Saturday news. (Watertown, S.D.) 19??-19??, 1916-06-22
Mandamus May Be
Asked Against the
County Commission Is
Chamber Of COMMERCE Considers Ap
peaiins to Courts TO Compel
Redistrietine Of County.

The Chamber of Commerce had un-
der. consideration at its last meeting
the proposition OF. appealing to the
court to compel the board of county
commissioners to do what the law OF
1915 requires them to do-redistrictl
the county, forming the commission-
Ter districts 80 as to make the popu-
lation in each within n hundred ofs
each other, as nearly as practicable,
excepting that not more than two dis
tricts shall be formed out of any one
city.
Codington county has not been re-
districted for many years. The popu-
lation of the respective districts val
ries very markedly. Nearly ons-halfl
of the entire population of the coun-i
ty lies within what is now n dis
trict.
It is understood that the attention
4 of the board at list January meeting
was called to this law, but since no
provision is made in the law whereby
the members of the board, or any of
them, can be jailed or otherwise pun
ished, the board concluded to ignore
the law.
No effort seems to have been made
by the member of the board repre-
senting the most populous district to
effect the redistricting so as to afford
his constituents their due proportion
of representation on the county board
A Teehnicaiity in Law.
The law provides that this redis-
trictiIg shall take place in January,
1916, and at stated intervals there
after in January. As before stated,
since the board refused or failed to
act in January. a question has arisen
whether the redistricting can be done
at any other time than that mentioned
in the law.
WATERFOWL, for instance, has above
5000 population. 1t is represented
by one commissioner. Under the
law it is entitled to two members of
the board.
But, notwithstanding the plain
mandates of the law, the board at its
January meeting, although its atten-
ton was called to- the matter by
the board had conferred with the
states attorney, notified him infor-
maliy that no action would be taken.
City Attorneys Opinion.
City Attorney =. q. Mather had been
asked for an opinion on the question,
and it is herewith given in order
that the difficulties likely to be en-
Icountered may be understood by read
ers of The Saturday News. Mr..
Mather said, in answer to President
Dougherty's request for his views;
-Conformable with our request, ]
have examined Chapter 124 of the
Session laws of 1915, AN act entitled
an act to amend Section 813 of the
Political Code, relating to the redis
tricting Of counties into commissioner
districts, when the existing districts
are not approximately eve in voting
population and it seems quite cleal
to me that the county commissioners
having failed to act under the statute
at their regular January, 1916, meet
ing, could not voluntarily act on this
subject prior to january, 1920.
g" am unoficially advised that thu
honorable board of commissioners O.
the county, informally considered the
matter at its regular January meet
ing, and IL that be true. then in an.
event your only remedy would seen
to be mandamuS.
However, the supreme court of tht
state of South Dakota in constituting
a similar statute in the case of Var
Den Bros. VS.. Board Of Commission
ers of Douglas county, ct al (75 N
w. 935), held that the boundaries Of
the commissioner districts could be
changed only at the times and in the
manner therein provided and sus
tanned the state court in setting aside
a resolution OF the board of commits.
sioners changing the districts OF
Douglas county, adopted at a differ.
ent time than that specified in the
act.
Some question might be raised as
to the constitutionality of this act
L but with that question / do not I'm.
derstand that Won are inpreSted -