Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-02-19

having equal population, and com.
munity of local interests.
Mere statement of the question shows il
to be judicial, not political. In Its broad
est sense it is, has this court rightful au
thority to determine whether the leglsla
ture has exceeded the limits expressly
imposed by the constitution upon the
exercise of its powers? As we have al
ready shown well defined Limitations are
imposed by the constitution upon that
power. They were imposed solely for the
purpose of confning the Legislature with
in them. Whether, in given case it has
acted within them is purely
judicial question for the courts
to determine and not the legislature. Sc
completely is this Judicial question that
courts are justified in interfering only to
determine whether the Legislature has
acted within its constitutional limits, OF
as said by Judge Cooley, in his Constitu-
tional Limitations, page LOG:
SIT is only where they (the courts find
that the Legislature mas failed to keep
within It's constitutional limits, that they
are at liberty to disregard its acton and
it doing SO, they only do what every pri-
vate citizen may do in respect to mandates
of the courts, when the judges assume to
act and to render judgments or DEGREES
without jurisdiction,
Continuing, Col. Bird said that if the
constitution entrusted to the Legislature
the general, unrestricted power TO appor-
ton, if it had stopped with the language
"the Legislature shall apportion and dis,
trict anew the members of the senate and
assembly, 1t might, with more force,
perhaps, be contended that the power was
purely political one, confded exclusively
to the discretion of the legislature. But
when the constitution restricts the power
it is not matter Of discretion with the
Legislature whether it will act within the
restrictions or not. So long as it does act
within them, it may be exercising purely
political and discretionary power, and the
tOuI 10 hSJ HUI IJlllCI Tvs ttCG4Ou W1Uulu
those limits. But at once it oversteps
those bounds, it has not only no discretion
to exercise, but no power to act at all.
And the courts, in voiding its act, do not
interfere with its right to exercise its dis
erection or political power where it has the
right to exercise either or both, but deter
mine onl y that it had passed t. limits
where it was entitled to exercise either
Such determination involves only a
question of law, and the exer-
else of strictly judicial power
The power to form cities, towns and
counties, and to fix and alter their boun-
diaries, is essentially Legislative and po-
lltical power. The courts cannot exercise
it, neither can they be authorized by the
legislature to exercise it. But when ex-
exercised by the legislature the court may
determine whether it has exceeded It's
powers.
The constitutions Of Massachusetts and
New York provide for decennial appor-
tionments after each federal enumerati on
They also contain express prohibitions
against altering legislative districts once
formed until the next enumeration. The
courts of those states have held that they
will enforce this time limitation even tc
the extent of holding Invalid law passed
to change the boundaries of towns, undes
conceded legislative authority, because i,
directly altered sach districts.
Courts have also taken jurisdiction &c
determine whether apportionment acts
exceed constitutional limitations otherwise
than as to time of passage, and citations
were made to prove the fact
Col. Bird admitted that the Legislature
while acting within the limits prescribed
by the constitution is not answerabie to
this court. But the moment it steps out
side OF those limitations, then, as held in
the above case, they are answerable TO this
count as we'll as to the people As held in
the Ohio case, this court has rightfu
authority to hear and determine the
question whether, in making an appor.
tionment the limitations of the statute
have been observed, and if there has been
disregard of those limitations, then, so tc
decide and hold the apportionment void
Ex-senator Spooner's Views.
Ex-senator John c. Spooner, also ap.
pearing for the reIator, spoke till ad
journment, at $50. He remarked in open.
ing that this court seems to have settled
that this case is one of great public CON
Germ by the brief opinion filed upon grant
ing the application of the attorney general
for leave to bring suit. If there were a
doubt about it, however, it would be re-
moved by reference to the long line of de-
cisions of this court, as to what constitutes
In its view a matter publici juris, warrant
ing the exercise of its original jurisdiction
In mandamus, quo warranto, injunction,
habeas corpus and the like, collated in the
brief of the lamented Judge Dixon in
Attorney General vs. The City of Eau
Claire, PIP. 407, 408.
Senator Sp- me- argued that the objec
ton that the cause must fail for want oil
sufficient interest in tn county of Adams
or its district attorney, 5. W. Pierce, &c
entitle it to proceed, is clearly untenable.
In suits on the relation of private parties
10 secure the enforcement of private
right or the redress of private wrong, tbe