Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1892-03-31
Judge Pinney.
EXTRACT FROM HIS OPINION.
INTENTION OF THE TRAINERS.

vision in question in respect to assembly
districts the intention of the trainers of
the constitution becomes plain and GER
tain, if it were possible to say that from
the language used in it there is an
ambiguity or uncertainty so that con-
structiOn would have any proper office
to perform the provision in such districts
to be bounded by county. precinct
town or ward lines to consist of coDtig-
Gus territory and be in as compact form
as practicable that is to say that il
creating such districts no county. pre-
cinct, town or ward shall be divided,
and there is no more warrant for
dividing counties in forming assembly
districts than for dividing precinct,
town or ward The scope of the Ian
guage is not that the boundaries of any
such districts may be in part BY county
and in part by precinct, town or ward
| lines, leaving districts to be formed of
parts of different counties or of one
county and part of another, for in such
case the use of the words ''precinct
town or ward lines" would have fully
answered such purpose or intention and
the use of the word county" would
have been supertluous, because county
| lines are in all cases Identical with town
or ward lines, precincts as political
! divisions having ceased TO exist. The
word county" answers definite and
necessary purpose in expressing in
clear, concise language the object in
view. namely: TO adopt the single
district system and retain as before the
county as a subordinate political divi-
sion to be divided into single districts
where its inhabitants ale entitled 10
more than one member and prohibit
the division of counties in the formation
of assembly districts. This brought the
entire constitutional history on the sub
iect into harmonious relation with the
language used and avoided the opening
of the door, as it was feared would be
the case, to gerrymandering ii the
single district system should be adopted.
and gives to every part and word of the
provision an appropriate and harmonious
meaning. The rule is that effect IS to
be given TO every clause or word of a
statute and no word is to be treated as
unmeauing if a construction can be
legitimately found which will preserve
it and make it effectual. (Sedgwick on
construction. 200: Endlich on Statutes.
Section %; Cooley on Construction, p;
Harrington VS.. Smith. % Wis. 44-67;
Commonwealth vs.. Alger. Cush., 80;
opinions of justices. % Pick. 571; People
VS.. Burns, 5 Mich, Ia; PIatt VS.. Union
Pacific Railroad company, SO, U. S. As,
So; Mountclair VS.. Ramsdell, 107 q. ).
147, 152.
TWENTY COUNTY LINES BROKEN.
In the act under consideration there
are twenty instances in which counties
have been divided in the formation of
assembly districts in violation of the
constitutional rule preserving the terri
torial integrity of counties in the appor
Torment of the state into assembly
districts, and by no possible construction
of the act can it be brought into
harmony with the provisions of the
construction Both the provisions of
the constitution and those of the act are
too plain for construction, and the re-
pugnance of the act to the constitution
is clear and irreconcilable Inasmuch as
the several provisions of the act of
apportionment are SO largely dependent
upon each other, and as such an act
must be regarded as an entirety. and
this one with the Objectionable districts
would form no just approximation or
relation to an act of apportionment of
the state there is no alternative bat to
hold that the act in question is void and
that the senate and assembly districts
described IN it have no legal existence.
The respondent has. therefore, no law
ful authority for giving notice of
election such as it is alleged he proposes
to issue, and the court cannot but so
declare, be the consequences what they
may.
PRESENT LEGISLATURE COMPETENT.
Approximations have been entertained
as to the effect which decision adverse
to validity Of the act will have upon
past legislation and upon the compel
encv of the present legislature to pass a
valid apportionment, as it is said that
the apportionment act of 1887 is obnox-
ious to the same objections as this one.
Upon the assumption that the act of
1887 is void for any reason senators and
members of assembly who have been
elected and have qualified under it are
such dc tdctO and their acts are valid as
to the public and third persons within
repealed decisions of this court, and it
is no doubt competent for the legislature
at special session hereafter called TO
pass valid apportionment act, notwith-
standing the requirement of the con-
stitution that it be passed at the session
next after the last enumeration. The
plain intent of this provision is to enable
a new apportionment t. be made at the
earliest practicable period after the
enumeration, to the end that the repre-
sentation thereby required shall readily
become effective and not be unreason-
ably delayed. The duty to pass such
act is a continuing one from the time it
is consututionalv devolved upon the
legislatureundl performed. though when
thus performed the power 10 pass any
other such act IS exhausted ana will not
again arise until after another enumer-
alton 1t seems plain both
upon principle and precedent, that no
objection exists TO the passage Of valid
act superintendent At a specialsession
which MAY hereafter be called No