St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-10-09
The Dissenting Judge in the
Apportionment Case Files
His Decision.
A Private Citizen Has No
Power to Redress Public
Wrongs.
Impossible to Approach Abso-
lutte Numerical Equality
in Districts.
Pennsylvania Democrats
Promptly Nail the Repub-
liean ROorbaeh.

MADISON, Wis.,, Oct. S.-JuStice John
B. Winslow today filed his opinion, in
which he records his reasons for dis
senting from his four colleagues on the
supreme benck, by whose decision the
legislative apportionment act was re-
Gently declared void. 1t is a strong
presentation of his side of the
case and is in opposition with
the majority of both the general points.
1t was necessarily prepared hastily,
and Judge Winslow calls attention to
this fact. A long, earnest and powerful
argument against it are the jurisdic-
tional features, the judge saying on this
point:
THE action is an action in equity for
an injunction attempted to be brought
by the mere relation of a private citizen
to redress purely public wrong Gf, in
fact there be any Wrong), without the
presence of the attorney general. The
relator suffers no individual wrong and
he assumes to
Maintain an Action
on behalf of the people who have never
placed in his hands any commission for
that purpose. That private citizen
ever possessed any such power to take
upon himself the task of redreSSing the
wrongs of the public in an action for an
injunction at least under the rendering
OF this decision, l must Strenuously
deny.
lit is claimed that because, by our
| constitution, the writ of injunction has
been declared partly claSSed with the
| purely free prerOgative common law
writs like mandamuS quo Warranto, etc.,
and has thus acquired the nature OF a
prerogative, some change has neceSSa-
| rily taken place in the manner OF its use.
| As to the correctness of that decision L
| have no doubt, but that the question is
not before US now, the controlling ques-
ton in this case is whether the law Is
unconstitutional because of the dis
patty of the population between the
districts formed by it.
"The law passed by the legislative
! branch of the government, and approved
! by the executive, is presumed to be
constitutional; every iutendnent is in
its favor. 1t is not to be lightly set
aside; it
| Should BE Sustained
unless it is clearly in violation of the
constitution, and it is frequently said
that its unconstitutionality should ap-
pear beyond all reasonable doubt.
"These are fundamental principles. l
approach the consideration of this ques-
ton, therefore, feeling that the law
should be sustained if possible. and the
feeling is the stronger because de-
cision adverse to the law declares uncon-
stitutional every previous apportion-
ment since 1854, and brands every
legislature that ever assembled
in the state as merely a de facto legis-
lature, for it is fact that all previous
apportionmentS contain greater relative
differences in population than the one
before US. One would naturally desire
to be very sure of his ground before an
nouncing such a conclusion"
The decision then takes up the consti
tutlonal requirements alleged to have
been violated, holding that, while the
apportionment should be made accord
ing to population, the constitutional re
uuirements that districts shall consis
of contiguous territory, and that NJ
county town or ward shall be broken
render impossible anything approach
ing absolute numerical equality in dis
| trictS