OCR Text |
Show DUTY OF APPORTIONING. Referring to tho matter of apportioning appor-tioning the State into Senate nnd Representative Rep-resentative districts for the Legislature, Legisla-ture, wo noto something of a sentiment senti-ment in the prcsont Legislature to the effect that the Legislature of 1911 having hav-ing failed to apportion the State into Senate and Representative districts, as the State Constitution requires, tho present Legislature would have no authority au-thority so to do. The Constitution (see Article 9, Section 2,) requires the B03sion next following tho enumeration mndo by authority of the United States, to revise and adjust the apportionment for Senators and Representatives on the basis of such enumeration, according to ratios to bo fixed by law. But can it seriously be urged that when a duty imposed upon a Legislature and that. Legislature neglects such duty, a succeeding suc-ceeding Legislature Is barred from performing per-forming the duty that ought to be dono? Not so. Such Is not the genius of American institutions, and such is not tho law, Tho duty of apportioning the State after a consus 5s clear. It is also clear that while at first tho question waB not entirely settled, whothor in cafio the fust Logislaturo failed of its duty a succeeding Legislature might perform it, this has been settled by usage. Thus, tho Cyclopedia of Political Science, Political Economy and United States History says on page 108, after discussing pretty freely tho questions of apportionment, noting that a number num-ber of tho States havo boon irregular about their practice, that successive Legislatures have changed apportionments apportion-ments as mado by. previous Legislatures, Legisla-tures, concludos: "A like jraclice, moro or loss frequent, has established in most States the precedent lhat an apportionment can bo made by any Logislaturo. nnd in some cases where apportionment has already boon made (Indiana State apportionment 1880, Ohio 1S7S-1880 in districting and Congressional district, and Louisiana 1879) a second and third distribution of representation has been made by successivo Legislatures.'' This practice has been indulged in to a considerable orient since the quotation quo-tation cited, eo that it may fairly be considered, first, that whero a Legislature Legisla-ture has failed to do. its duty in reapportioning reap-portioning the State, a succeeding Legislature can take up that duty and fulfill it, the duty of apportioning after a census being a continuing one; 3econd, that since no Legislature has power to bind a succeeding Legisla turo, that succeeding Legislature can change, amend, or ropoal any enactment of the Legislature that has gone before. To this, apportionment is uo exception. Thoro is no bar put up with respect to an act of apportionment that would prevent an- succeedin- Legislature tak ing down that bar and changing what has been dono by a former Legislature, any more than in the matter of any other legislation enacted by that previous Legislature. There 16 nothing sacred or exclusive about an apportion mcnl. ri. is made the duty of the Legislature Legis-lature to apportion the State. This duty primarily rests upon tho Legislature Legisla-ture which has its session immediately immediate-ly after the census, but if that Legislature Legisla-ture fails of its duty, or if it makes au apportionment which is unsatisfac-tor- to a succocdiug Legislature, that succeeding Legislature can mako the original apportionment or can change tho apportionment as made. Precedents havo established this point beyond any question. We conclude, therefore, that thero is no validity in any suggestion that the Lcgislnturo of 1911 having failed in its duty, the Logislaturo of 1913' cannot slop in and perform that duty. On the contrary, it is the bonnden duty of the prcsont Logislaturo to enact on thin mattor, or on any other matter whore tho Legislature of 1911 failed in it duty. |