Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-07-29
BOTH ACTS ARE BAD
CONTINUED from First Pagel


ton, but by the ordinance of 1857, Or
state Of Michigan was carved. state
W. Cunningham, supra.
Aside from considerations Of equity
and justice, it il apparent shat the
trainers OF the constitution understood
that county, to DO entitled to two SEN
ators, must have . ratio and . moiety
OF ratio Of population. Constltu-
uonsl debates OF 1850, ll9, l23, 1851. 36S.
37i, $50, lib.
The state cannot be divided into sem
atorial districts With mathematical ex-
actness, nor does the constitution re-
quIre il. II requires the exercise on
the part of the legislature of an honest
and fair discretion in apportioning the
dIstricts so IS TO preserve, as near as
may be, the equality of representation.
This constitutional discretion Was not
exercised in the apportionment act of
1891. The facts themselves demon
strate this beyond any controversy and
no language can make the demonstra-
ton palmer. There is no difficulty in
making an superintendent which shall
satisfy the demand of the constitution.
IL is no.i TIE purpose or province
OF this court - inquire into the
motives Of the legislature. Courts
will no. discuss the motives OF iegisla-
tive bodies except IS they appear in
the public scts or journals of such
bodies. The validity Of an act does
not depend upon the motive for its
passage The duty Of . court begins
with the inquiry into the constitution
atty OF the law, aud ends with . deter
mlnatiou OF tina: que st;on.
The petition prays that the resDon.
dent DO directed to give notice of the
election under the appornonment &C
Of 1885. The constitutiousiity Of this
act Is therefore directly involved IN the
controversy. unless IL be held to be re-
moved from question by the fact that
the people have acquiesced in its valid
ivy by acting under itfor three elections.
IL must be conceded that this act u af-
fected with the same constitutional in
trinity as the act OF 1891. IL is unnec-
eseary TO determine whether such
lnfirmity exists to an equal,
of . greater or less degree. II is sum
cient to say that it is not IN accord with
the constitution aud for toe same rea.
sons which apply TO the act Of 1891.
II % therefore insisted with great force
by the attorney generst that no cleo
ton should be ordered under the for
mer act, and he also urges IN conse-
auenee that no relief can be granted.
It II also said by him that 90 far as he
has examined other spportionment
acts they are all subject to the same OBJ
lection. Under his reasoning II would
follow that II the act Of 1891 - held 70
be void, there 10 no remedy except the
executive of the state decides TO call =
special sessson of the legislature. In
such case there would be no apportion-
ment law under which the people
might elect . legislature. While the
constitution requires the legislature TO
re-srrsnge the districts 1t the next ses
sion after each enumeration. yes we are
of the opinion That each spportionment
sct remains IN force until IL 10 sup
planted by . subsequept valid sea II
Vas my opinion that the respondent
should be directed 70 give notice ander
the act OF 1885. insemucb - the peopls
have seaulesc>d N 10 validity by 40
long sctsng Nadsr u but yield my
opinion 70 that Of my brsshren, sha
are Of the opinion thas the notice
should b gwen under TIE lac OF issi
THE validity 81 uhich 10 nas here
brought IN controversy ual~ss the en-
peanv~ should call . special SESSION. sf
the legislature.
Oar coacIuaens therefore ares
l. That the p<tnssn % psoc<sEy
sssashs isto tns eooss ~ Ne feissss.