Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-10-04
TUESDAY. OCTOBER 4. 1892.
Tho Communicating Gases.

nt OtII " iildlllti INK CoStS'
We read with pleasure and profit the
Tinaes's articles on questions of constitu-
tional law. Besides. it is fair and oour-
teous paper We think. however, that our
neighbor is wrong when it lays down the
following rs sound propositions;
"2. IL is no; for the courts 70 make an appor-
tionment. but Il Ia their function TO keep the
legislature within the liaes Of the Constitution
iu spportionments as in all else. II the Logisla-
ture makes an apportionment that the Const-
tuition forbids It 20 make, It ia for the courts,
when the Legislatures act comes properly be-
foro II, 10 pronounce that act void; whereupon
~ IL for the Legislature 70 make another appor-
tionment which will be within the lines OF the
Constitution"
Oh. no. To do that would be TO allow
the courts to make appointments which
the Legislature only is authorized to make,
for II the Legislature IS 10 reassemble ana
again reapportion representatives as often
as the courts NAV deem it "constitu-
tlonal" TO require them to do so. II follows
that il is the courts that are doing work
which they pretend 20 concede that the
Legislature is empowered 20 do. In WIS
consin the Legislature is soon to reas-
semble TO so reapportion that State as TO
please the courts.
We will add here that in some of the north
western States our neighbours view OF the
right Of the courts to interfere III gerry
handing cases has been taken. We let
them 90, and take the New York case.
1t Is hardly too much TO say that the
force bill Is not more dangerous menace
TO our free institutions than are the at
tempts of the Republicans of New YORK
State to induce the courts TO usurp jurls-
djction in the gerrymander cases, and thus
place the Empire State firmly IN the ranks
Of tho Republican party. The whole
structure of that State is directly or indi-
rec,ly involved in the case which was last
week handed down by the general term.
We are rejOiced TO say that Judges BAR
HAEp, PHiTT. and DYKMAN concurred IN the
opinion and decision that though the duty
imposed by law upon the Board of Super
visors was to assemble and divide Kings
county into eighteen assembly districts OF
convenient and contiguous territory, yet
the duty so imposed upon the board re-
uuired the exercise Of large discretion,
bordering upon judicial power. The court
decided, in a word, that the Board OF SUI
ueryisors were clothed with discretion in
the premises. We quote from the Courts
oplnion the following decisive words
"7he duty has been performed, aud the disere-
ton has been exercised and IL 70 not made subject
10 any judicial control"
THUS has the Court taken exactly tho po-
Y..1 frT,Y A
beginning. 1t is unaccountable that any,
body should be willing to allow the courts
10 interfere with any other department OF
the government in the performance OF du-
ties entrusted to the latter. The general
term Laws down the law-the meaning of
the constitutional provision 1t was discuss
ing-when 1t says that the duty of the
Board OF Supervisors of Kings county
",oas not made subject 10 any judicial control"
This decision ought to govern the courts
IN all the cases which have come up IN
volying the same points.
Let the reader note how this decision
stands by the constitutional principles of
our government without reference TO any
Arguments 40 announcement that can be
adduced. The Republican petitioners
10 New York alleged that though the
State Constitution required the Board
of Supervisors to divide the county
into districts as nearly equal as might be,
vet the board actually made one Re-
publican district containing about lO2.-
600 inhabitants and one Democratic dis
trict containing only about $4,000 inhabi-
tauts. Well, what of it asks the Court.
IL is not the duty of the courts TO dictate
10 the Board of Supervisors in the exercise
of the powers entrusted to it by the Con-
stitution. On the eontrary-we repeat the
words Of the Court once more-"the duty
has been performed, and the discretion has
been exercised. and il is not made subject tC
qnv judicial control" 1t Is as If the Supreme
Court of Appeals of Virginia had under
taken TO decide how Kings county ought
TO have been divided into assembly dis
tricts. 1t is a case in which Virginia
court has as much right to interfere as
New York court. That Is 10 say, neither
Virginia court nor a New York court has
the night 10 interfere in 1t. "Finality
must be reached somewhere" says the
Court. The machinery of government WI
not be stopped by the courts TO enable
them TO subject all possible errors 10 judi
oial review. In O word, Judge DYKMAN,
who wrote the opinion, leaves the Repub-
licans nothing to hang hope upon.