Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-09-29
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 30. 1892
UsnrnatiOn.

Ithas become almost fashion for the
courts TO assume jurisdiction in spportion-
ment cases. We reported yesterday an
other one-this one IN Wisconsin. The
Supreme Court at Madison claims that 1t
has jurisdiction in the case, notwithstand-
ing the demurrer of Senator Villas. and
gives the defence until Friday next to an
swer the bill of the plaintiff. We take it
for granted from the fact that Senator
Villas appeared for the defence that there
Is involved In the case question OF poll
tics, or of advantage 10 one or the other OF
the two great parties. We have no doubt
that the Legislature Of Wisconsin had full
jurisdiction over all legislative reappor-
was done that work could run the gaunt-
let Of all the oourts. and not one of them
could righfully undo it, or modify or
amend il, or require the Legislature TO do
90.
Why. look how such case would appear
in the Supreme Court Of the United States.
The Federal Constitution provides that
representatives in the national House of
Representatives shall be apportioned
among the several States which may be
included within the Union according 10
their respective numbers, &c. Well. Con-
gress claims and exercises the power to
spportion representatives among the seve-
raj States. That body made the appor-
tionment under the operation of which
Mr.. CLEVELAND will be elected President
of the United States. But suppose that
"a thn Of han
passed some mischiefmaker shall apply 10
the Supreme Court of the United States to
set aside the respportionment under which
The electors of President and Vice-Presi-
lent OF the United States will have been
elected. What thenp Electors are chosen
IS the laws of the several States
provide they shall be chosen; but
the number of presidential electors
TO which each State is entitled is fixed
by Congress when this body reapportions
representatives among the several States.
Virginia. for example. has twelve electoral
votes because she has two senators and
ten representatives. Congress decided
that she should have ten representatives.
She could just rs we'll have had twelve
representatives or only eight. Sup
pose Congress had allowed her only six,
would the Supreme Court of the United
States have had the power and the right
to set ASIDE that spportionment on the
ground that IL was unconstitutional OF for
any other reason? Why, surely not.
Surely the duty Of apportioning represen-
tatives In the national House of Repre-
sentstives was by the fathers entrusted to
the two houses of Congress, and cannot
be performed by any other body of men,
whether judges or legislators.
II we are right in the position we have
thus assumed the Supreme Court of Wis
consin usurped jurisdiction it did not
possess when it undertook to pass upon
the constitutionslity of the reapportion-
mont made by he last Legislature of that
State. So as to all the States in which re-
apportionment cases have been heard and
decided. including, of course. the case or
cases in New York State.
costa prinoipi,s. Withstand the begin
nings" Do not allow the courts to usurp
the functions of the legislatures. Do
not allow the courts to assume that they
are wiser than all governors and all legis-
latures. Judge-made law is often good
law. But we do not need it in the United
States. Let us keep the legislative, execu-
tive. and judicial departments Of the gov
eminent within their proper spheres. So
shall we preserve the free institutions be-
queathed to US by the fathers.