Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1892-10-13
THE OPINION ON FILE.
Formal Decision in the Reapportion-
ment Case.

Formal Decision in the Reapportion-
ment Case.
MADISON, Wis, Oct. THE opinion
of Justice Cassoday, of the supreme
court, in the gerrymander case was
filed at 2:20 this afternoon.
In his opinion the Justlce says the
court cannot p lay fast and loose with
the subject Of jurisdiction. It either
has it absolutely, whenever proper
cause is presented, or else it has not
got it at all.
If it has Jurisdiction in such case it
is because it has been conferred on the
court by the people in their sovereign
capacity, in the clause of the organic
law quoted.
If such jurisdiction is thereby vested
in the court, as must be conceded by
all, then, it would seem idle to deny the
jurisdiction in such action, mere' y be-
cause the attorney-generaI has refused
to cooperate or consent.
The statute provides that it shall be
his duty to appear for, the, state
and prosecute or. defend all
actions and proceedings, civil OF
which the state should be interested
as a party, and all such civil cases as
may be sent or remanded by that court
to any circuit court.
1t is suggested that the clause OF
the statute gives to the COVER
nor sort of prerogative con-
troll over the conduct of the
encouragement. But manifestly such
control could not be exercised in oppo-
sition to the duties imposed by the leg
islature. Besides, the purpose Of
the clause of the statute IN
question was to impose otherwise indie
Unable duties upon the attorney-gen-
eral and not to enlarge the powers of
The governor.
Whatever provocative powers the
governor may have they can only be
such as are incident to his office and in
H ion w N mum must by hold the th sanS thu
refusal of the attorney-general to
bring or consent to the bringing of the
suit did not prevent this court from
rightfully taking jurisdiction of the
same, upon the relation of private
citizen in the name of the state.
This ruling relieves any attorney-gen-
eral from the charge Of preventing
suit for an alleged invasion of the SOW
ereignity in the state or the franchi ses
and liberties of the people.
The present Acknowledgement certain
ly has the right to exercise the judg-
ment and discretion vested in him by
law in the prosecution of suits in this
court as we'll as other courts.
1t is contended that this is a mere
political action to affect a political OBJ
ject," and therefore cannot be main
tanned. We may not understand whay
is here meant by political action.
We readily perceive that the
determination of the action may have a
political effect, and in that sense may eff
feet political object, but that would
termined political instead of a judicial
The determination by the court Of
the validity of an action of the legisla-
ture in organizing county, town
or municipality, or establishing
a new form of town and county govern
ment would undoubtedly have a polit-
ical effect; but no lawyer, at this date,
would contend that the question deter
mined was therefore political and judic-
ial.
By each of the three coordinate
branches of government-legislative,
executive and judicial-keeping strictly
within the scope of powers conferred
upon it by the constitution, harmony
will prevail and the government will be
respected.
Certainly this court will now, as here
totore, scrupulously refrain from exer-
cising any doubtful power, much less
transcending the limit of it's power.
The answer admits all the material
allegations of the complaint. yet alleges
that the legislature had discretionary
power to apportion and redistrict
the state anew, as they did;
but such considerations cannot
or fxv Il o~.l
standards of population fixed in the
Even assuming that the inequality of
presentation under the last apportion-
ment acts is no greater than under the
former apportionment acts, still the
fact ia irrelevant and immaterial to
the consideration of this case.
1t was because the trainers of the
constitution were unwilling to vest
discretionary and unlimited powers
alluded to in the legislature that they
prescribed the specific methods, re-
strictions and limitations upon the ex-
ercise of such powers.
All admit that the several conditions
are absolutely binding upon the legisIa-
ture, and that that body has no power,
much less discretion, to dispense with
any one of them.
The vice which seems to run through
the act in question is in assuming
that the only limit to the dis
cretionary power of the legislature
is in the major and minor fractions of
the unit of representation.
The constitutional requirements are
plain and unambiguous, and hence are
not regarded as abrogated by any num-
Der of legislative violations of them
The constitution gives no warrant to
any such fictitious standard, and will
bear no such latltudinous construction.
Ii, as claimed, there never has been
any such equal apportionment of the
state, then there certainly has
never been any legislative con-
structIon; for to give any effect to
such construction the words of the con-
stitution must be ambiguous and capa-