Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-07-29
oss; state Va Cunningham. 81 n.


toos made from them. We're the pow
sr conferred upon the legislature one
of absoiuts discretion. then the express
mandate. '.saall re4rrsngs according
to the number of lnhAbttants," would
b void of any fore or msanlng. except
that II might pe regarded - expressive
OF the opinlon OF the trainers of the
constitution that sucn method would
be squitAbss and fair. We have no
don't Of the jufisdiciion Of the court.
But II u inslssed BY the attorney gen.
sfAi mat, inasmueh - the relator 10 .
private cilixen, having no interest in
the matter above every other citizen,
he hAs no standing In court, because,
prior 10 iiling hls petition. ne made no
application TO the prosecuting attorney
OF he county. the attorney general.
or other public oficers, to apply to this
court for . mandamus touching the
matter here At issue. In support of
TINS claim he cites People W. Regents.
4 Mich.. 9s; People vs. Inspectors of
State Prisons. 4 Mich, lS7; People vs..
Green, 20 Mleh.. l2l; Police Justice
va Supervisors. 33 Mich, 423.
In People We. Regents the application
was to compel the regents to appoint q
professor Of homeopathy IN medical
department Of the university. The
court expressed its conviction that that
was case in which the action Of the
attorney general would have been
proper and necessary, at the same time
saying: 1--WE DO not intend to say that
case may not arise IN which this court
would allow an individual to file such
= complaint, particularly II the attor-
nh~ vof,,a>A 10
act without good cause"
In People vs.. Inspectors, . private
citizen applied for the writ OF man.
damus To restrain the respondents from
teaching To convIcts In the state pr.son
the mechanical trade of wagon making.
The mani question was disposed of
upon its merits, the court expressing
some doubt whether the reiator had
such clear legal right and special inter-
est rs To entitle nim to make the ap-
plication.
In People vs. Green, the application
WAS TO compel the county clerk and
register Of deeds to keep his Offices At
a certain place, TO which he claimed
the county seat had been lawfully re-
moved. His convenience in having ac
cess To the office Was the ground OF his
BClGOus WM8 uclu tuAt ue U0u
shown no ouch special interest as to au-
thorize him to proceed without appll-
cation TO the proper public officer.
In Police Justice vs. Supervisors, the
application was to compel the allow
ance of claims alleged to be owing
from the county to the city. The city
authorities were OF course the proper
party to institute the proceedings.
T. 10
422, this precise objection was made,
and the court said: I'm the present
case the officer whose duty it usually Is
u enforce the rights OF the state in
this court has, in the performance Of
his Official functions as adviser of the
state officers. placed himself IN an ad-
verse positlon, and appears for the re-
spondents on this application"
The present case comes directly
within that decisiou. The law does
not require unnecessary things to be
done. When the attorney general ap-
pears for respondent it certainly fol-
lows that he 10 adverse to the position
OF the relator, and that an application
on the part OF Inc reiator to him to
commence the proceedings would be
met with noncompliance. This
court, as appears from the authorities
above cited, has taken care to prevent
oficious intcrn,eddling by the use of
this discretionary writ, and at the
samc time has swept away technical
ities where public interests are in
VOWED and prompt action 10 necessary.
We have quite uniformly overruied
this objection In cases OF the latter
class.
The unconstitutionallty of the act is
clear. The county Of saginaw, with
only l6,S39 inhabitants IN excess of the
ratio, 10 divided into two senatorial dis
tricts. ono having 2i,ls9 less than the
ratio, and the other having 23.334 less
than the ratio. There is no basis, con-
sutuuonal or otherwise, for such an
spportio ment. 1t is contemplated by
the constitution that the ratio shall
govern as far as is practical. This is
apparent from the provision that
leach county hereafter organized with
such territory a. may De attached
thereto. shall De entitled 10 q separate
representative when IT has attained q
population equal to . moicty OF the
ratio of representation" The constl-
tuition OF the United States provides
that "the number of representatives
snail not exceed one for every 80, 900,
hut each state shall have at least
one Representative" Under the first
consus. which showed the total number
of free persons with three-tifths Of the
slaves to be 3, sos .39s, congress fixed the
number of representatives. ~ 120, being
I for every 30, 900. In the apportionment.
Massachusetts was entitled to fifteen rep
resentatIves with al excess @! 1858
for winch she WAS gwen an additional
represe ntative. Other states with a
sim.ler large excess were treated like
wise, while those states winch had
small excess received no additional
representation therefor. President
Washington 10y the advise OF Jefferson,
Randolph and Madison. vetoed the
ball a. uncs institutional. giving the
following reasons: First. the constitu-
ton has prescribed that representa-
tlves shall be spportioued among the
several states ocoording to their respec-
sse nc inter. and there 10 no one pro-
portion or devisor which applied to
the respective numbers of the states
will yield the number and . Eftment of
Representatives, proposed by the ball.
secont, the constitution has also pro-
vIded tnst the number of representa-
tsves shalt not exceed one for every
70. 600. which restriction - by the con-
test aud by FAIR and obvious con-
structIon to be applied 10 the separate
add respective numbers OF the state
and the biIl has allotted 10 eight of the
states more than one for every
So,0oo."
A county having an excess OF only
about 0ne-fourth Of the ratio is not, ia
the language OF the constitution.