Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1892-03-30


lslature and the members themselves can
better represent them and promote and
protect their interests. They know
each other and have close relations
with each other. These consider
atlons, though common, must not be
moderated or overlooked. When these
restrictions were under discussion IN
the constitutional convention they
were supported and adopted upon the
express ground that they would prevent
the Legislature from gerrymander1ngt the
state. These restrictions were regarded
by the very able members Of the con-
Ventlon as absolutely necessary to Sc
cure TO the people the sacred rights OF
a tree people, Of equal representation in
the Legislature. The right Of the
people TO make their own
laws through their own represent
atiyes is fundamental in and essential
to free government. The convention
sought to guard these restrictions. That
most dangerous doctrine that these and
other restrictions upon the power OF
the Legislature are merely deClardtOry
and not mandatory should not be en-
cOuraged even to the extent of discuss
ing the question. The convention IN
making O. constitution had a higher
duty to perform than to give the
Legislature advice. Judge Cooley, IN his
great work on constitutional limitations,
says: The courts tread upon very
dangerous ground when they venture
to apply the rules which distinguish
between mandatory and directory
statutes to the provisions Of the consti-
tuition
eve have attempted to show that
this court has jurisdiction of the sub
lect-matter of this action to declare the
said apportionment act unconstitutional
and void and to enjoin the secretary of
state from giving the notices of the cleo
ton for members of the Senate and
Assembly under the same. We hold,
therefore, according to the complaint
first, that the court has jurisdiction of
the subiect-matter of this action; sec
ond, that it has the judicial power to
declare said apportionment act uncon-
stitutional, and to set it aside
as absolutely void; third, that the duty
of the secretary of state in giving out
notices of election is purely ministerial,
and may be controlled and restrained by
Injunction; fourth, that the apportion-
ment act is like any other act of the
Legislature and is passed by the Leglsla-
ture in the exercise of its legislative pow
er; fifth, that the restrictions on the
power of the Legislature to make an ap-
portionme mt found in sections and OF
Article ". of the constitution are
mandatory and imperative, and are not
subject to legislative discretion; sixth,
that said apportionment act is in con-
fiict with these instructions and in vio-
lation of the constitution, and is there
fore void"
MADISON, Wis, March 22.-The SUI
preme court room was filed with peo
pie interested in the outcome of the
gerrylnander suit this morning. The
decision was announced by Justice Or
ton and when its purport was compre-
hended by the large audience-and
this was even before the words
were uttered which specifically stated
that the Democratic apportionment was
void-the people began to leave to car
rv the good news through the capitol
building and out on the streets, and in
an incredibly short time the entire state
was appraised Of the nature of the courts
decision.
Ex-senator John G. Spooner, who has
conceived this fight, and brought to SO
favorable a elimination, was present in
court, and is receiving congratulations
on all sides, as also are his assistants,
Col. George w. Bird, eX-Attorney-Gen-
eral Estabrook and S. w. Pierce. The
fallen--completely crushed-and SO So
Der that even an intlmation that Cleve-
land can carry Wisconsin brings no
smiles to their faces.
All three opinions, those Of Chief
Justice Lyon, Justices Orion and Pin
new, are strong in their arraignment of
the law, and cover every point raised
on either side thoroughly. Gen. Bragg,
vino argued In defense of the law, is
here He said he was not yet ready to
state what steps he would take,
ii any, but intimated that the
court had so completely disposed
of the case that it would be practically
useless to try the act on a question of
the fact, for it was admitted on all sides
that county lines were broken and
had been in the every apportlonment
for years, or as the court estimates.
since 1871. He believed there was
no other remedy but a special session
of the Legislature to enact another ap-
portiOnment.
Gov. Peck said he would examine the
opinions carefully and then take such
steps as it was deemed his duty to take
in the promises. He would act upon
the suggestions of the court Just as soon
as he understood them.
Attorney General O'Connor said he
had believed this would be the outcome
for some time, and he thought it good
lesson TO all parties to be fair with the
power IN their hands. The words Of the
court indicated that the Republican
appointments were unconstitutional,
and the last one only demonstrated that
there had been no secession to fairness
in this particular of late years. He be-
lieved this would assist much in purify
ing the politics of the state, and have a
widespread influence in the country.
HISTORY OF THE SUIT
The suit was ordered by the Board of
Supervisors of Adams County, Scion w.
Pierce, the district attorney, taking the
first necessary steps toward the suit, as
sisted by exAttorney-G Esta-
brook. The bill in the case, jointly
with the application for leave to bring
suit, was filed in the supreme court on
January Is. At the next setting of the
court, On February 2, the court granted
permission to bring the action and de-
clared hat the attorney-general was the
proper person to prosecute. The &C
ton begun was against the secretary of
state to perpetually enjoin him and his