisdiction. IL this contention
can be sustained. that 10 the end OF the contro-
versy. for this court will not attempt an adjudi-
cation in q matter over which Ii has no lurisdic-
ton. A political question Is one over which
80 ne I,ns ~ Snms - ,tan $780, 1Se' i IN ds,lssw,
branch or the government, on one hand, and the
executive and legislative branches on the other.
american and English Encyclopedia OF Law,
title. Political Questions."l
such questions most generally arise when there
Is an attempt made to prevent the incumbents OF
either the legislative or executive departments
or the government from the performance OF
some act which such claims the right
20 perform By virtue OF his office. or TO compel
him 10 perform some act which he declines or
refuses 10 perform. Many illustrations OF the
rules by winch such questions are governed are
TO be found In the adjudicated cases, among
which are the cases or Mississippi va Johnson.
4th Wallace, AIS; Georgia va stanton. 9 Wallace.
80. and Marbury va Madison, i Cranch. 1877.
cited by the appellants. IL was
determined In these several cases. which
were al actions calling In question the
validity OF apportionment acts. that the
question presented vas n judicial question. OF
which the courts had jurisdiction, and such acts
were adiudged by the court to be invalid by rea-
son of being In conflict with the Constitution un-
der which the Legisiature attempted to appor.
ton the state for legislative purposes. In hold
sothing more than follow q long line or pre-