Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1896-06-25
SUIT NOT STOPPED
MYLREA'S REFUSAL OF KRUSZkA
REQUEST HAS LITTLE EFFECT.
PETITION GOES TO COURT
Jones Will Appear Before the
Supreme Judges and Ask for Leave
to Bring Suit to Test the Constitu-
tionality of the Present Legislative
Apportionment.

Notwithstanding Attorney General
Mylrea declined yesterday to appear
before the supreme court and ask leave
to bring suit to test the constitutional
ity of the present legislative apportion-
ment law as requested by the demo-
cratic party through Petitioner Michael
krusZka, nevertheless the petition pre-
pared will be presented to the supreme
court this morning when it convenes.
Attorney Burr w. Jones will appear be-
fore the court and relate that the at
torney general has refused to make the
desired request. 1t is expected that
the court will either grant or refuse the
request within a week, so that the
case may be prepared during the sum-
mer months for argument in the fall.
1t is thought that the court will pass on
the constitutionality Of the law before
the fall election. Mylrea's refusal to
grant Petitioner Kruszka's request is
addressed to Attorney Burr w. Jones,
who said that he expected the attorney
general would take such action. Myl-
rea's communication is as follows:
Madison, Wis, June IS. 1S96-Hon.
Burr w. Jones, Madison, Wis.-Dear
Sir:-The petition of Michael Kruszka,
presented by (you on the 18th inst, re-
questing me to move in the supreme
court, at the opening of the court on
the 18th of June, 1896, for leave to
bring an action therein against the sec
rotary of state, to enjOin him from car
rying into execution chapter l, passed
at the special session of the legislature
of 1896, entitled An act to apportion
the state of Wisconsin into senate and
assembly districts, has received care
full attention, and l am constrained to
decline to make the motion requested
When the bill which became chapter
l, the validity of which is challenged
by this petition, was pending before
the governor for his action, he required,
as entitled by law to do, my official
opinion as to the constitutionality Of
the bill. | gave to the subject as thor
Ough investigation as was possible in
the time allowed me, and advised the
executive in writing, that in my opin-
ion the bill was constitutional. Sub
sequent investigation and thought
have confirmed that opinion, and hav-
ing thus advised the governor, and be-
ing OF the opinion that the law is a
constitutional enactment, | do not feel
called upon to take, upon the demand
of the petitioner, the apparently incon-
sistent position Of moving the court for
leave to bring a suit in my official
character to set it aside on the ground
that it is unconstitutional.
| am not in any wise averse, of
course, to judicial test of the law, and
must not be understood as desiring to
place any obstruction whatever in the
way of the petitioner obtaining a deci-
sion upon the subject. If my interven-
ton, as requested, were essential TO en-
able the petitioner to bring the matter
before the court, | should not be will
ing to stand in the way, but the law
is clearly settled otherwise, so that the
right of the petitioner to bring suit is
ton in the premises. In the case of
the State eX rel. Lamb VS.. Cunningham,
S3 Wis, 1874, in which case the attor-
ney general refused to act, the court
says:
1--WE must hold that the refusal of
the attorney general to bring or consent
to the bringing of this suit did not pre-
vent this court from rightfully taking
jurisdiction of the same upon the rela-
ton of a private citizen in the name of
the state. This ruling relieves any at
torney general from the charge of pre-
venting a suit for an alleged invasion
of the sovereignty of the state or the
franchises and liberties of it's people"
Very truly yours,
wv. H. Mylrea,
Attorney General"