Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1903-05-25
The Gerrymander and the Supreme
Court.


From the Chicago Evening Post, a
republican paper at that, comes the
following:
The election of the democratic
nominee in the Fourth supreme court
district is said TO be within reasona-
BILE probability. judge Thompson, of
Morgan county, is reported as saying
that Mr.. G. c. SCOTS ability, integri-
~ and popularity give hope and en-
enlargement to his friends through
out the district. He adds the cleo
ton of Judge Scott would be deserved
recognition of those qualities we all
admire in public officers, and at the
same time well-merited rebuke to
those, who solely for political rea-
sons. interfered with the boundaries
of supreme court district
"Of course, the wish may be father
to the thought in this case, as it is in
so many instances, but the reference
to the Legislative gerrymander is sug-
geStive. Judge Carter. whom the re-
publicans very properly renominated
and who deserves reelection on his
excellent record, cannot be supposed
TO approve of the methods which have
been employed fnshis fayor-to render
his success certain. The reapportiOn-
ment act is probably unconstitutional.
though the supreme court has upheld
it. and for the present its decision is
law. But. whether constitutional or
not, the gerrymander was a violation
of every principle of political equity
and decency. Chief Justice Magruder
u ri Il hi
| beyond intelligent contradiction.
After pointing out in.his trenchant
| dissenting opinion that the constitu-
| ton never contemplated a change in
the boundaries of a single supreme
court judicial district at one time. but
contemplated that. when any change
was made, all the districts should be
involved and considered in such
change. the chief Justice proceeds to
argue that even if it be asserted that
the constitution can be construed to
confer the power to change one dis
trict at one time without changing
the other except incidentally. the act
of 1903 seems TO be clearly unconsti-
tutional.
| ut is idle to pretend that the pur-
! y
out the rule of equality of popula ton.
| 1t is true that the Fourth district was
less in population by more than 10O.-
| coo than any one of the other dis
tricts, and it was right to provide for
| changing it. But how does the reap
portionment act change it? 1t takes
two counties with a population of
- 900 out of it and adds 10000 popu-
lation by placing several other coun-
| ties i'll it. Why. asks the chief justice
were Pike and Scott counties not al
| lowed to remain n part of the dis
| trict? In other words. instead of de
Quoting population and then adding
why was not the addition made with
out any deduction? The answer is
plain. The object of the gerrymandeT
was to get rid of the democratic coun-
ties.
Courts may not inquire into the
motives of the legislature, but honest
and fair men may, do and must so in
quire. The act of April is indefensi
BILE from the view point of pure poll
tics and legitimate partisanship. The
Office of Judge should be regarded as
nonpoltical. The Chicago Bar asso-
| citation so regards it, and our intelli.
gent and independent voters so regard
it. The gerrymander act is a very dan
gerous precedent. 1t takes the SUI
preme court into machine politics"