Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-01-06
FRIDAY. ........ JANUARY G. 1893.
The Courts and Reapportioument.

The Courts and Reapportionment'
We have maintained in every case in
which any court in any State has under
taken 10 review and pass upon the validi-
" OF law reapportioning representation
in q State Legislature that such court had
exercised jurisdiction which 1t did not
possess. or. in other words, had usurped
jurisdiction. We have done so without
regard 10 the political or party complexion
Of the judges who have presumed thus TO
set ut naught that plain provision OF the
several State constitutions which declares
that 1.-THE legislative. executive. and Judi
cial departments shall be separate and dis
tinct." Our contention has been that the
duty thus imposed upon the Legislature
could be performed only by the Legisla-
ture, that body exercising ITS own discre-
ton In the matter, and its action IN such
cases not being subject TO review by any
member OF the judiciary department.
In other words. there is no divided re-
sponsibility. The Legislature, and the
Legislature only. can do this work.
The reader will no doubt reoollect that
IN Indiana some months ago the Republi-
can Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction
in an apportionment case and undertook
10 instruct the Legislature IN the discharge
of its duties. That court decided that a
certain Teapportionment act was unconstl-
tutional. But new Supreme Judges have
now come into Office. and tho telegraph
told us Wednesday that the Attorney Gen
oral OF the State had filed petition ask
49,, a in a.
tition will come before the new court.
But upon what ground does the Attor-
noy-General base his petition for rehear-
sing? We answer. upon ground from
which he cannot rightfully be removed.
Ue alleges that the court erred in holding
that II had jurisdiction of matters which
are left in the discretion Of the Legislature
by the Constitution. He further alleges
that the passage Of an apportionment law
by the Legislature sis an act which the
court cannot review nor overturn without
clearly infringing upon the functions OF
department of the State government of
equal authority with itself"
There seems TO be some obstacle IN the
way Of an early decision Of the case in
question. Some sort of slxty-day rule "
is spoken OF o. such obstacle. But in time
the case will no doubt DO reheard and re.
decided.
The Acknowledgement has certainly
based his petition upon tenable ground, If
there DO any such ground. as we contend
there is. As we have heretofore said, the
, Supreme Court Of Appeals OF Virginia has
3ust as much right to pass upon law re-
ppportIonipg representation In the General
Assembly Of this State as the Supreme
Court of Indiana had TO pass upon law
passed 10y the Legislature of that State
Teapportioning representation IN the Gene
sal Assembly Of Indiana. And IL would
puzzle n Philadelphia lawyer to tell what
would result if the national House of
Representatives should treat such de-
cision of the Virginia Court of Appeals
with contempt and seat the members of
the House of Representatives who had
been elected under the law passed by the
Virginia General Assembly.
We await tho decision in the Indiana
case with full confidence that however IT
may result all the courts of the country
will eventually come TO a right conclusion
on the one highly-important point in
volved in that case.