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

INC UNI Oh representation III INC AoSomc |
bly,. By that act Churchill County with
a population Of .O3 has oEe senator,
while Elko county with q population Of
1874 and Washoe county with . popula-
ton Of 6437, and Ormsby County with .
population of 1913 are each given but ono
senator. Nye County with q population
of 1890, is given the same senatorial rep
resentation a. Washoe, Elko and Orms''y
Counties. Churchill county with lie !
population above stated has the same
representation in the senate and assem-
bly, as Lincoln county with . population
Of 2,446. Lyon County with population
Of 1887 has the same senatorial reprossn-
tation as Elko. Washoe and Ornsby, and |
enc more member of the assembly than |
Lincoln county with its population of
2446. White Pine County has the same
representation in Senate and assembly |
with 4 population If l72l as Lincoln with
the population above stated. Other in
CAPABILITIES might he pointed out, but We
deem these sufficient for the purposes Of
the case. Without pointing out the spe-
cific inequalities under the amended act
OF 1899 based upon the same census, it is
sufficient to say that no matter upon
what reasonable basis the unit of repre-
sentation is estimated nearly all of the
inirmities of the act Of 1891 are re-enacted
in the amended act Of 1899. The equali-
cation of representation of the counties
Of Elko, Washoe and Lincoln resulted in
an injustice to Storey county and carried
with it many of the grossest vices Of the
act of 1891. The right of representation
IN the legislative department under the
constitution is Us; as sacred to the cleo
| tors Of Lincoln or Washoe as to the cleo
! tors of Storey. and if the act of 1899 must
fail because it deprives the electors of
! Storey county of that right, so must the
act Of 1891 fall BECAUSE it deprives the
electors Of Washoe, lincoln and other
counties Of the same high aud sacred
right.
If we could find some prior act con-
tanning the elements of that Legislative
equality contemplated by the rule upon
which to base q Judgment, was found
by the court in Michigan, and under like
legislative conditions, the question would
lie easy of solution, but in locking back
Of the act Of 1891 under the contention Of
: the intervenors. we are confronted with
the proposition that there ID no act of
that date which could be based upon the
census Of 1890, and so far as we have in
vest ated the act of 1881 in the language
above quoted lis tarred with the same
stick" We are also met with the further
obstacle that if we undertake to rest our
decision upon acts prior to 1881, or even
upon the constitutional apportioninsnt
, some counties would bs entirely de.
> prived of representation.
. Further, if We declare these acts un.
, constitutional with the near approach OF
e the general election at which all mem
$ Der. of the assembly are to be elected
: and part of the members Of the senate
r we are again confronted with the ques
b ton whether our decision might not un
' der certain other provisions of the con
t stitution fixing the term OF office of sen
' ators and assemblynen, deprive tn,
l State of all Legislative action at the time
e fixed by the constitution.
3 Under these circumstances and facin:
/ these conditions we must rely upon gen
~ al ltlC> ~ tlIlS totiIt lDd
it will never pass upon constitutions
e question unless it is clearly involved ant
5 a decision thereon is necessary to de
e termination of the case, and that thi:
court i'll the exercise Of its discretion il
y proceedings in mandamus will grant thu
t peremptory writ only when the RICH
sought to be protected is clear and un
doubted.
:. State v. LaGrave, % New. Al;
State V Meder, % New. 265;
State '. Wheeler, % New l43
The act Of 1891, upon which relate
rests his right is subject to the same oh
e lection as the act Of 1899 which affects tn
1t rights OF others, and is, according to hi
: own theory, invalid, and as said by Nj
is Justice Elliott, as above quoted, by hi
D own 2verments his case is foundation
II less"
r Therefore, upon the showing made an
IS for the reasons given the peremptor
n writ will be denied.
n We concur:
IF Belknap. J.
re Bonniteld, CD.
>. Filed September 81, 1890,
If EUGENE HOWELL,
10 Secretary of State and EX-officio Cler
;; of the Supreme Court.
a. Filed with printer for publicatio
is Sept. %, 1900.
p EUGENE HOWELL.