The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-09-23
A e~RoUEDLEss CLAIM.

The Sentinel is trying TO manufacture
popular opinion against the gerry
mander suit by claiming that, if the ap-
p~ortionment acts of 1891 and 1886 are
held unconstitutional, it will invalidate
all the acts of the two Legislatures
elected under them. The Journal showed
that there is nothing whatever in this
claim. because the persons thus elected
We're de tdctO members of the Legisla-
ture, and it is well-settled law that the
official acts of de Jaeto public officers are
valid and binding. To this the Sentinel
replies that. as the Offices of State Sem
atOr and Representative are created
by the appOrtionment act, they Will
cease to exist if that act is set aside, and
there cannot be a de fdctO incumbent OF
an office that does not exist. In support
of this position it quotes from a decision
of the United States Supreme Court, in
the case of Norton We. Shelby, 11S
U. S., 425. to the effect that there
can be no such thing as a de
facto officer except where the Office
Nv hO ihitn w vi ACkdAiJ A'D ~
other words, there cannot be a de fdctO
official without a dc jure office. That is
undoubtedly good law, but it does not
apply to the case in hand. In the case
of Norton VS.. Shelby the question be-
fore tho court involved the validity of
the acts of certain persons claiming
to be Commissioners of Shelby county.
Tennessee. That is an Office created by
an act of the Legislature. and the court
held that as the law creating the office
was invalid the Office did not exist and
there could be no de fdcto incumbent of
it. That is true as to IA statutory office,
but the offices of Senator and 'Repre-
sentative are nOt statutOry.~ offices. They
are created by the Constitution, which
fixes the number of members in each
body, prescribes their term of Office,
their qualifications, etc. 1t also pre-
scribes how these offices shall be filled.
The appOrtionment law does not in any
sense create the offices of Senator and
Representative. 1t simply %appOrtiOns
or districts the State for the election of
persons to fill those offices. II the APP
portionment law creates the offices it
would be competent for the Legisla-
ture to increase the number of either
house or change the qualifications of
members. If they are statutory offices
it would be competent for the Legisla-
ture to say that a Senator or Represent
alive need not have resided in the State
more than one year before his election,
or that a Senator need not be more than
twenty lone years old. But the Legisla-
ture cannot do this, nor touch the of
fees in any way. 1t can only appOrtion
the State for the election of persons to
fill them. and that apportlonment must
be in conformity with the constitutional
| requirement. The decision of the
United States Supreme Court in Norton
| VS.. Shelby County applies only to statu-
tory Offices, and does not touch the case
In hand.
The claim that holding tho apportion-
ment act unconstitutional would invali-
date the acts of the Legislature elected
| under it is intended to alarm the people
by creating the impression that the suit
involves revolutionary consequences. 1t
cannot be intended to affect the court.
because the Sentinel knows, or could
easily learn if it wished to be informed
on the subject, that there is nothing
whatever in the claim. 1t is hoped to
make political capital by creating the
impression that Republicans are willing
to bring about political chaos in order
to get rid of the Rerrymander. Nobody
need have any fears. There is no dam
ger of chaos. All that is necessary is to
obey the law as it shall be ~expounded by
the Supreme Court of the State, which.
in this case. will be the court of last re-
sort. The claim that a decision against
the gerrymander would invalidate the
acts of the Legislature elected under it
is absurd.