The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-03-01

recognized such division az righttully
made, the courts must respect and up
hold such discrimination, because it was
question for the legislative and execu-
tive branches of the government, and
not question for the court.
A Legislative sppOrtionment act of
Colorado omitted Dolores county, and
accorded il no representation. The valid
ity of the laws enacted by the Legislature
elected under such apportionm0nt act
was drawn in question. The court de-
Clined to pass upon the contention
raised, because, as is said in Hughes o..
FELTON,, II Col:
A determination Of the main PROPOSE
tion contended for involves decision Of
questions which this court has no su.
thOrity to decide, and which it is pro.
hibite6 from deciding by the express
provision Of the constitution lodging such
power elsewhere.
The members Of the legislature thus
aHgailed met at the time and place pro-
Vided by law, and then and there organ
lZed the two houses in the manner
provided by law. In doing this, each
house necessarily judged Of the election
and qualifications Of its members. The
two houses thus organized recognized
each other Rs component part Of the
Legislature Of the state, and they re-
ceivod full recognition az such by the
executive branch Of the government.
In Indiana a dispute arose as to who
was the proper presiding officer Of the
senate. The court refused to determine
the question upon the ground that it was
political, and related solely to the organ.
ization and government Of that body. 1
commend the case and the several opin-
ions ofsthe judges to your honor's care.
full consideration. It is the case Of Rob
ertson %. The State, 100 Ind, also in 10
N. E. Rep.
In Gormley us. Taylor, "A Ga, the va
Hdity Of legislative session was drawn
in question. The court, as all courts
have ever done, followed the decision Of
the tribunal to which the question prop.
erly belonged, and held the session valid
II remarks in one part Of it's opinion:
We are bound, it is true, to declare
laws NOT In conformity to the constitu-
tion void; but there is plain distinction
between an act Of the Legislature and
session Of the legislature. It seems to
me very dangerous thing, and one not
contemplated by the constitution, for
one branch OF the government to sit in
Judgment upon the legality OF another.
The constitution expressly clothes each
house with power to judge Of the quail
hcAtiong OF itS members. And If they
may do this a. to each member, it would
seem to follow that they may do it OF the
whole combined. Is this court to step
in and scan Its daily proceedings, watch
its journals, and sit as q censor upon it's
doings? We are compelled to say
whether any separate act passed by It
conforms to the constitution; but
whether the body itself is in session at
the proper time seems to me to be left to
the conscience and judgment of the
body itself.
Said tho court elsewhere in the opin-
ion: "The power in all courts to declare
acts void is no longer matter Of judi
ciSl controversy. But THE POWER TO RE-
VIEW AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE INvoLv-
ING A POLITICAL QUEsT1oN-NoT LAW,
BUT JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED BY ITSELF
UPON IT'S OWN COMPETENCY TO MAKE
LAWS NOT AN APPELLATE JURISDICTION,
NOR Is 1T AN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION"
This decision was subsequently re-