The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-05-05
NEW IDAHO COUNTIES
Constitutionality OF the Acts Creating
Bannock County Affirmed.
The Supreme Court Settles yexed CUES
ton Regarding the Countles of Ban
mock and Fremont.

BOISE, Idaho, May 4.-[Special. 1.-The
supreme court today affirmed the consti-
nationality OF the acts creating the coun-
ties of Bannock and Fremont out of por-
tions OF Bingham. The cases were in the
nature of mandamus proceedings to COM
pei the treasurer of Bingham to pay over
certain school moneys to the treasurers Of
the new counties. In resisting the action
the attorney for Bingham county set up
three leading points in support OF the
claim that the acts We're unconstitutional.
The first was that they were in the nature
of special legislation prohibited by the
constitution. The court says on this
point:
The constitution does not prohibit the crea-
ton of new counties by the legislature. The
powerof the legislature TO create new counties
is recognized in section two and four. article
XVIII of the constitution Section six, article
eight of the constitution provides that the leg
islature shall by general and uniform laws pro-
vide for the election biennially in each Of the
several counties ofthe state. the county officers
to fill the county of1ices provided for in said
section. The legislature has complied with
that provision and places Bannock county un-
der the general and uniform laws provided for
the biennial election OF county officers and as
no biennial election would OCCUR in this state
pr1Or TO the lGil OF loS4J Inc legislature Is not
prohibited by the constitution from making
provisions for the appointment of the county
officers OF said county by the governor to hold
their offices until the first biennial election af
ter the creation of said county.
The second point was that no provision
had been made for representation for the
new counties in the legislature. In pass
ing upon this point, the court says:
Some departure, however. is made from said
representation by the progiso of section a,
article III of the constitution which provides
that each county shall have at least one repre-
sentative in all future apportiOnments. But this
does not change the basis Of representation
from the voting population to the county itself
The voting population was the basis OF repre-
sentation under the constitutional apportion
ment, not the. county as county.
Article XIX of the constitution fixes the
representative districts and declares the repre-
sentation that each district as entitled under
the same, is changed as provided by law. The
| legislature may enact an Hpportionment law
| whenever it may deem proper to Go so, but I'M
til the legislature passes an apportionmeDt law
| the constitutional apportionment stands under
the provlsO of Article III OF the constitution
| that each county in existence at the date Of the
enactment of an apportonment law is entitled
TO one representative at least.
Continuing, the court finds that the
representative district as fixed by consti-
tutional apportionment, no voted ap-
portionment law having since been en-
acted, remains the same, ard that all
electors within its boundaries shall par
ticipate jointly in the election of the
number Of representatives provided for.
| The same decision is arrived at with re-
spect to senatorial districts.
| This decision virtually settles the ques-
ton of contesting the legality of the crea-
ton OF Canyon county. 1t also disposes
OF subject, which. because OF failure
of the legislature to pass new apportion-
ment promised to give trouble next year.
There has been wide difference of opin-
ion as to how new counties should parti-
cipate In legislative election, but the
court has disposed OF all doubts surround
ing the subjects.