Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1892-10-13

convenient and proper with reference
TO the situation of the inhabitants OF
such districts, and best for proper
representation Of the interests of differ
ent parts of the state. This claim
goes to the extent of authorizing the
legislature in its discretion to form
senate district from two of the smaller
or four of the larger assembly districts.
Here the smallest contains only S,626
inhabitants. and twice that number
would only be 1882, or only I'D more
than One-third OF the senate unit;
whereas the largest contains -5.ll1 in
habitantS, and four times that number
would be nearly twice the senate unit
1t is true. the act III question does not
in any instance show such vide dis
parity in the population of senate dis
triCts; but TO here sanction the dlscre-
ti0nary power thus claimed is 10 open
the door for its exercise to the maxi
mum by any legislature. But the pres
ent act does so in that direction 10 the
extent of forming one senate district
from two assembly districts with an
aggregate population of only 30,I32
and forming another senate district
from four assembly districts with an
aggregate population OF 6o,9o2. Ihls
is a plain disregard of the constitutions
al mandate Which; requires such appOr-
tiCnment to be made according to the
number Of inhabitants The vice
which seems to run through the act in
question is in assuming that the only
limit to the discretionary power of the
legislature in making such appOruOn
ment, is the major and minor fractions
! of such units of representation.
! Thus, the smallest assembly district
I above mentioned is only 1872 above
! one-half of the assembly unit, and the
largest assembly district named above,
! lacks only 191 Of one and a half
! of the assembly unit; thus as
/ sorting the broad discretionary power
! in the formation of assembly districts,
! of giving to the inhabitants of one.
/ substantially three times the TepreSen-
tative power possessed by those of the
other, and i'll the formation of senate
/ districts of giving to the inhabitants Of
! the one u considerable more than
double the representative power pos
I sesSed by the inhabitants of the other
/ The constitution gives no warrant to
any such fictitious standards, and Will
! bear no such latitUdiDariouS cOnstruc-
ton. Major and minor fractions of
! population in towns wards, counties
( and assembly districts, are, of course,
J to be considered in making such APP
portionments, but they are only to be
! considered along the lines cal
culatcd to secure approximate equal
ity in representation. The theory of
major and minor fractions of the units
of representation, cannot excuse or
justify failure to app0rtion and dis
trict anew according TO the number of
Inhabitants III 50 far as practicable,
consistently with the other provisions of
the constitution mentioned. 1t has been
said, that the court should suggest a
plan for such superintendent. But the
court now, as heretofore, diSclaimS any
and all legislative functions. Besides,
the people in their organic act have
themselves devised Il plan which is
binding upon this court, as well as 9th IL
officials. That plan, however, can never
be legitimateIy worked out by unknown
quantities, in some occult science, along
the lines of fictitious standards and
eXtrane0uS considerations; but may very
easily, by Obeying the imperative con
StitutiOnal mandate, observing it's fixed
standards and reSorting to the simple
rules Of addition, subtraction and divi-
sion. Such constitutional mandate and
standards cannot be broken down, OF
rendered imperative on the theory OF
discretionary power. In speaking of q
constitutional provision requiring sen
atOrs to ''be appOrtiOned according tC
the number of inhabitants" and after
mentioning the impossibility of dividing
towns, Shepley, J., in Is Me, 1928
said: "And here also it may be said
there must exist q discretion to be eX-
GrciSed by the legislature making an
apportiOnment, That power which a
legislative body is compelled to eXer-
else by such Il moral necessity cannot
properly be considered rs discretionary
If, as claimed, there has never been any
such equal apportionment in the state
then there certainly has never been any
legislative construction of the words
quoted; for in order to give any effect
to such construction, the words con
strued must be ambiguous and capable
of two or more meanings, one of which
the legislature has adopted. Where
however, the words are unambiguous
and the legislature has never under
taken to construe them, but simply dis
regarded them, their action, though
often repeated, cannot be allowed to
have the effect, of pro tanto repeating
the constitution.
Judgment has already been entered
in accordance with the prayer of the
complaint.