Eagle River Democrat. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1893-1896, 1896-06-22
MYLREA REFUSES.
Decision of the Acknowledgement
in Regard to the Apportion-
ment Case.

Madison. Wis. June 1S.--LSpecial. i
The Supreme court viii meet tomorrow
30 hand down decisions on the cases ar
gucd at the last assignment, the last to
ee heard at the present term. One more
session will be held. to admit the gradu-
atcs of the university law class to prac-
ticc after which adjournment will be
taken for the summer Yaca ton, the next
meeting Of the court being in August.
Acknowledgement Mylrea refuses his
official sanction to the suit to test the
apportionment law which the attorneys
for the petitioner, Michael Kruszeka,
have requested him to bring. His de-
cIination is embodied in letter to At
tOrney Burr w Jones, representing the
petitioner, and is as follows:
Madison. Wis, June 18:-Hon Burr ": Jones.
Madison Wis.-Dear Sir: The petition OF
Michael Kruszka presented by you on the Eth
inst. requesting me to move in the supreme
court, at the opening Of the court on the l9th
Of June 1896, for leave to bring action there
liz against the secretary Of state, to enjoin him
from carrying into execution chapter l. passed
at the special session of the Legislature OF 1896
EMIT led, IAN act to apportion the state of
has received careful attention, and !
strained to decline to make the motion re-
When the bill which became chapter /, the
validity of which is challenger by this petition,
was pending before the governor for his action,
be required. entitled by law to do. my of
bill. | gave to the subject Thorough investi-
cation as was possible in the time allowed ME,
and advised the executive in writing, that in
my co inion the bill constitutional. Suisse
quent investigation and thought have confirmed
shat opinion. and having thus advised the gov
ernor. and being Of the opinion that the law il
constitutional enactment. do not feel called
upon to act upon the demand of the petitioner.
Che apparently inconsistent position of moving
the court for leave to bring a suit in my of
Gcial character to set it aside on the ground
that it is unconstitutional
/ an wi q
Judicial test of the law, and must not be under
stood desiring to place any obstruction what
in the way of the petitioner obtaining a
decision upon the subject. If my Intervention
as requested were essential to enable the petit
toner' to bring the matter before the court L
should nor be willing to stand in the way; put
Shc law is clearly settled otherwise, so that the
right Of the petitioner to bring suit is not in
snywise dependent upon my action in the prem
Uses.
In the case of State cx-rel Lamb VS. Cunning
Ram So Wis. 1884, in which the attorney
general refused to act, the court says: eve
M1uSt hold that the refusal of the attorney
general to bring or consent to the bringing OF
This suit did not prevent this court from right
fully taking Jurisdiction of the same upon the
relation of a private citizen in the of the
state This ruling relieves any attorney general
from the charge of preventing suit for an al
legged invasion of the sovereignty of the state or
the franchises and liberties of its people.
Very truly yours.
1t is expected that the attorneys for
the petitioner will ask that the motion be
heard at once, as an important mat
ter of public policy. No action is likely
10 he taken, however, which would in
Volve holding another session of the court
i'll the near future.
Justice Pinney starts Saturday on his
vacation trip, with his wife, to spend tho
summer in Europe.