Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-10-14

requirements, the argument would he
strong that practically absolute equality
in the population of districts was in
tended. But there are other requires
ments equally binding, which, to Il
greater or less degree, must neces-
s;.rily seriously interfere with the idea
Of absolute equality in districts, in
fact render it impossible. In case Of
assembly districts. these other require
ments are: d That no county, town
or ward line shall be broken 60
That the districts shall consist of CON
tigious territory; and CD That they
shall be III as compact form as prac-
tiC:tDle. In case of senate districts:
ID That no assembly district be divid-
ed. CD That the territory of the dis
tlict be convenient and contiguous.
! No argument is required to show that
these additional constitutional COM
nandS. render impossible ANYTHING ap
preaching absolute numerical equality
in districts. If county lines cannot be
broken, great disparity i'll population in
districts is unavoidable. Take an eX-
ample. Suppose the unite of assembly
representation to be 10000. Given two
counties containing respectively $4,000
and $4,000 inhabitants. The first coun-
ty has two entire units and Il minor
fraction, so it will be entitled to but two
aSscmblymen; the second county has
one unit and Il major fraction, which
entities it to two aSSemblymen. Thus
| il these two counties be divided eX-
actly evenly 1880 inhabitants will
eject an assemblyman i'll one county
! While 1880 will elect an assembly
man in the other county, but it could
: not be said that any rights of any
| citizen had been violated. So it is evil
! dent also, that the requirements of com
pactneSS is liable to interfere seriously
| with numerical equality.
| And i'll the case of senate districts it
! is equally evident that the constitution
cannot mean absolute equality. Tie
senate district must be composed OF
entire assembly districts. There are
now thirtTthree senate districts and
! one hundred assembly districts. Ii the
/ assembly districts be equal, OF nearly
i so, and three are assigned to each
| senate district, there will be one sell
/ ate district composed of four assembly
! districts, and the numerical difference
! between this last named district and
| the others would be substantially the
! assembly unit. Thus the very terms
! OF the constitution demonstrate the im-
| possibility Of equality i'll either senate
| or assembly districts. 1t is evident al
| so that the term according to pOpula-
! ton means us near as reasonably
! LractiCaDle, in view OF the other re-
{ uircmeutS. 1t is evident that there
/ must he Il latitude OF action in regard
! TO population il the requirement as to
| cOmptctncsS is to have any effect.
! I his is certain, because if the districts
| :ire to be divided SO us to give the near
! est possible approach to equality, COM
! pectneSS must necessarily be disregard
ed Who then is to judge OF what de-
! gree OF equality of numbers is reaSOl-
! ably practicable? And who is to judge
| of the cOmpactnesS which is pracrc-
! able! Manifcstly the legislature, upon
whom the duty Of apportionmcnt is inn
posed. Here, then, is evidently a lati-
! tude of action. Here, within limits
| which no one can precisely de-
fine or lay down, is Il discretion
to be exercised, not by this court,
but by the legislature. The very
fact, also that the duty of apportion-
ment is imposed on the legislature, Il
! body which i'll the highest degree is
| charged with the exercise of Judgment
! and discretion i'll its acts, is Il strong
! III
To be exercised. Ii it We're simply Il
question Of addition and division, Il
| board of arithneticianS would answer
the purpose far better. There is, there
| fore, i'll my Judgment, Il discretion here
| Which, with the terms OF the COnStitI-
! ton alone before us, is evidently quite
large; Il discretion which any court
With. | say it is evident on the face OF
/ the constitution itself, that Il large dis
| erection necessarily exists in the legiSa-
| tuI-e with reference to the matter of
popula ton, but we have light ON the
subject other than that furnished by
| the words of the constitution. 1t is Il
! cardinal principle OF the law with refer
ence to the construction of statutes, the
meaning of Which is in any way doubt
full, that cotempOraneous, long con-
| tinued and open construction of the
statute in a certain manner by the Off
GERS or bodies charged with the duty
of executing it, is of great weight i'll
: judging of the proper construction, and
such practical construction is often con-
| trolling. This DrinciDle has been fullV
recognized by this court in Seaman v.
Childs, SO Wis, G63, and Harrington V.
Smith, % Wis, 43. That the same prin-
ciple is applicable to the construction of
a constitution, which is simply the
highest law of the state, is
unquestiOnable. Commrs V. Mil
! Ter, Kansas, 479. In judg-
, ing, therefore, of the latitude or
discretion which the legislature is
! given by the constitution with regard
! to the population of districts, we are
! entitled to examine into and consider
) the construction which was contempo-
raneously placed upon these constitrl-
! tiOnal provisions. In this investigation
we are peculiarly fortunate, because
| the same body which framed the con-
Stitution and laid down the rules Of
apportiOnment, incorporated into the
constitution also an apportionment of
the state, which remained in force
until 1852. Now 1 know it will be
said that the constitution makers were
not bound by the constitutional re-
quirements in making their apportion-
hat 10Th