Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1892-03-31

| oSASOu ny IuC1I OWu Iu6uD6IS Ol Juc Log
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
| atoms, though common, must not be
| moderated or overlooked. When these
| restrictions were under discussion In
the constitutional conve ntion they
We're supported and adopted upon the
| express ground that they would prevent
the Leglslature from gerry manderingt 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
the Legislature. The right of the
| people to make their own
laws through their own represent
atlves Is fundamental in and essential
to Tree 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 declaratory
and not mandatory should not be en-
couraged, even to the extent of discuss
ing the question. The convention in
making a constitution had higher
duty to perform than to give the
|
| 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
"We have attempted to show that
this court has jurisdiction of the sub
Ject-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 subject-matter Of this action; sec
declare said apportionment act uncon-
stltutional, 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 Legisla-
ture in the exercise of it's legislative pow
er; fifth, that the restrictions on the
| power of the Legislature to make an ap-
portionment found in sections 3 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 filled with peo-
pie interested in the outcome Of the
gerrymander 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
nv 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 c. 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
administration Democrats are crest
fallen-completely crushed-and SO So
Der that even an intimation that Cleve-
land can carry Wisconsin brings no
smiles to their faces.
All three opinions, those of Chief
Justice Lyon, Justices Orion and Pin
ney, are strong in their arraignment of
the law, and cover every point raised
who argued in defense of the law, is
| here. He said he was not yet ready to
state what steps he would take,
| if 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 wears, or as the court estimates.
since 1871. He believed there was
no other remedy but 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.
Acknowledgement O'Connor said he
had believed this would be the outcome
for some time, and he thought it a good
| lesson to all parties to be fair with the
power IN their hands. The words of the
court indicated that the Republican
apportonments 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
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 ex-Attorney- General 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-
that ba of uoc tho