Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-09-25

lied upon should apply: but the relator
asks us to direct the respondents to make
an order for the notice Of election under
the apportionment act of 1891, basing his
right thereto upon the claim that the
last named act was founded upon the
census o. 1890 and is therefore valid.
AS against this contention the inter-
venor. claim that said act of 1891, under
which the relater as an electOr bases
his rights, contains grssser inequalities
thar the act of 1899, by which other citi-
zens and electors of the State are de-
prived Of their right of representation.
If we are limited in our investigation to
tho act of 1899, and the destruction there
by of the rights of the relator, and the
other citizens of Storey county, then is
the REALTORS contention tenable. In the
discussion of this question it is well to
note at this time that there are not found
in the articles Of our constitution above
cited, or in any of the other articles
constituting that instrument, any re-
strictive or mandatory provisions what
ever as to the time when and how often
the legislature may make the represen-
tative apportiOnment, and 1t is too well
established even to require discussion
that in the absence of such restrictive or
mandatory provisions the legislature
may in its discretion make such appor-
tioaments as often AS it SO wills.
Returning then to the question to
how far and to what extent the court will
90 in its investigation of the acts of 1891
and 1899, and for what purpose in pro.
ceedings of this kind. we find that the
question is not entirely new and there
are we'll considered opinions OF the courts
of other States which throw much light
and greatly assist in its correct determi
nation.
In the case of Parker VS.. The State, ar
action in mandamus to compel certain
officers to take the necessary steps t.
hold the election of 1892 for senators ant
representatives under.the appor:ionmen
act OF 1879, aud enjoin them from proceed
ing under the later act of 1891, Mr.. jus
tice Cotfey of the Supreme Court of Ind
ana, discussing the precise question use
the following language: The chief Oh
, ject of this suit is to secure decision
, ity OF the several acts Of the general as
: sembly referred to in the complain
!, The question is presented in the sam
manner as the question was presented i
the case of Giddings v. Blacker, supf
and in the case of The People Ex RI
e IF Ctaf
supra. The case Of Giddiags v. Black
er was an action to enjoin the Secretar
= of State of the State of Michigan froI
taking the necessary steps to hold a
election for state senators under an al
portionment act approved in 1891 upc
the ground that such act was unconst
tutional and to compel him by mandam,
to proceed under an appOrtionment a
approved in the year 1885. The case
People Ex Rel Carter v. Rice was All a
V ton to enjOin the proper officers Of tt
State of New York from proceeding
the election Of senator's and represent
tives under an apportionment act a
:, proved in the year 1892, upon the grour
:" that such apportionment act was unco
4 stitutional ana to compel them by ma
" damus to proceed to such election und
an apportionnent act approved in Il
year 1879. In each of these cases
=. seems not to have been doubted that t
question of the validity of these sever
acts was presented in such a form AS
require decision upon that point.
in this case, we are unable to percei
how the merits of the controversy are
be determined without a decision up,
the question of the validity of the appC
tionment law of this State passed in t
year 1891. Should we reach the concl
G sion that this act is not uncOnstitutior
it will not be necessary to pass upon t
validity of the other acts, but should ,
decide it invalid then in determini
whether the appellee was entitled to
relief demanded, it would become nee,
sary to pass upon the validity Of the
of 1879, and if that is found valid t
question Of the constitutiOnality Of t