Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1894-05-17
GERRYM.ANDER CASE.
IT is CALLED UP BEFORE JUDGE
,BOOKWALTER.

issue Joined by the Judges Decision on
the Apportionmcnt of 1898 aud Zines
Ruled Out-Tieiiminary sl,irmishnS of
TIE - snSel on Botu SIDES.
DANrNLG. HIS, May l5.-The case
brought by the Republicans to nulify the
apportionmcnt Of this state into legisla-
tive district, by the last Democratic lugi,-
lative came UP before Judge Boollwalter
in court here according to appointment.
In spite OF the Importance OF the casc--it
having really national character-it did
not attract a great number OF people to
the circuit court when it came up. There
was a circus in town. and this rival at
traction proved much stronger one for
the people of Danville, and drew the
crowd. Those who were present were
mostly politicians and attorneys interested
in the case, and among these were james
ii. Clark, chairman of the state Repub-
lican central committee; ax-Attorncy Gen
eral George Hunt, in charge of the prose-
custom of the case for the Republicans;
Attorney General Moloney and D.los p.
Phelps counsel for the defense; Thomas
Carson, and most of the Vermlion cOun-
ty politicians.
The Amended Answer offered.
The ease Is entitled James L. Fletcher
vs. Walter c. Tuttlc. As soon as it was
called the amended answer agreed upon
by the Democratic counsel was offered
for fling. Kimbrough, who spoke, said
that the amended answer was more par
ticuar and specific than the original
answer prepared for Defendant futile by
States Attorney Wilson. 1t also raised
the question of jurisdiction of the court
and set forth that Complainant Fletcher
did not have such II particular and per
sona interest in the case as would justify
him in bringing the suit. Mr.. kimbrough
closed his argument with the remark that
the Democrats ought to have some say
about how the pleadings should be shaped,
and not leave that important matter
wholly to the Republicans, as is done in
the original bill and original answer, both
prepared by Republicans.
Some Explanatory Statements.
Which calls for explanation. The de-
PENDANT in the case is County Clerk Tut
tie, and his special counsel is ). q. Wilson,
the Republican states attorney here VIII
son was the author of the first answer,
and he being a Republican naturally the
Democratic managers i'll the state do not
care to trust him with the case. Hence
the amended answer. FletChcris the pros
pective Republican legislative candidate.
The amended answer differs from the
answer III that it alleges that Cook county
was divided into districts on the basis of
"a, GOO, the same ratio AZ the remainder of
the state. The original answer admits
that Cook county was divided into districts
on the basis of $4,000
Want to Bring Up u Zig Question.
Attorney Hunt in obiecting to the
amended answer said the issue had long
since been closed and that Complainant
Fletcher had no notice that the Democrats
intended to present an answer mt this
time. For these reasons he asked the
court to overrule the motion. Before pass
ing on the motion Judge Bookwalter
requested the attorneys to read the bill,
answer and amended answer. After the
reading Judge Bookwalter asked kim
brough wherein he claimed it different
from the original answer. In reply kim
brourh said:
I'VE deny that Mr.. Fletcher has an es-
pecial and personal interest in the case.
HIS Is Nulllltttu Ill tlle llTSu answer. we
also wish to raise by this answer the valid
ity of the apportionment acts of 1882 and
1871. In the amended answer we deny
that Cook county is divided on n different
basis from the rest of the state
The Attorneys Naturally Differ.
Here Calhoun, for complainant spoke
up and said: Before the court makes an
entry we desire to be heard. We under
stand that the defendant, futile, did not
prepare this amended answer and has no
desire to file it.
"Ilc signed his name to il ;" said Kim
brough, "by his attorney, : q. Wilson.
Here the court took II hand and said:
"Does the amended answer raise any new
question of factY'
To this question the attorneys could not
agree on IN answer The Democrats said
no, while Calhoun earnestly insisted that
1t raised the question Of fact regarding the
validity of the acts of lSS2 and 1871, which
had no proper place in this case.