Elmore bulletin. [volume] (Rocky Bar, Idaho) 1889-1906, 1892-03-19
GOV. wlLLEx,s OPINION.

Shoup, Of Lemhi, that the Governor
call an extra session of the Idaho
for the purpose Of max
ing n new apportionment. The
Governor very properly thinks that
the representation should remain as
the constitution and laws provide
until the next regular session. The
letter il dated Boise. Feb. 20:
Hon James M. Shoup, Challis,
Idaho.-Dear Senator: promised
to write you further in reply to
your letter Of late date.
The Nebraska case to which ]
referred is, State VS.. Van Duyn. "a
Neb.. page 526. 1t is rather long 10
copy and much Of it irrelevant for
our use. The material point is this:
Sarpy county was entirely left out
of a bill for reapportioning for mem
bers of the House. by accident OF
design, but not out of the Senatorial
clause. The Supreme Court held
that the whole law was not void but
that the county could not be de-
prived of its representatives and
that the last preceding law was in
fierce in regard to it. or course this
is not quite parallel with our case,
but nearly SO. Applying these prin-
ciples Of construction we may safely,
/ think, hold that all of our statute
is valid and in force. except that
relating to Alta and Lincoln coun-
ties, which liz void and may be
treated as mere surplusage and that
Alturas and Logan counties were
entirely left out Of the last statute
but are entitled to representation
under the last preceding law which
is the apportionment provided by
the constitution. This seems to be
the only logical conclusion to be
drawn from the case | have quoted
and this is the only case bearing d.
rectly on the point that we have
found in the library.
The practical difficulties in the
way Of carrying it out are, as you
are aware, considerable. 1t will not
answer, as you observe, to read AL
turas and Logan for Alta and Lin
coin, for the reason. among others,
that the representation provided in
the present bill for A'turas county
is predicated upon a much Larger
population and resources than il &C
tually possesses. Having then the
constitution and the statutes of the
first session before US, we may re-
concile disputed and conflicting por-
tions as follows: (I do not regard
the mere numbering of the districts
as at all materially.
The act of March IS. 1891, then
will stand as to the election Of all
the Senators but three. Gilmore and
Lincoln are given a Senator, but as
Lincoln does not exist, Gilmore has
the Senator. Alta has a Senator,
but as Alta does not exist, it.can
have no senator. Alta and Custer
are given a Senator, but as Alta
is mere surplusage, Custer alone is
entitled to the Senator. Alturas
and Logan have been omitted from
this statute, but the constitution
gives each of them a Senator. of
which they can not be deprived.
This increases the number of Sem
ators TO nineteen, but as this num-
Der is within the constitutional limit
and as the Legislature has so en-
acted, can not interfere.
The Representatives are to he
similarly arranged. The words
Alta and Lincoln being eliminated,
the three members apportioned TO
them can have no local residence or
dwelling place.
Custer will have two members as
before, the one joined with Alta will
necessarily be enjoyed by Custer
alone. The counties of Logan and
Aituras having been omitted here
the samo as in the apportionment
of Senators, will be entitled 10 the
same number of Representatives set
out to them by The constitution.
namely, two each. The joint mem
Der between Logan, Alturas and
Bingham must also be retained as
provided by the constitution. The
number of members of the House
will thereby be increased TO 80, but
being also within the constitutional
limit | have no concern with il.
am satisfied that this il the only
Garrett construction to be placed
upon the whole subject matter as ii
stands. Ii is not what the Legis-
lature intended. but it has proved
impossible to carry into effect their
intentions on account of the adverse
decisions of the Supreme Court.
Yours truly, N. b. WILEY.
The Hopkins Searles will contest