St. Paul daily globe., 1892-10-14

Wnat law IS III force In this state. If the
law OF 1892 is not, the situation becomes
most alarming. If the act of 1892 is
void, the act OF 1879 is also plainly void,
and no election of members of the as
Sembly should be tolerated under it.
This might relegate the people to the
act of 1860, and thus we might have an
attempt at an election for members of
assembly under an act more than a
quarter or a century OLD and legisla-
tive representation of the people of that
time. This would be traveSty upon the
law and upon ideas of equality, propri-
ETY. and justice. We are compelled to
the conclusion that this act of 1892 sue
cesSfully withstandS all assaults upon
1t and 1t is a valid and effective law"
The Dissenting Opinion.
Judge Andrews wrote dissenting
opinion, holding the legislative appOr-
tiOnment law to be unconstitutional.
which was concurred in by Judge
Finch.
II am of the opinion" writes Judge
Andrews, ''that the apportiopment act
of 1892 is void for the reason that in
apportioning members of assembly
among the counties of the state it vio-
lates the rule of equality established by
the constitution.
ut 1TOlH lH6 cOllSlllu-
tiOnal method in the act of 1892 is sub
stantlal. and its validity having been
challenged in the courts, it cannot be
upheld without establishing danger
Gus precedent for the future. The claim
that the legislature in making an appOr-
tlonment may take into consideration
probable growth of population has no
support in the constitution. The ap-
portlonment is to be based upon the
existing population ascertained by
the preceding enumeration. The de-
cennial enumeration and apportionment
is the constitutional remedy for any
such temporary inequalities. If the
Legislature was permitted to act upon
the ground suggested, it would intro
duce a most uncertain element and
might be the cover for great abuses. 1t
is plain that i'll the present case
The Inequalities
are not attributable to any such conSd-
Grafton. Monroe county. containing a
rapidly growing city, and with much
larger population than Albany county,
was given three members and Albany
was given four. 1t is unnecessary to
consider in this case the question of the
cOnStitutiOnality of the act of 1892, so
far as it relates to senate districts. The
act must stand or fall as whole, and if,
i'll respect to one branch of the legislat
ure. the act is unconstitutional, it can
not be upheld.
"The power of the courts to set aside
an unconstitutional apportionment has
quite recently been asserted and eXer-
cised by the courts of Wisconsin and
Michigan. These courts consider with
much ability the question of judicial
power. and determine that substantial
a q ltI i'm, inJ IF anf
the rule Of equality renders it void. l
recognize the gravity of the question
now presented, nor do l fail to appre
ciate that holding the apportiOnment
void will produce temporary lncOn-
venience, but the evils which may flow
from this are not to be compared, l
think, with the public injury which will
result from saDctiOning disregard of
one of the evil principles of representa-
tive government"
Judge Gray concurs in the validity of
the apportionment, and writes sepa
rate opinion, giving the grounds of his
conclusions.
Complexion of the Legislature.
To elect United States senator in
this state requires eighty-one votes on
joint ballot of the two branches of the
legislature. The Democrats will have
seventeen votes next winter, when the
time comes for electing a successor to
Frank Hiscock, assuming the majority
in that body holds together till that
time. The Republicans will have thir-
teen votes, and one Edwards, of the
Thirty-second district, may not be cast
for either regular party candidate. TO
elect the senator the Democrats must
have siXtyfour votes in the assembly,
and the Republicans siXty-seven. While,
therefore, the Republicans will be able
to control legislation in the assembly,
if they elect siXty-fve members, they
will need three more to control the
United States senatorShip. There were
siXty-seven Democrats and siXty-one
Republicans in the assembly of 1892.
Three of the Republicans were from
New York and three from Kings.