Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-08-02
WHAT IS THE LAW?
Is the Squawbuck Legislature Of 1891
Constitutional?

Is the Squawbuck Legislature OF 1894
CONSTITUTIONAL
Just at present one Of the leading
topics for discussion among lawyers 10
tho recent decision Of the supreme
court in knocking out the legisla alive
gerrymander and the subsequent ques-
tioa OF the unconstitutionality of the
state legislature. A reporter for The
HERALD was detailed to visit some of
the leading attorneys yesterday and
get their opinions on the matter.
Ex-Attorney- General Taggart ex-
pressed his views on the subject ~ fol-
lows: 1T would seem TO be a very
pertinent question in the absence of
any previous decision on such . point,
but the supreme court Of Wisconsin has
recently gwen q similar opinion. The
rule is that q de facto body can act, and
its acts are valid. Then, too, the su.
prems court virtually. in It's decision.
npholds the constltdtionality of the
state legislature by suggesting that il
the governor should call a special SEES
SION, the secretary be instructed tn fol.
low the new apportionment, and, IN
the absences of any special session, TO
observe the apportlonment Of 1881.
"The supreme court OF Wisconsin held
that all acts passed by such body are
valid, although the body itself 10 un-
constitutional. IL 10 de facto body,
hence valid in its work. They will
have to pass . pretty good bill at the
| special session, in order TO get two
thirds vote for immediate effect. In
| fact. the vote will have TO be . nou-
| partisan vote"
Henry B. Fallas Was next questioned
and HE opinion agreed with Moses Tag
CARTS almost verbatim. lie said
"The legislature il . defact body.
whether legal or not, and the supreme
court IN its opinion minated that the
governor might call the legislature IN
special session to pass new apportion-
ment bill. The court would undoubt-
eddy sustain the new session. IL 10 tile
| last resort. The opinion reminds me
Of the arguments OF two little girls over
the truth of . statement. One said,
1t 10 so.' and her friend said. 1t 70 not
So The first little girl then settled IL
by saying, Mamma said IL is so and II
| sne said so 1T ~ so, whether IL 10 40 OF
not That 10 the stand OF the supreme
court.
IAN attor cry, in giving an opinion.
can give only Is ldea or belief AZ 10
what the supreme court Will decide.
| lie does not know positively"
Mark Morris wss melt seen and said
well. that same matter hss been
called 10 our attention before and We
have communicated with the governor
| IN reference to a. IL II an exceedingly
serious question asd neither of us has
examined IL With = view To giving an
opinion on IL. bat toth Of us meaning
/ hls father have very ereal
i doubts OF the oonstitationsiity
OF any law enacted in 1891"
Mr.. Norrls sald that The fepabllean
eiement of the legislature ought not "a
| make much trouble over the new sp-
portaonment. tor II thrown 60 the APP
poftionment Of ~ the party would
lose three representatives. The en-
! tending II the eity Unite OF Detroit,
tirsnd Rapids and ssotoAs would
cause q sal mixture IN the voting pre-
| esBcts. where the he's wards we're
| formed. A part Of tne elesesth and
twelfth wafds ssfs . part ct the city
1 dlssnsts and part OF The county.