Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-10-15
SATURDAY. OCTOBER IS. 1892
The New York Apportionment.

OF course We were not surprised TO learn
that the Court Of Appeals of New York
State bad. as stated in our issue Of yester-
day, decided that the apportionment OF
representation made by the Legislature OF
that State at ITS last session was not upcon-
stitptional. We had kept our readers
pretty well posted on the points involved,
and we rejoice with them and with all
other good Democrats that the highest
court of that great State did not deem 1t
compatible with its duty to undertake to
engage in legislation. For, as we have
several times shown, if the courts can set
aside one apportionment and order or
compel another one to be made. they are in
effect clothed with power to make the reap
portionment themselves. and thus the pro-
vision of the State Constitution requiring
the Legislature TO do the work would be
rendered of no effect. The opinion OF the
Court OF Appeals is not as decided as we
would have been pleased to find 1t. but
the force and meaning and tendency OF
the decision are emphasized by the fact
that one of the assembly districts formed
by the reapportioning Legislature contains
q population Of say 10000. whilst another
contains only shy $1,000. These are not
the exact figures. but they approximate
accuracy. They speak in language that
cannot be misunderstood. They assure
us that the judicial department of the
great Empire State will not attempt to
usurp the functions of the legislative de-
partment. at least so long as the Democrats
rule the State.
We have wondered at the little impor-
lance which in other States seemed TO be
attached to the case under consideration;
for confusion worse confounded would
have resulted from q contrary decision.
The courts OF all the States might have
become entangled in the meshes of a de-
cision which ought never TO have been
made, and even the Supreme Court OF the
United States might have deemedi it obliga-
tory upon il under such circumstances to
have assumed Jurisdiction and decided
what the law of the land was.
BY the way. let us repeat here that the
Michigan case now pending IN the Su-
preme Court of the United States is not
ease of reapportlonment,b but case OF dis
frictin1. IL We are asked to define the
difference we say that the legislatures of
New York and other States are required
by the constitutions of those States to re-
apportion representation, whereas the
burthen of the contention in the Michigan
districting case Is that the Legislature was
not authorized by the Constitution to dis
trict the State for the election of electors
Of President and Yice-President of the
United States.
We have said that there Is one feature of
the opinion of the Court of Appeals which
seems TO be Objectionable. II is as fol-
lows:
ave think that the courts have no power In
such case 10 review the exercise OF discretion
entrusted TO the Legislature by the Constitution
unless 1t Is plainly and grossly abused. The ex-
precision as nearly as may be- when used In the
Constitution with reference to the subject, does
not mean as nearly rs a mathematical process
ran be followed. Its a direction addressed 20
the Legislature In the way OF general state
ment Of the principles upon which the sppor-
tionmcnt shall be made. We do not intimate
that In no case could the action OF the Legisla-
ture be reviewed by the courts. Cases may easily
be imagined where TIE action OF that body
would be 80 gross violation OF the Constitution
as TO demand a review"
This language will not escape the eyes
Of the Supreme Court of the United
States, and may go as far IN the way of
consolidating all power in the hands of
the judiciary as that court will be willing
10 go--at least at present; for usurpa-
fion comes with stealthy tread. Posi-
bly, the New York case may become the
ruling case