The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-05-16
b expressed their will in the Constitution
and appointed judicial tribunals 10 enforce

- expressed their will in the Constitution
and appointed judicial tribunals to enforce
The subject of acauiescence in unconsti-
tutionai apportionmenI statutes as affecting
the right OF an elector 10 have the Vabilty
OF the act determined was considered Dy the
Supreme Court OF New Jersey in state We;
WrlgatsOn. supra, where IL was cialmeu
that particular method OF apporuonment
had been acquieSced In ever since the adop-
ton of the Constitution by all parts OF the
state government and by the people ana
that therefore IL was longer subject 10
question But 1t was held BY the court that
this doctrine had no application Whatever
in case where IL appeared that the man
dates OF the Constitution mad not been
obeyed. The court said: The Constitution
contains the permanent will OF che people
IL is paramount TO the power OF the Legis-
Iature and can be revoked or altered only
By the power which created IT, Popular
government can be maintained only by up
holding the Constitution at all times and on
all occasions, as II was when 1t came from
the hands OF the people, by whose nat II
of government. 10 abide until altered by the
authority which created IT. To adopt the
language OF Chief Justice Bronson. in Oak
ley vs.. Aspinwall, y. Y, 55S: There IS
always some plausible reason for the latitud-
marian constructions which are resorted to
for the purpose of acquiring power-some
evil 10 be avoided, or some good to be at
tanned by pushing the powers OF the govern
ment beyond their legitimate boundary. IL
Is oy yielding TO sueh influences that Sonsti-
tutions are gradually undermined and final
~ overthrown. one step taken by
the Legislature or the judiciary in charging
the powers OF the government opens the
door for another, which viii be sure 10 fol-
low; and so the process goes on until all
respect for the fundamental law Is lost, and
the powers OF the government are Just what
those in authority please to call them
Within the domain OF construction there Is
even for a diversity of opinion: but when
the meaning of the Constitution, Interpreters
BY It's letter and in its spirit Is ascertained,
extraneous considerations are or no aVat.
In the process OF construction long usage
and practical Interpretation are entitled 10
great weight II the language be obscure or
cannot be allowed to "abrogate the text or
"fritter away its obvious sense.
EVILS OF THE SYSTEM
have already said that, on a construction
OF the words OF the constitutional provision
regulating this subject. fortified by the policy
and institutions which prevailed in this State
prior to the framing OF the Constitution,
and a comparison of other OF its provisions.
the constitutional mandate requires the
election of members of the General Assem-
bly, by the legal voters of the counties. re-
spectively, and that the division of counties
into assembly districts and the distribution
of the members among these districts for the
purpose Of electing such members is In coz
fiict with the constitutional mandate No
one can examine the legislation on this sub
Ject from 1871 TO the present time and con-
template the results without realizing the
evils which have been fostered under this
III.
the ballot box cannot be assured, the major
ity in the Legislature being elected under
this system by a minority OF the legal yoI-
OF the State. Precedent has been 1ol-
lowed by retaliation, TO be repeated from
time 10 time supremacy In the Legisla-
ture has passed from one political party 10
the other. For this condition of affairs the
only remedy Is by return TO constitutional
III Is said in const Lin 81 note, CRITICS.
Ing the action OF certain courts in declaring
a statute TO be constitutional which was
not: But IL would have been Interesting
and ufefui II either OF these learned courts
had enumerated the evils that must be
placed n the opposite scale when the ques,
tion Is whether a constitutional rule shall
be disregarded: not the least of which IS
the encouragement of a disposition on the
part of legislative bodies to set aside con-
stitutional restrictions in the belief that If
the unconstitutional law can once be put
in force and large interest enlisted under II,
the courts VIII not venture 10 declare IL
void. but will submit TO the usurpation no
matter how gross and daring We agree
with the Supreme Court of Indiana that In
constituting constitutions courts have nothing
10 10 with the argument OF alb inconvenienu
and should not bend the Constitution 10
Township VS. Black. Ind. 557. 500; and with
Bronson, c. j., in what he says in Oakley
vs.. Aspinwall. ". Y. 547. sos.
II is now more than five months until the
next general election, and ample time re-
mains for the proper authorities to take
such steps as may be deemed necessary 10
protect the rights Of the people and see
"that the laws are faithfully executed"
III. however. the etecuon were 80 near al
hand that such steps could not reasonably
be taken the court might perhaps properly
withhold its decision until after the cleo
ton was held. but in no event would the
court be justified in adjudging that an un-
constitutional apportionment act was valid
or IN refusing 10 pass upon the question of
its validity: to do so is TO disregard the pro-
visions Of the Constitution which every Of
fcer is sworn to support.
II Is proper 10 say that the quotation made
in the prevailing opinion from the separate
opinion of Elliott. j., ib. Parker vs.. State.
supra, is from that part of the opinion in
which he expresses his dissent from the ac-
ton OF the majority in declaring the appor-
tIonment act of 1921 unconstitutional and
that the court should not pass upon the
question.
The majority OF the court. however passed
upon the question and held said act uncon-
sfitutional.
The judgment should be affirmed.