Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-03-25

with the benefit of these decisions which
render the question far less difficult.
One of the first cases of this kind brought
IN this court was The Attorney General
v. Blossom, In quo warranto, ] Wis,
BIT, in which the court said ..Contro-
VERSES might arise wherein the prerO.
gatlves and franchises of the state in its
sovereign character might require the in
terpoSltlOn of the highest judicial tribu-
nal to preserve them. Other depart
ments might need its intervention: in
deed, various emergencies may have been
conceived in which this branch of the
government, aud this arm of the judiciary
alone, might be adequate to preserve the
balance of powers. to arrest usurped
powers, franchises and prerogatives:
to quell resistance to constitutional
authority, to preserve the liberty
of the individual citizen, and
shield the sovereignty of the state itself
from violation" These broad grounds
OF the courts original jurisdiction in
matters publiCi iuris, would seem to en-
brace every possible matter of great
public interest. We shall hereafter in
quire whether the subject matter of this
case comes within the terms of the
courts jurisdiction. We shall finally
hold that this court has jurisdiction in
this case, and we propose to relieve all
possible doubt on the subject. even at
the expense of being somewhat tedious
In the above case it is held also that this
court has original jurisdiction in all of
the above writS, including Injunction
In Attorney General VS.. Railroad Com
panies, 80 Wis. 512, the writ of iniunc.
ton was ordered to issue as a preroga-
tive writ, as in a case Of publici iuris, to
restrain the railroad companies from ex-
acting tolls for the carriage of passen-
gers or freight liz excess of the legal
rates.
The jurisdiction Of the court was sus-
tanned by an opinion of the learned and
eminent Chief Justice Ryan, the ablest,
most elaborate and clearest to be
found in the reports. This case was fol-
lowed by Attorney General V. The City
of Eau Claire, 81 Wis, 400, for an in
junction against the common council
and city clerk restraining them from
executing an unconstitutional law for
the obstruction of a navigable river.
The whole subject of the original iuris-
dictiOn of this court was again most
: fully considered by the court in an Opin-
ion of the same learned chief Justice.
/ The following extract from that opinion
clearly expresses the jurisdiction of the
court, and its limitations in all cases
| where the subject matter is publiCi iuris:
| " To warrant the assertion of original
| jurisdiction here, the interest of the
| state should be primary and prOXimate,
| not indirect or remote, peculiar perhaps
| to some subdivisions of the state, but
affecting the state at large in some of it's
prerOgatives; raising a contingency re-
quiring the interpOsitiOn of this court to
! preserve the prerOgative and franchises
of the state in its sovereign character;
/ this court Judging of the contingency in
| each case for itself" The earliest case
! involving matters pubic juris brought in
! this court on the relation alone of the at
! tOrney general is The State ex rel At
/ torney General V. Merrill, 2 Pin. 219, to
/ compel the respondent by manda-
mus, as the receiver Of the canal
| land office under the territory, to deliver
| the books and papers and pay the money
| in his hands as such receiver, to the new
state as the successor of the territory.
In this case the original jurisdiction of
( the court was questioned and sought to
! be sustained by an act of the legislature.
| But Chief Justice Wilton said in his
opinion: 1--WE are satisfied without the
| case" In State eX rel. Attorney General
V. MessmOre, in quo warrantO, IA Wis,
J 1875, this court held Jurisdiction of the
case, on the following grounds, stated
! by the late and able Chief Justice Dixon;
1t is instituted and conducted by the
attorney general under his official oath
and responsibility. This case involves
the functions of high judicial office,
and the due administration Of justice in
! a large section of the state" 2. In State
eX rel. Attorney General V. Milwaukee,
Lake Shore & Western R'y Co., in quo
warranto, 45 Wis, SO, to compel said
company TO keep its Offices, books, papers
| and records within this state, the iuris-
dictiOn of the court was again ques-
! toned. 1t is said in the opinion: "Ques-
! tiOnS of very great public interest, in.
! vOlvin6 the sovereignty and jurisdiction
| Of the state over the corporation of its
| own creation, charged with gross abuse
| and misuse Of its powers and franchises,
! are presented in this information" In
| state eX rel. Attorney General V. O'Neil,
! Mayor, etc, 81 Wis, 552, there was a
mandamus to compel the defendant, as
mayor of Milwaukee, to make prOcla-
nation, that a certain law to establish a
! board of public works had taken effect
| by vote of the people. In State eX rel.
| Attorney General V. Supervisors. 81
! Wis, 443, a mandamus was asked, to
compel the supervisors to admit tC
membership and receive the vote Of one
| WEIGH as a supervisor The questions
were: whether the apportionment law
! of 1856 legislated said WEIGH out of of.
| fee as supervisor, and whether legisla,
! ton was not necessary to cure the mis-
| chief The SupprViSOr districts were the
assembly districts; and the appOrtion
ment law so changed the assembly dis
| tricts as to cause WEIGH to be a non resi-
dent of the district in which he was
elected. No question was made of the
! jurisdiction of the court on the sole re
| latiOn of the attorney general, The ap
| pOrtiOnment law. as to its effect, was
! treated as any other act of the Iegisla
| ture. In connection with this case, the
! case of Shauson V. Radene, 13
| Wis, 1913, may be cited. In that case
the act annexing territory to the city
! changed the boundaries of an assembly
| district according to the previous appor-
| tlOnment law. Its COnstitutiOnality was
! questioned, for that reason, and the
| question was, whether any change in
the appOrtiOnment could be made inter
vening the five years fixed by the con-
| stltutiOn. State eX rel. Attorney Gen
eral VS.. Conklin, "a Wis, 21, was brought
| on the sole relation of the attornev-gen-
| eral, in quo warrantO, to try the title of
| the respondent to the Office of treasurer
of the Saint Raphael Benevolent society,
| a corporation created by special act of
! the Legislative. The Attorney General
VS.. The West Wisconsin Railway Co., SO
| Wis, 466, involved the right to discOn-