Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1892-04-23
Annortionments Past and Present.

leoed suppression" by the Repub.
l;can press of part Of Chief JUS
+iee LYONS opinion in the gerry.
uander case wherein he referred to
the disregard, in several instances,
of the constitutional requirement
concerning county lines in previous
apportionment laws enacted by Re.
nublican legislatures. 1t is note
worthy that Mr.. Wallis organs have
published that part of the opinion
and Suppressed" all the rest
OF it.
That it was not regarded as an
essential part of his opinion by
Judge Lyon himself is proved by
the fact that no allusion to it is
contained in the general synopsis
of the several opinions which he
prepared for the press. That Re
uubIicans had no reason to wish to
suppress it is sufficiently shown by
the fact, that ex-senator Spooner, in
his brief, called the attention of the
court to the infringement Of the
constitutional restriction in some of
the apportionment acts made by Re
publican legislatures.
While it is not disputed that in
previous appointments the re-
striction as to county lines was in
several instances disregarded, the
broad distinction which exists be.
tween those acts and the apportion-
ment made 10y the last legislature
under the dictation of Villas and
Wall. is this: The former acts
were not distinctively partisan but
were supported and opposed by
members of both parties, while the
act of 1890 was a deliberate parti-
san attempt, by systematic injus-
tice, to prevent the Republicans,
even if they succeeded in securing
large majority of the popular
vote, from gaining control of the
legislature. As such a partisan
and wrongful measure, it had the
support of every Democratic mem
Der of the legislature, and the vehe-
ment opposition of every Repub-
Hcan. The joint apportionment
committee that reported it was ia
vided on strictly party lines, which
had never before happened in such
a case.
The difference between the
manner in which appointments
were made in Republican legisla-
lures and in the Democratic legisla-
ture last year is shown by the official
records The joint committee on
appointment ii the legislature of
1882 consisted of thirteen Republic
cans and five Democrats; the bill 1t
reported was approved by the whole
committee with one exception. 1t
passed the senate by the following
vote: Ayes, 25; noes, 4. Of ten
Democrats voting, seven voted for
tue bill, which they would not hay 3
done had they considered 1T Re
publican gerrymauder.
In the assembly, some amend
ments were made, when the bill
passed by the following vote: Ayes,
50; noes, 6.
Here again a large majority of
the Democrats voted for the bill.
But the senate refused to concur in |
the amendments, and a conference |
committee was had which reported |
1t in a modified form, and, as modi-
lied, it passed the assembly by the |
following vote: Ayes, 81 noes, %.
The superintendent of 1882 was
really determined by Democratic |
votes. A majority of those voting
for IL were Democrats, while of the
rs negative votes all were Repub, !
Acans but one. Does anybody be-
heye that a bill thus passed was a
partisan Republican gerrymander?
The joint committee that pre-
pared and reported the apportion-
meut act of 1887, which in the
Democratic press is called a Re
publican gerrymander, was COM
posed of II Republicans and 5
Democrats. The only dissenter in
auoftjnr the bin was Senator Hoyt,