Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-09-30
The Courts Must 30 Restrained.


The New York Herald approves the at
tempt OF the New York Republicans to in-
duce the highest court Of that State TO In
terfere with the legitimate sction of the
General Assembly. This fact proves that
now. as always, the Herald lacks familiarity
With the Constitution Of the republic.
Judge RUNsxY decided an superintendent
bin TO be unconstitutionai and the Heralf
applaudcd. The Supreme Court, q Ro-
publican tribunal. affirmed the decision
OF Judge RUnsEr, and again the Herald APP
plauded. But the case was taken 10 the
Court OF Appeals. where Judge RuMsxY
and the Supreme Court and the Herald
we're exposed as being ignorant of the law
which they had undertaken to expound.
and straightwsy that high tribunal as
sumed new character. and our New York
contemporary pours out upon IL the walls
of its indignation.
The Herald fails to see the point in tho
case. as the following paragraph from that
paper shows. We quote:
al IL serious duty from which any court may
well shrink TO set aside an apporiionmsnt Law In
View OF the grave consequences and complica-
more serious Il IL 10 render n decision which not
only sanctions an existing gsrrymander in viole-
tion Of the Consultation, but grants license for
unrestricted gerryaanderiug in the future"
This paragraph begs the question. 1t
assumes to be true that which is the very
point in dispute. II our view of the ques-
fion at issue be the correct one the British
Parliament has as much right as Judge
RUNsEY. or the Supreme Court of New
York. or even the highest court in that
State. to undertake to set aside the action
of the New York Legislature. and substi-
tute the will of the courts for the action
OF the Legislature despite the fact that
the Constitution of New York clothes the
Legislature with full power to reapportion
theState for the election of members of the
General Assembly. The courts have nothing
TO do with the existing gerrymander,"
whether that gerrymander is in violation
of the Constitution or not. The appor-
tionments made by the Republican Legs |
Iatures of New York for many years. and |
up 10 the time when the Democrats Sc |
cured the control OF the Legislature. were
unconstitutional reapportionments. The |
Constitution was hagrantly violated, but |
che Democrats did not for that or any |
other reason call upon the courts to reap |
portion tho State. The Legislature of |
Virginia has as much right to pass reap |
portionmeut bill for New York as the |
courts of that State have to do the same |
work. 1t is matter that has been en-
trusted TO the General Assembly of New |
York and not to the courts.
Judge RUMsKY's decision was court-made |
law. Its character was not changed by its
affirmation by the Supreme Court. But
the Court of Appeals refused to sanction
such jndge-made law. Let US suppose
that in New York, as in so many other
States, Virginia included, the judges Of the
highest courts were elected by the Gehe-
raj Assembly. Then republican govern
ment would appear 10 be a farce indeed in
the Empire State. The courts would elect
the Legislature by gerrymanderlng the
State IN the interest OF the Republican
party. and then the Legislature would re-
turn the compliment and elect the judges
Why notY This is exactly what would 90
cur in all of the States whose judges were
elected by the Legislature.
We beg the Herald TO disabuse itself of
the notion that the courts can perform the
duties OF the Legislature. Unjust and IN
constitutional Legislative gerrymanders are
bad enough, but gerrymanders made by
the courts are still worse. Pray do not
encourage the courts in their usurpation
Of powers not belonging to them.