Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-10-21
The New York Court of Appeals
Passes the Apportion-
ment Act.
Z is Held to Be in Conflict With
No Constitutional Limi-
tatiOn.
Court Divides Oh Party Lines,
Five Democrats. Against
Two Republicans.


lative superintendent law has been de-
cIarcd constitutional by the Court of
Appeals. The court is unanimous
upon all the questions except those
discussed in Judge Andrews opinion,
Judge Andrews writes dissenting
opinion, holding the appor tionment
law to be unconstitutional ID which
Judge Finch concurs.
The cases and decisions are rs fol-
lows:
1.-The people eX rel. Bond as APP
pelilnt, VS.. the board of supervisors of
Monroe county. The court is asked to
issue Il writ OF mandamuS compelling
ihe board of supervisors of Monroe
county to rediStrict the assembly dis
trictS III that county in compliance With
the apportionment law passed by the
last legislature. Order reversed and
motions for Il mandamuS granted with
costs i'll all courts.
,. The people eX rel, Horn, appel
liant, vs.. the board of supervisors Of
Oneida county, the same proceedings
us i'll The Monroe case. Orders re-
verSed and motions for Il mandamuS
granted with costs i'll all courts.
). The people eX rel, George =.
Garter, of Utica, appellant, VS.. Frank
Rice. secretary of state. 1t asks the
court to grant an injuncuonal order
restraining the secretary of state from
recognizing the new apportionment
law, or sending out notices of election
members of assembly to county
clerks under that law. The injunction
was refused by the court end the or
der is affirmed With costs i'll all courts.
The opinions are written by Judges
Peckham and Gray, Earl, OBrien and
Maynard concur, and Andrews dis
sents Oh one question in which dissent
Finch cOnculS.
Judge Pcckham writes the principal
opinion III the three cases. He says Ill
it after reciting the character of The
three cases:
'Au the proceedings have for their
object the decision of the question us
to the validity of the apportionment
act OF 1892. This apportionment act
OF 1892, it is alleged, violates the pro-
visions OF the constitution III several
particulars. While the question i'll
themselves are most important and far
reaching, yet we are compelled by the
necessities Of the case to decide them ut
the earliest moment. We, however,
feel more competent to do this because,
however important the questions may
be, We think the proper and correct
answers are quite plain aud clear.
The rule which has governed courts
since the adoption CT our constitutions,
both federal and state, i'll relation to
the exercise of the power TO declare IN
enactment of the Legislative body I'M
constitutional, has been lIid down i'll
l1any reported cases and has been
rigidly adhered to by both the federal
and state courts. Before courts will
deem 1t their duty to declare iii act
Of the legislature void, us i'll violation
OF some provision of the constitution,
Il case must be presented in which there
can be no rational doubt. The incOm-
pauD1llty of the Legislative enactment
with the constitution must be manifest
and uuequivOcal.
lie sites the sections of the conStitli-
ton relating to apportionment and
then saws:
ut IS commended on the part OF those
who allege the invalidity of the law of
1892 THAT it was passed i'll violation of
directs the alteration to be made by
that provision Of the constitution which
tie legislature at the first session
after the return of every enumeration"
The act was, in truth, passed ut an
extraordinary session of the legislature
called by the governor, and after the
return of the enumeration of 1892
The point is made that an extraordinary
session is not such a session us is CON
templated by the constitution. To my
mind the objection is wholly without
force. An extraordinary session is
nevertheless a session of the legislature.
When it adjOulns sine die has not the
session of the legislature ended? The
term of office of its members may not
have ended, but the legislative session
nas certainly terminated by an adjourn
ment without day. 1t could not again
assemble and perform any valid act
unless the governor under the special
power given him by the constitution
should convene it. When thus CON
rened the legislature is in session and
it IS clearly not the same session which
was ended by a prior adjournment
thereof without day. The constitution
does not provide that the new legisla- /.
tire after the return of the new emu
meration, and its first session shall |
make this appOrHonment. it was Il I
session Of the legislature and it was the F
first which was held after the return Of +
the enumeration and it was ccmpe-
tent to deal with that subject because
of the recommendation Of the COVER
nor
1--WE think there is no force in the
several objections made as to the ex-
session not being the first
session of the legislature"
The second point that the act was in
of the constitution because it
was based upon an enumeration taken
in 1892 instead of 1885 is held to have
no force. because it was the duty of
each succeeding legislature to make the
until the said enDnera-
ton was made.
To the third objection that the ap-
portionment was not based on an equal
1umber of inhabitants excluding per-
sons of color not taxed, it is the opinion
If the court that as no persons have
suffered harm by the act this objection
llso has no force.
L.