Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-03-25
THE APPORTI9NMENT
Continued from third page.

the act is not assaulted by this proceeding,
nor Is the constitutional province of that
equal and co ordinate depar' ment OF the
government Invaded. Tue law Itself is
the only Object of JUDICIAL inquiry, anu its
cHrstltutionality is the only question to be
decided. The particulars In which the
constitution has been violated by this act
will be more fully considered by my
brethren. II Is proper to say that perfect
exacness IN the appor, comment acc riding
to the number of lrhaht;auts, is neither
| required nor possible. Blu there should be
as close an approximate "a to exlctaess as
| possible, and IalS Is tho uImost
limit for the exercise of Legislative discre-
| ton. II, as IN TINS case, lnere Is such a
wide and bold depar IRE FROM this cousti-
tuuonai rule, Jhao 1t cannot possibly be
! justified by the exercise of any Judgment
or dIscIe lon, ana that evinces an inten-
| ton on tie part of the legislature to ut
| terly ignore AMI disregard the rule of the
| constitution, IN OruUr To pro note some
other object than constitutional appur.
| tioument then the conclusion is inevitable
| that the legislature did not u.s. any Judy
ment or discretion whatever. The above
| disparity In the number of inhabitants
in the Legislative districts is so
great that it cannot be overlooked
! as mere careless discrepancies, or slight
errors in calculation. The differences are
/ too material, great and glaring, and de
! prive too many of the people of the state
| Legislative. The legislature that passed
| of all representation in The legislature, to
| be allowed to pass as mere errors of judg-
ment. They bear upon their face the in
| trlnsic evidence that no judgment or dis
CretIOn WAS exercised, and that they were
made Intentionally and willfuily for some
improper parpOse, or for some private end
foreign to constitutional duty and obiga
ton. 1t is hot an 'apportionment"
IN any sense of the word.
1t is direct and palpable
violation of the constitution The break
ing up of the lines and boundaries of
counties by the new assembly districts
must have been Intentional 1t was not
necessary III a single instance, and thers
is no possible margin for the exercise of
any Legislative discretion. This is a most
important restriction on the power of the
Legislature to make an apportionment.
The people have a commendab)h pride in
their own counties, and have more or less
a common feeling and interests, and
participate together in all their
county affairs. They have d right
to be represented 10y their
own members OF the legislature, and the
members themselves can better represent
them, and promote and protect their in
tereStS. They know each other AMI have
close relations with each other These
considerations, though common, must not
be underated, or overlooked When these
restrictions were under discussion in the
constltu I2nai convention, they were
supported and adopted upon the
express ground, that they would
prevent the legislature from gerry
Wandering the state. These restrictions
were regarded by the vry able members
Of the convention us absolutely necessary
to secure to the people that sacred right
OF free people, Of CqII. representation
in the Legislature. The right of the people
to make their own laws through their
own representatives,, so Fundamental in,
and essential 70. Il free government, the
convention sought to guard by these re-
striCtions. That most dangerous doctrine,
that these and other restrictions upon the
power of the legislature are merely
declaratory and not mandatory, should not
be encouraged even to the extent of dis
cussing the question. The convention in
making a constitution had higher duty
to perform than to give the Legislature adj
vice. Judge Cooley, in his great work on
Constitutional Limitations, says: 1.-The
courts tread upon very dangerous ground
when they venture to apply the rules
which distinguish between mandatory and
directory statutes to the provisions of the
constitution.
We have attempted to show that this
court has jurisdiction Of the subject mat
Ter of this action to declare the said
apportionment act unconstitutional and
VOID, and to Join the secretary Of state
from giving the notices Of the election
for members of the senate and assembly
under the same. We hold, therefore,
according to the complaint, lst, that the
court has jurisdiction of the subject
matter of this action; ID, that
+ it has the judicial power to
declare said aportionment act unconsti-
tutioDal, and to set it aside ~ absolute
ly void; 3rd that the duty of the secre-
tary of stale in giving out notices
of election is purely ministerial, and
may be controlled and restrained by in
junction; 4th that the apPortiOnment
act is like any other act of tho legisla-
ture, and is passed by the legislature in
the exercise of It's legislative power
5th, that the restrictions Oh the
power of the legislature to MAZE an
apportionment found in sections 3, q and
5, of article 4, of the constitution, are
mandatory and imperative, and ara not
subject to legislative discretion; 9th, that
said apportionment act is in conflict with
these restrictions, and in violation of the
constitution, and is therefore void.