Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-10-14

NC dIo"So DIS W pOpuIdtlOu OF Ills
tricts. AS such, let Us briefly examine
it.
The population of the territory
was Il little more than 100000. The
number of assemblymen provided for
WAS &c, and of senators 10 The as
sembly unit of population was nearly
5000, the senate unit 1000. The larg-
est assembly district was Green county,
which had 4 population of CAST, or
more than twice the unit, and the
smallest district was Calumet county
with Il population OF 1860, or about
one-third of the unit, and between these
two extremes the whole gamut of popu-
lation was run through in the other
districts. So the largest senate district
was Waukesha county with popula-
ton OF 1856, an excess of nearly one
half the unit, and the smallest district
WAS formed of Crawford, Chippewa, St
CrolN and La Pointc counties, With i
population Of 3,45O, or about one
third the unit, and between these cN-
tremeS ranged the other districts. Again
counties We're not given their proper
tomato number of members: thus RAJ
cine county with Il population of 49,
$50, and entitled clearly to six members,
received but five, while Rock county
with population of 14729, also re-
ceiyed five. Again where coun-
ties were awarded more than one as
/ semblyman, the division of the coun,y
was not always made in accordance
with the county unit of population; an
example Of this occurs in Milwaukee,
county where the country towns are
divided into three assembly districts
with populations respectively of 2,156
2,94S and 1920; by an obvious re1ar-
rangement where by compactneSs is
not sacrificed the districts might have
been made 2,1S4, 2,SO7 and >, 1873. Other
instances could undoubtedly be found !;
but | fOrbear. | have cited enough To
i show that the constitution makers evil
IDENTITY considered that there WAS Il
wide la>-,,.de or discretion allowable
as to population. 1t WAS natural that
| when the constitutional convention hal
thus set the example and given practi-
cal construction to the instrument, the
legislature should follow the path 81
marked out, and 50 we lind the fact to
be. The first Legislative apportiOn-
! lnent WaS made i'll 49,; the next i'll 1896
and they have been made every live
| years since that time. In 1857 the
| units of representation We're nearly the
same, and the assembly districts varied
i'll population from 963 to S,506, the
senate districts from 4, 1O4 to 10, LIS,
| While many counties received less than
! the number of aSScmblymen which the
| population entitled them to.
| III 1906 the assembly districts ran
from 2,423 to 9,212, the unit being g.
! 521; and the senate districts ran from
Dos to 54,o4O, the unit being Is, HOB.
In 1861 the assembly districts ran from
y, 10 to 15,6S2, the unit being 7,75S;
ana the senate districts ran from 1910
| to 81, 154, the unit being boil In
1866 the assembly districts ran from
| 5,199 to l4,S41, the unit being 1858;
/ and the senate districts ran from L.
667 to 42,O29, the unit being 26,313. In
1871 the assembly districts ran from
1856 to 23,611, the unit being 1O,546;
and the senate districts ran from H.
| $40 to 46,941, the unit being 81, 1856. 1t
is unnecessary to follow the remaining
| apportiOnmentS: they are substantially
alike those above cited; they all show
the exercise of Il wide latitude as to rel
ativC population of districts; they all
| follow the lead of the constitutional
apportionment. The present apportion-
ment divides the state far more nearly
according to population than any of
! the previous apportionments since the
state was born.
! Now l do not wish to be miSunder-
stood. | am hot claiming that because
previous legislatures have violated the
constitution, the legislature of 1892 may
do so with impunity. | fully under
stand that no preSCriptiye right to break
Il constitutional command can be ac-
quired. | am simply claiming that it is
| apparent that the constitution cOnfcrs
! discretion on the legislature as to the
| population of districts, a discretion
whose limits are underlined, and that in
! considering the limits of such dscrc-
! ton, contcmporaneOuS, long continued
and unchallcnged construction by the
| legislature is of great weight. Here
we have q practical construction placed
upon the constitutional requirement by
| the constitution makers themselves; we
| have also forty years of practical con
| structiOn by the legislature following
| the constitutional construction, unchal-
| lenged until now, and | believe it
should prevail. If it does prevail, then
the law before us is unquestiOnably
| valid.
G. nsiderable stress was laid upon the
fact that under the act in question,
where counties contained more than
one assembly district, the county was
not divided as nearly equally in point of
population as possible. A considerable
number of instances OF this kind were
commented upon. 1t was Gained that
in such case a new unit should be OBJ
tanned, and the districts made to con
form as nearly as practicable to that
new unit in population. What / have
said as to the legislative discretion APP
plies to considerable extent upon this
question; the limitations of contiguity
and compactness interfere with equal
ity of population, and the forty years
practical construction is equally EN-
phatic in its tendency to prove that no
lnf1eXible rule Of this kind is laid down
by the constitution. 1t is very evident
also that it would be very undesirable
in some cases to divide a county as
absolutely even as possible. Take the
case of Racine cCJInty for instance