Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1895-01-24
Is Judge Winslow a Non
Partisan Judge?

Is he non-partisan?
That he is 4 Democrat we all know.
The question we put, however, does
not relate to his politics. 1t may be
better put thus: Has he upon the
bench, shown himself to be non-par-
tisan Judge? Let indisputable facts
give answer to the question.
In March 81, of the five judges Of the
supreme court, Cole, Lyon, Cassoday
and Taylor were republicans and Orton
was a democrat. On April 3rd, 1891,
Judge Taylor died, and Gov. Peck on
the 4th day of May following appointed
Judge Winslow to succeed him In
January, 1892, the Hon. S. L. Pinney,
democrat who had been elected to
succeed Judge Cole in April, 1891,
took his seat upon the bench, so that in
January, 1892, the court was composed
of three democrats and two republi-
cans. In April, 1892, by the courtesy
of republicans, Judge Winslow was
elected without opposition for the I'M
expired term of Judge Taylor, that is.
until January, 1896 In 1891, under
the dictatorship of Boss Wall, the leg
islature with the approval of Gov.
Peck. passed the first infamous gerry
mander act. which violated the consti-
tuition of the state by taking parts Of
counties and patching them together
to form assembly and senatorial dis
tricts, and by making the number of
inhabitants of the different districts
vary greatly, to subserve grossly par
tisan purposes. On March 22d, 1892,
the supreme court declared this APP
portioDment act void. And, as the
dates above given show, it was shortly
after the announcement of this decis-
ion that Judge Winslow was elected
Gov. Peck called the legislature to-
gether in special session, to frame a
new apportionment law. The legisla-
ture met in June, with Boss Wall in
command, and passed the second ger
rymander act, which was approved by
Gov. Peck on July 1st, 1892. 1t re-
spected county lines, but in its appor-
tionments was UNANIMOUSLY partisan.
1t formed one democratic assembly
district with only 1925 inhabitants,
and formed a republican assembly dis
trict with 25. III inhabitants. Itmade
n democratic senatorial district with
30,7 inhabitants, and it shaped one
republican senatorial district so as to
include $685. inhabitants, and in the
language of Judge Cassoday, there
were "other Irregularities, though less
glaring, yet no less repugnant to the
constitution, running through the
whole act
Judge orion, when the supreme
court set aside the first gorrymander
act. in his opinion said: This appor-
tionment act violates and destroys one
of the most sacred rights and privileges
OF he people Of this state, guaranteed
to them by the ordinance of 1887 and
the constitution. and that is EQUAL
representation in the legislature'
This also is n matter of the highest
public interest and concern, to give
this court jurisdiction in this case.
If the remedy for these great pubic
wrongs cannot be found in this court,
it exists nowhere.
The second gerrymander act was
great public wrong, in the particular
set forth by Judge Orion, aud the SUI
preme court was asked to set aside
this wrong. The act came before that
court for consideration and determine
ton, at the August term. 1892, and on
September 9th the court decided that
it was void because il violated the
provision Of the constitution, which
requires the Legislature in forming as
sembly and senatorial districts to 10 so
"accordias e he number Of irbabi-
tants." But the decision was not
unanimous. 1t was the decision Of
four of the judges, two 0Lyon and
Cassoday) being republicans and two
(Orton and Pinney) democrats. Judge
Winslow dissented. holding in the face
of the constitution that this apportion-
ment act ought to stand in spite of its
fragrant unfairness. That Judge Wins
lows dissent was due to party con-
siderations seemed evident. That was
not so long ago as to make il imperti-
nent now to inquire: Is Judge Win
slow a non-partisan iudgeP