The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1907-03-22

The Court of Appeals Wednesday
declared the Legislative redistricting
act of the General Assembly OF 1906
to be null and void. Judge Barker de-
livered the opinion, the whole court
sitting and concurring.
The act was~called in question by
leading Republicans of the State In
cases of NJ. S. Ragland, chairman, VS..
A. Anderson, from Butler county.
and w. S. Tinsley VS.. c. p. Keown,
from Ohio county.
In deciding the act void, the court
says:
THE act is grossly violative OF Sec
zion 33 of the CONSTITUTIONAL that the
provision as to equality between the
districts was not even pretended TO
be obeyed by the Legislature
Equality of representation is vital
principle of representative govern
ment in proportions as this is denied,
the Government becomes oligarchicai
or monarchical.
cit is no answer to the demand
of appellees (the Republicans that
the act of 1906 be declared unconsti-
tutional. that it will follow that the
act of 1898 must also be declared I'M
constitutional because 1t created un-
equal representative districts,a although
in less degree than that of 1906. The
IN. a
not follow. The act of 1898 has gone
into effect. and the Government has
been organized under it. To hold IL
void would be to throw the Govern
ment into chaos, and this no court
is required to do. 1t is now too late
to question its validity. The next
Legislature must be elected under 1t,
and then, we have no doubt, the mem
bers impelled by their sense OF duty,
the obligations of their oath OF Office
together with that spirit of justice
which is the heritage of the race,will
redistrict the State as the Consitu-
ton requires.
We do not agree with appellees that
section SO forbids more than two
counties to be Joined in one represen-
tative district Without elaboration
we are of the opinion that more than
wo counties may be joined in the dis
vet provided it be necessary in order
\ffect that equality OF representa-
NJ (which the spirit Of the whole sec
q ION so imperatively demands.
ut may not be inappropriate, how
ever, to say that it is difficult at this
time to see how this necessity can
often arise. But it must be remember
ed that constitutions are established
for the exigencies of long periods OF
time and it cannot now be told what
the future may bring.
'For the foregoing reasons the judg-
ments holding the redistricting act of
March, 1906, void, must be affirmed,
and it is so ordered"
The decision of the Court of Appeals
relates entirely to the legislative ger
rymander of the last Legislature. The
bill declared unconstitutional was
passed by the Legislature In March,
1906, and was approved by Governor
Beckham. =
The bill calling for a gerrymander
was originally introduced by Lloyd
Gates, of jefferson county, in order
to add one new district in his county,
/. but the bill as passed was chiefly the
<work of the Kentucky Statutes Com
mittee of the lower House, at which
M. NJ. Redwine was chairman. !, = s.
The bill changed the arrangements
of the various Legislative districts
In a radical way. Certain Republican
counties were grouped together de-
spite their large aggregate population
while distpictss containing two. small
s.Democratic counties were divided and
each district given representative.
A special district was. made out of
jefferson county and "a special out OF
the Eleventh ward of the city of Lou
isville.
- Suits to test the validity of this act
were filed in Butler county and In
Ohio county. In Butler county the
suit was passed upon by Judge Gal
ioway, Republican, and was declared
llllegal. In Ohio county it was passed
\ aS.r Is @iits sssas&srSsal