*1 agree such employment that in We contract. stance an employment may at terminated will case be Here party: case. is not such either however, This, plaintiffs they i.e., all contracted do, had did they for defendant the reinsurance business secured pre- agreement they receive under an 5% long continues. as business There miums so perform any plaintiffs requirement that the were no per- full received Defendant has thus other service. permitted plaintiffs cannot be formance from now accept agreement at the its while the benefits of obligations repudiate it time assumed same twenty-seven recognized years. long So has agreement enjoyed, are this consideration fruits of paid agreed upon con- must accordance with the given. tract which was under disposition light this case In the we make of plaintiffs’ unnecessary consider it is us conten- if York Statute of Frauds does tion that even New apply effect was waived the admission defend- its agreement that an oral entered had been ant’s counsel into.
Judgment affirmed. Appellant, v. Rice.
Butcher, *2 1959. Before Argued May 6, C. J., Bell, Jones, JJ. Bok, Cohen Mtismanno, Jones, refused reargument August 10, 1959. George M. Jr. and Brants, Bauer,
Edward G. appellants. Attorney
Harry Deputy him General, J. Rubin, appellee. Attorney Alpern, Anne X. General, Opinion by June Me. Chief Justice Jones, 1959: Harry Rosen- plaintiffs, H. Samuel X. Butcher,
berg electors and Frank W. Dressier, citizens, *3 Philadelphia taxpayers City County the of of County’s respectively in residents the Sixth Fourth, eq- Eighth this in Senatorial instituted suit Districts, County Dauphin uity in the of Common Pleas of enjoin Secretary in an effort to the of the Common- certifying holding elections wealth candidates or from Philadelphia of State from office Senator Apportionment ground on districts, May by P. L. as the Act amended 449, 10, 1921, April seq., §2201 is P. L. 25 PS et un- 26, 1923, constitutional. complaint alleges eight
The that the dis senatorial Philadelphia nearly County tricts within are not “as equal enjoined population may as as in be” on Gen Assembly eral Article Section the Penn II, 16, of sylvania contrary, nstitution1 fact Cf are in but, 1 fifty “TEe Fu le shall divided into senatorial districts territory compact omiguous nearly equal population as as d may be, an aeh district shall be entitled to elect one Senator. yintaining population Each one or more ratios shall be count ratio, to om for each entitled Senator additional Senator surplus population exceeding :> >f ratio, three-fifths of a but disproportionate their respect pop enoinnously ulation; apportioned the General has Assembly required the State into districts as Arti senatorial cle census of 1950 Section since decennial II, and that equal Act of 1921 free violates the election of the Penn provision of Article Section I, sylvania equal Constitution and “the protection laws” Amendment clause of the of the Fed Fourteenth eral The also complaint Constitution. prayed, a decree of an elec ordering holding alternative, tion at of Philadelphia for the large eight County fices of consti State Senator which that (to County until the General shall tutionally limited) Assembly reapportion the Philadelphia senatorial districts within County. accepted recognizing Evidently widely compel rule that courts are law without power act even con perform affirmatively stitutional 321 Ill. duty (Fergus Marks, N.E. did not members complainants join the 557), as General parties defendant. Assembly The Secretary Commonwealth, defendant, all filed an answer of the factual averments admitting the complaint. also filed Secretary suggestion county separate no shall form a district shall contain unless four- ratio, excejrt adjoining fifths of a where the counties are each en- Senators, county may assigned to one or when titled more such he *4 exceeding a Senator on less than four-fifths one-half aof ratio; county no be divided shall unless entitled to two or more city county separate representa- shall Senators. No or be entitled to ward, exceeding one-sixth of the whole tion number of Senators. No borough township be divided in shall the formation of a district. by dividing be The senatorial ratio shall ascertained the whole population fifty.” the number State Assembly adoption “The General at its first session after the Constitution, immediately this after each United States de apportion census, repre the cennial shall State senatorial into agreeably provisions pre districts sentative the of the two next ceding sections.” plaintiffs’ fail- complaint for the
that the be dismissed Assembly indis- join as the General ure to members of pre- parties pleadings pensable the suit. Since the plaintiffs for only questions moved the of law, sented 'by banc, court en judgment. the The motion heard hearing. parties, The final as on the the assent opinion held a formal and court in well-considered sought, grant even the relief it was without joined as Assembly were if the General members de- parties accordingly final entered defendant, complaint judgment giving dismissing the cree plain- the decree so entered From defendant. appeal. tiffs took this judicial plaintiffs declaration is a seek
What
is
that the Act of
as
unconstitutional.
amended,
February
Apportionment Acts of
the antecedent
Since
May
would,
L.
P.
and of
P.
L. 31,
19,1874,
17,1906,
the Common-
same
token,
unconstitutional,
a senatorial
would be without
wealth
Assembly
thereby be under
act and the General
would
reapportioning
necessity
the immediate
State’s
latest decennial
senatorial districts on
basis
judicial
Equity
in-
affords no
census.
pleaded.
The
circumstances
General
tervention in
Assembly’s
into senatorial
failure
divide
State
since
decennial census of 1950 raises
districts
question
political
Ap-
purely
and whether the extant
portionment
1921 divides
into
sena-
equal
nearly
population may
“as
torial
districts
justiciable but rests alone
be” is not
discretion
Assembly.
General
problem
political
fully
nature of the
consid
Colegrove
the case
ered in
challenged validity unit the of system. the most He that the voters in contended tion average populous county of about of the have an State weight political coun- of those in other the one-tenth of Supreme the the dismissal of affirmed ties. The Court supra, petition citing plaintiff’s Colegrove v. Green, supra. MacDougall v. Green, 675, S. in Turman v. 329 U. Duckworth, Likewise, Georgia’s constitutionality plaintiffs the attacked applied system county to the selection unit primary A for Governor in the election. candidate grant re- three-judge refusing to in federal court, (68 Supp. 747-748), “Here sought, lief stated F. 744, equity or frustrate a is asked interfere achieve discretionary political through that i'esult, subject injunction. remedy of it be that the Whether equitable cognizance, merely matter is not of equity its think withhold the decision should we hand, requires Colegrove in v. 66 S. us to Ct. Green, 1198, equitable Supreme deny relief.” The Court of Unit- appeal ed dismissed the directed the States District the bill. Court dismiss
Again, in Kidd 352 v. U. where S. McCanless, very presented raised similar to issues were those Supreme instant Court Tennessee case, 40) (200 292 2d Tenn. S.W. refused to entertain challenging legis validity a suit constitutional providing lation of election districts Representatives Senators General As Supreme sembly. refusing -lo Court, interfere Supreme the decision Court of Tennessee, unanimously dismissing appeal, order entered an supra. citing Colegrove v. Green,
165 Supreme In Anderson v. S. Jordan, U. petition Court of California had for a denied writ compel seeking Secretary mandamus disregard reapportion- California certain California (See 3252). ment statutes U.S.L.W. Just as in plaintiffs case before now had contended us, Supreme the statutes were unconstitutional. The plaintiff’s appeal, United States dismissed the citing Colegrove supra, MacDougall Green, supra. Green,
Somewhat earlier, Wood v. Court, Broom, U. S. had before it a case in a citi- *7 Mississippi sought zen had in the United States Dis- injunction trict Court to an restrain certain of- State conducting congressional pursuant ficers from elections allegedly to redistricting invalid State Act. The granted injunction. appeal Supreme court On agreed unanimously the members of the Court, Court complaint that the decree should be and the reversed dismissed. Mr. Justice Chief who wrote Hughes, opinion unnecessary for the found to consider Court, questions right equity to the raised relief in controversy. justiciability or as of the However, opinion concurring part a brief reads as follows: “Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Brandéis, Stone, opinion and Mr. Justice are of Cardozo Roberts, decree should be reversed and bill dismissed (Emphasis equity supplied). want . .” . . In Cole- for grove supra, Mr. v. Justice after Green, Frankfurter, quoted discussing the above added concurrence, “we agree.” also weight
By greater authority holds that far, complaint equity is to entertain a without Legislature’s concerning a failure to act action or obligation respect imposed constitutionally to its apportion a into districts Stale for election of sena- representatives. al- to the cases In addition
tors many principle support ready of the to in referred might brief review be cited. A to the same effect more suffice. additional should of a few brought plaintiffs Gary, 352 S. 991, U. In v. Radford Legislature to re compel Oklahoma an action Senate apportion districts the election District Representatives The of the State. House 543) Supp. dis (145 F. States United quoting citing from Cole- complaint, missed aof one supra, that “the issue was grove v. Green, political meet ‘peculiarly therefore not nature and ” judicial decree of dismissal was The determination.’ citing unanimously Court, affirmed supra. Colegrove and Kidd v. McCanless, v. Green, Supp. a citizen Perry 144 F. Folsom, against brought equity members suit in of Alabama officers administrative certain directing seeking the defendants a decree xoapportion- constitutionally statute valid to enact citixig, Legislative ing Districts. The the State’s Court, supra, Colegrove dismissed the bill. inter alia, Green, presented opinion “The issue is of coixcludedthat *8 political nature.” a Broughton in ex rel.
Also, Zimmerman, plaintiffs 52 N.W. 2d attacked Wis. 903, 910, establishing constitutionality for of the Act districts Assembly The members of Senate and of Wisconsin. Supreme quoting of the after from Cole- State, supra, grove that declared “Because contro- v. Green, political apportionment ordinarily are in over versies courts should hesitant to intervene therein.” be nature, Oklahoma The Court of refused inter- apportionment existing senatorial fere statute though argued it of that State even that the Act express provisions of the violated 2d 172 P. 197 Okla. Latting Oklahoma. Cordell, con of our framers that “. . . The court said 397. to dele than thought other in mind no had stitution legisla apportionment solely to the gate the duties ture.” practical foregoing cases are in the
The decisions recognized in stated applications rule of the well (4th §1753 Jurisprudence, Equity Yol. Pomeroy, gen- injunction as a ed.) issue, will as “An follows: holding of restraining purpose eral rule, controlling in directing the mode or or of an election, pursuance determining the rules law or of which, held shall be .... Moreover, an election of which, might re- often such matters interference in effect government. es- This is the destruction sult in sought prevent the pecially the relief is so when injunction holding will election of an .... Thus, although holding of an election not issue to restrain authority alleged or is that it is law, without providing authorising it or the act supplied). (Emphasis same is unconstitutional.” Ruling is otherwise stated Case Law rule political “Matters a character are also out- follows: pale equity, court of no side such having chancery been conceded either ever court, provided judiciary, a federal or state unless it is so impliedly by organic expressly or or statute . . laws. . England Neither in nor America has this been political suffered to affairs.” extend as suc- Also, cinctly Equity, “Questions in 30 stated C.J.S., §66, political purely governmental or in their nature cannot equity court of heard determined .... Gen- erally, pertaining to matters elections are to be deemed questions purely political scope hence outside the equitable jurisdiction.” question beyond equity It is clear without *9 jurisdiction grant appellants the relief which the
here con- seek. For to the of their contention support on ex they rely Commonwealth rel. v. trary, Crow, Pa. 67 A. in a curiam per brief 234, 236, 355, where, this after that “The substantial opinion, court, stating is the question involved of the sena- constitutionality torial Act of by February 17, P. jurisdiction L. 31” “On the to consider general said, that The pass upon question entertain no doubt. we judicial extends to the all legislative review acts for the comparison provisions their the re- with quirements and prohibitions of the constitution, there exception is no expressed implied in regard statutes of do apportionment.” We not disagree with there what was said the statement although plainly was apparent. will be dictum, readily The before the court awas proceeding suggestion Commonwealth for quo writ of warranto of a private relation citizen to ob- who was seeking tain the office as respondent’s Senator the 32nd. Senatorial District. What this court held was relator was without question respond- standing ent’s to the right quashed office, accordingly writ. Act Apportionment constitutionality neither nor discussed, considered, passed upon. court not assert supra,
This did in the Crow case, jurisdiction will take to order the General equity out the imposed Assembly carry duty upon to apportion the State into dis- elective representatives. tricts for senators and The illustra- opinion court’s of instances gave where tion, would take to invalidate equity Appor- an makes plain tionment what the court had in mind Act, agree. we If fully and, that, Apportionment fail to should follow constitu- fixed definitely tional specifications as, instance, by dividing
169 in districts sixty a senatorial into or hundred State a sixth county than more by giving fifty one stead or equity a court number senators, whole transgression. In down strike would, course, happened in exactly Shoemaker what is deed, Dauphin Lawrence, Lyme 111, Lawrence, Apportionment June Dauphin ofAct 322. There Representatives’ Dis relating to P. L. 30, 1937, 2443, relat L.P. the Act of June tricts, respectively un held ing to were Senatorial Districts, some errors. In of their factual constitutional because entirely territories certain Acts left out instances, non-contiguous with territories included and, others, political certain enumerated in the same district and Equity’s jurisdiction not exist. subdivisions did which prevent enforcement of an which act, unques or contains patent errors, defects factual tioned. enjoinder Assem- the General
The constitutional on equal nearly bly into districts the State “as divide population elasticity may by very as be”, judicially phrase, error reviewable. not admit of does carry Assembly And will the General when whether upon imposed by duty it the Constitution out the sena- dividing into for the election of districts State ques- non-justiciable representatives poses tors and jurisdiction. equity not take will tion whereof plaintiffs’ assault that the be held Even if were constitutionality amended, on presented assigned appellants, grounds cognizable question equity, justiciable still rightly grace withheld for be chancellor’s would of the Act’s unconstitution- that a declaration reason go) (and ality that is as far as the court could would disrupt seriously render would no one but benefit government. the State’s chaotic large, for at of senators specific, election
To be Legislature’s plaintiffs pending pray, legally reapportionment State, senatorial providing that possible. Article after Section 16, II, fifty into dis- senatorial should be divided provides shall be en- that “each district further tricts, Manifestly, there could to elect one Senator.” titled they large must at when an election of senators not be vain It indeed be districts. would elected *11 Secretary of to order the Commonwealth court to constitutionally. something be done which cannot do Again, the Act of is still more if and this ominous, unconstitutional, declared be were amended, concerning question at once arise a most serious would legislation validity of enacted Senate subse quent defining to the that the determination Act, of the Senate senatorial under which districts members It the con had been was unconstitutional. elected, opinion Supreme of sidered Court Tennessee Legislature eventuality, the in such an would lose that, powers. supra, in Kidd v. that its Thus, McCanless, body “. . can be a court declared there . de of facto judicial only a there been fice until has determination invalidity It of same. ... seems of obvious and we [Apportionment] that therefore hold if Act of 1901 is to be declared then the de unconstitutional, faeto applied present cannot doctrine maintain the Assembly of General members in office. If the holding is correct in that Chancellor this statute has expired passage by following of the decade its en prior apportion then the same reason all actment expired by lapse a like ment acts have of time and are only non-existent. we not would Therefore, have existing any Assembly members the General but we apportionment no have act would whatever under a election could be new for the held election Assembly. ultimate General . . . The members holding reason result this Act unconstitutional deprive pres- lapse be to us of time would one electing a new ent means ultimately bring of the State about the destruction itself.” regard, of Wisconsin
In like
The same would be as to be declared unconstitutional for amended, judicially senatorial reason that the non-reviewable “as are of 1901 Act established districts which population may equal nearly as be.” jurisdiction equity is that is The result without complaint plaintiffs’ the Act of 1921, entertain ground that the is unconstitutional on as amended, apportioned not “as are senatorial districts which equal population may nearly or that be” lapse by equity time. should outlawed Even if complaint, take of the the chancellor, balancing prospective harm to relative complainants public, be constrained and to would not to the Act unconstitutional but leave to declare Appor- anything Assembly in the General correction of needing correction. tionment Act correctly The court dismissed the below bill justiciable controversy. aof want appellants’ Decree at costs. affirmed part took no in the Justice considera- Mr. McBride of this tion or decision case.
Dissenting Opinion Mr. Bell : Justice quali- Appellants, capacity duly in their as citizens, taxpayers electors fied the Commonwealth Pennsylvania, City Philadelphia, of the taxpayers, themselves and for other electors filed complaint against Secretary John S. Rice, injunction seeking (1) to restrain Commonwealth, (a) Philadelphia certifying defendant from to County any Board of Elections the names of candidates any for the office of State Senator in and from eight Philadelphia senatorial districts within May were established the Act of P. L. 10, 1921, (b) issuing any from Certificates of Election the office Senator within said districts, equitable (2) further relief.
Defendant filed an answer which admitted all the *13 present Reap- and admitted that the facts, portionment Senatorial plain awas violation of the Constitu- Pennsylvania, tion of and admitted that “a Justiciable State Issue is but 'denied that the bad Present”, Courts any power pass to direct the a Constitu- tionally Reapportionment valid to direct an or Act, large grant any election at for State toor Senators, ofMud affirmative relief. people legislature
The make the Constitution; makes the law; Governor executes law; guardians Courts are the of the Constitution rights people law and of thereunder; and we duty. carry never must fear fail to out our Mandate The the Constitution provides Pennsylvania in Arti- cle I: general, great Sights. That
“Declaration government principles liberty and free essential may Constitution] accordance [under and unalterably recognized declare established. We be many provisions of declarations there then [ follow government rights, limitations on the including] : be Elections shall 5. Article Section
“Elections. I, equal . . .” free pro Legislature, deals with [wMch
Article II, Sec “Apportionment pertinently] the State. vides after Assembly at its session first 18. The General tion immediately adoption of the Constitution after * apportion census shall decennial each United States representative districts into senatorial and State preceding provisions the two next agreeably to provides: “The shall Section sections.” compact and fifty senatorial districts into divided population nearly equal as territory contiguous one to elect entitled district shall be may and each he, * throughout, ours. Italics
174 sepa city county entitled shall be No ... senator exceeding the whole representation one-sixth rate Philadel agree limits that this [all of senators number provides for eight phia senators] . .” Section . Repre apportionment the House for members sentatives. agree parties all and
The lower Court found, Reapportionment by Act was last Senatorial Reapportionment for May that the last and 10, 1921,* Representatives the basis on made the House of ofAct census of 1950 decennial States of United July 1958. present Phila- senatorial districts within unequal population
delphia so grossly and are so unjust discriminatory to reach as in some cases and disproportion similar situa- of more than 5 to 1. A disproportion more the same than 5 tion with throughout of senatorial districts exists in number County, Montgomery a net result that State, County Allegheny County are en- Delaware and each proper senatorial titled under to one additional senator. Article Section Con- II, requires clearly mandatorily stitution and the General apportion Assembly the State into senatorial dis- “immediately tricts after each decennial United States obeyed Legis- this mandate is census.” When many (a) deprived citizens are fair of a lature, free, equal guarantees, election and Constitution (b) representatives they of the and to Which are en- titled under Constitution. provides:
Article Section of the VII, Constitution Representatives judicial “Senators and all of- ... following ficers shall'. . . take and subscribe the oath solemnly U . support, obey ... do swear . . that I will * presently passed A minor and irrelevant amendment was April 26, L. P. 106. States United and defend the Constitution that I will of this Commonwealth, office with fidelityIt the duties discharge my found is clear as lower indisputable, po- all the parties admit, —for litical or or other reasons —have in- personal selfishly failed mandate tentionally obey deliberately *15 to support of Constitution which swore and they General of Pennsylvania obey. Attorney Indeed, thus his brief in Court described situa- below, tion : of of the apportionment
“The Penn- existing pattern a Senate is It represents intolerable. sylvania sig- from democratic principles deviation sufficiently rational nificant It degree support. per- defy structure a so alien to legislative mid-twen- petuates social and economic forces that it con- tieth century immobilization of effective state action tributes of fields. it a tends to in myriad And, certainly, pro- legislative toward our mote institution de- cynicism of values necessary proper structive function- Defendant seeks a free not to society. support ing of the State Senate on its present it has none.” merits, all the facts which indisputa-
Under and admittedly deliberate violation of the show Constitution bly do the Courts have power Legislature, (1) pre- a further vent violation Constitution and (2) relief? The appropriate answer is and grant obviously doubt shadow “Yes”! beyond any Enjoin To Power of Courts Violation of the Constitution Pennsylvania passed a Senato- rial Act in Apportionment another on 1874, February one Act the last 1921. The 1906 and on May 10, on the decennial which based United States it equally but enacted;
census
was valid when
because
it is
invalid
inapplicable
clear that
today
census
States decennial
upon
it is
based
United
and un-
1906)
(and
clearly
all par-
lower
found and as
(as
questionably
into
dis-
the State
senatorial
apportions
ties admit)
provisions
tricts which violate
Constitutional
Section 16.
Article
Rights
Section
II,
would amount
to noth-
are ordained
Constitution
to protect
there is
them. When
demand
no
we
way
ing if
free
fair elections
elsewhere
Germany
doesn’t it seem
that we
throughout
world,
strange
citizens of
deprive many
Pennsylvania
unwittingly
our
fair
election which
or-
equal
to them.
dains and guarantees
im
the most fundamental
and the most
Probably
to inter
powers and duties of the Courts are
portant
*16
to pass upon
Constitution and
pret
support
a statute.
the pres
As
Constitutionality
validity
et
said Hertz
ent
Justice
Siggins
Chief
v.
Drivurself
177 unnecessary complainants.* particular It seem would anything obvious, is so for to cite authorities many. are authority there needed but if be Chattanooga v. Wal & Louis R. R. St. In Nashville, (speaking (1935), the Court 415 294 S. 405, U. ters, when through said: “A statute valid Justice Brandeis) change conditions in the may invalid become enacted applied.” it is to which 2d the Court Flynn Pa. 51 A. 356 20, 54,
In v. Horst, 31-32) hesitate (pages : a court should “While said clearly satis until unconstitutional to declare statute invalidity, the stat it has been on its fied of where years many all the hesitation should be ute books plainly yet, act is in conflict with greater, if such an age give organic cannot it life, old law state, properly constitutionality is of its issue and when have ruled it declared void. We never must be raised, contrary. an act Pa. Com. v. Hazen, on the unconstitutional after had been declared Orkney thirty-two years, and in Street, books thirty-three years; many like after other Pa. 425, cited.* instances could be Products S. at
“In U. S. Carolene U. Co., page United Stales opinion by later Chief said: Justice, Justice, Stone predicated upon constitutionality a statute “The particular may of a of facts chal existence state lenged by showing court that those have facts * interpreta frequently apply principle this The Courts zoning zoning application statutes and tion and ordinances. See *17 335, Zoning 328, 682; Case, 2d v. 385 Pa. 122 A. Lukens Garbev Zoning Township 608, 614, 765; Ridley Board, 367 Pa. A. 2d 469, 472, Taylor Moore, 154 A. 303 Pa. 788. * Productions, Carroll, Inc. v. Hallmark 384 Pa. 121 A. In pictures Board which had censored motion 2d of Censors years was declared to be unconstitutional. for 41 Corporation al. et ceased exist.’ Chastleton District et Sinclair Rent Commission al., speak- Justice et 264 U. S. Columbia al., Holmes, depending ing . A said: ‘. . law Court, any upon emergency or other certain existence operate uphold may cease to if facts to it, state of change though emergency valid or the ceases even facts passed.’ S. In Perrin 232 U. when v. United States, prohibition Congress a act it that was said liquor against lands ceded Indians sale may limits be- of State States within United thereby inoperative all the Indians affected come when emancipated completely from Federal control.” become that The Act of 1921 demonstrates period of toit continue in effect for a itself intended provided by years, its only because the Act about ten only that it continue in effect “until terms towas decennial census is next States taken and United apportionment thereon”. lan- made Even without such validly guage, continue the Act could in under effect, only provisions until the next Constitution, decennial census was a new States taken and United apportionment made thereunder as soon thereafter reasonably practical. Pennsylvania
Defendant denies the Courts of right power or invalidate an have or to restrain or interfere local statute invalidly no conducted, election matter how held or exclusively Legislature. these are matters for since completely This contention is devoid of merit. decide controverted Courts matters cases election Pennsylvania county nearly every each elec- time an convincing is held. Even more tion conclusive, indisputable (1) important fact is an the most duty in- inherent Court, interpret repeat, support we alienable, is,
179
Constitutionality
upon
pass
Constitution,
statute: Hertz
or
of
invalidity
validity
Siggins,
v.
that pri-
359
and (2)
Pa., supra;
Drivurself
spe-
of
have
of the Courts
Pennsylvania
decisions
right
sustained the
cifically
statute apportionment
determine
an
validity
operation
its
to restrain
when invalid,
enforce-
ment:
v.
Commonwealth
Crow,
355;
218 Pa.
67 A.
Armstrong King, 281 Pa.
v.
Shoemaker
126 A.
263;
Secretary
v. Lawrence,
Commonwealth,
45 Dau
Lyme
v.
111
45 Dauphin 322
Lawrence,
phin
(1938);
same
Bee to the
the decisions of the
effect
(1938).
Attorney
General
Courts of our sister states:
highest
Apportionment
County
v.
Commissioners,
224
Suffolk
Smiley
v.
Brown v.
Holm,
Mass.
285
S.
598;
355;
U.
Ragland
v.
Saunders,
Anderson,
28;
159 Va.
125
Ky.
Dyer v. Kazuhisa
Parker
138
Abe,
Supp.
F.
141;
220;
Denney
v.
ex rel.
State
Powell,
v. State
133 Ind.
178;
Giddings
ex rel.
v.
Basler,
144 Ind.
Blacker,
503;
93
Cunningham,
State v.
Wis. 440; Lamb v.
Mich.
81
1;
Cunningham, 83 Wis.
v.
Stoddard,
90;
25 Nev.
Wrightson,
State v.
v.
126; Harmison
56 N.J.L.
452;
Secretary
Ballot
Williams v.
Com'rs.,
45 W. Va.
179;
State,
Commissioners v.
108 N.W.
(Mich.)
749;
People
Thompson,
v.
Blacker,
82 Mich.
638;
Ill.
People
Super
v.
Baird
135 N. Y.
Rice,
451;
473;
State ex
Donnell
visors,
rel.
v. Osburn,
138 N. Y.
95;
Speaker
the House Representatives,
Commonwealth Crow, involved supra, Pa., Senatorial Constitutionality Apportionment Act. In case a person to have claiming been right- elected to the office of senator was fully held not to status have action in the bring form of a writ warranto in name of quo the Commonwealth. (page Court said “The PXowever, : 236) substantial is the involved question of constitutionality sena- tbe Act February 17, torial to consider On tbe L. 31. general P. entertain no doubt. tbat question we upon pass legislative of all tbe extends review judicial power tbe of their comparison provisions acts for *19 and of tbe constitution, and prohibitions requirements or expressed implied regard no exception there is requires constitution of Tbe apportionment. to statutes districts, into senatorial divided fifty tbat state be created statute apportioning and if, illustration, tbe be question 100 districts there could no sixty court to declare the statute of tbe void. and duty are none be less but Other transgressions may obvious, decision.” to and open question tbe less this supra, In Armstrong King, Pa., a, tbe enjoin bill to of tbe sustained Common- Secretary joint resolutions from notifying -pursuant wealth — Legislature tbe Commission- adopted County —tbe the State tbe official ballots ers on throughout print to tbe approving a amendment proposed War I veterans for World in violation bonus Arti- “no of tbe that provides cle XVIII Constitution which amendments oftener amendment or shall be submitted tbat once in In this years”. case, than five case, tbe defendant contended Court was vigorously that dire and was and without impotent, as to the threats made results follow were which would if it attempted action restrain tbe Secre- Court’s tbe as this Consti- Commonwealth, tary especially tutional bad been (five provision ignored year) on four occasions. this previous violated Nevertheless, held the Act Resolutions) tbat (Joint we Court, repeat, tbe Unconstitutional void, tbe of tbe enjoined Commonwealth and man- Secretary tbe bonus in tbat prohibited vote election datorily it have because would violated tbe Constitution. year : “For 213) said (page Tbe Court of an- purpose tagonizing unconstitu- [of this inevitable conclusion practice tionality], are that the been told has we proposed submit amendments reference to without large years’ five been loaned sums have limitation; people’s approval on the faith amendments imperiled, thus these loans submitted; will be upon point. if made this If we sustain contention regret; this were be cause of would much but so, required uphold be we would nevertheless the Con- ignore practice, stitution erroneous whatever might the result . . . .” Secretary Lawrence, Shoemaker Com Dauphin County Reports the Court
monwealth, Secretary restrained the Commonwealth from re papers ceiving nomination from certification any nominations or elections and from Other act holding elections for members of the General As *20 sembly by or in Districts Counties established the Act TP.L. June because the un 30, 1937, Act was that eonstifiitional the reason certain Districts were territory contiguous, from therein formed is not which inequality there in the was Districts created the Act. Dauphin Reports Lyme County Lawrence, Apportionment the the Senatorial Court declared
Act of to be unconstitutional the and restrained Secretary proceedings the Commonwealth from all borough County Allegheny the a under Act because in any included in Senatorial District as estab lished the and some of the Districts Act, violated contiguous requirement territory the Constitu provision equality and some violated the tion, Constitution.
Notwithstanding specifi- these authorities which require cally injunc- grant authorize and this Court to contends tive defendant that the no relief, Courts have ad- and for this their way to decrees, or means enforce powerless a de- enforce to issue and are ditional reason enjoin any certification a officer from to cree State an respect a election to be held under to State corollary, contends defendant As invalid statute. people Pennsylvania way or have no means reapportionment compel Legislature obey to to provision there is no since of the Constitution mandate consequently the placing issue on ballot enforcing mandate power obedience this clear sole is de- lies in of the Constitution wondering help violating cannot it. One liberately Legisla- if the contention would be defendant’s what Apportionment pass after failed ture had Apportionment passed any Act. never or if had people in event such an the Courts Would powerless? en “lack of
Defendant’s contention, viz., mandate or decree, force a Court Constitutional in any heard thereof,” violation while often to restrain strange years is and novel in last South, few Pennsylvania to advocate doctrine origin Presi the famous statement of day. It its had (When he refused aid in dent in 1831 Jackson Supreme decree of the of the Court enforcement Georgia, Nation v. State United States Cherokee judg 1) pronounced has : “John Marshall* his 5 Peters history it if can.” It enforce he let him ment; United States decree of *21 spite challenge. angry of Jackson’s enforced support go to to do have to back But we Supreme power make and enforce the interpret (1) (a) the Constitution, which its decrees (2) (b) Acts in violation void which thereof; * Supreme Justice Court of the United States. Chief the enjoin (3) mandatorily other certain order acts, and/or performed acts be in accordance its decree. are decisions this aforesaid which Court, squarely directly by point, are recent buttressed Supreme decisions of the States, the Court of United right power clearly the sustain the and the duty of the the Courts restrain even the President of violating United States from the Neither Constitution. Congress, President of United nor States, Legislature a nor nor a inherent auto- has Governor, power, cratic or Constitutional each absolute but in case their limited and restricted authorized, any be Constitution —and violation thereof will enjoined by the ! ! Courts! Smiley
In 285 U. S. under Holm, 355, Minnesota, reapportionment following the fifteenth decennial representatives became entitled nine census, in Con gress, being previously one less than al number Legislature lotted. The redistricted but State, approval. Governor returned a bill his without brought by suit taxpayer elector citizen, invalid, judgment State to filings obtain declaring all representative for nomination for the office of in Con gress, enjoin Secretary giving of State from holding notice of the of elections di office in visions set forth in passed, Court of United States the Su reversed preme Court of Minnesota which had a de sustained (pages 374-375) and said murrer, : as in “Where, representatives case the number of Minnesota, has been there ais different decreased, situation as exist ing adapted appor districts are not at all to the new It tionment. follows that in such unless and case, representatives until new districts are all al created, lotted to the State must be large. elected the State at required, That would in the absence of a redistrict ing representation act in order to afford the to which
184 general constitutionally the is the State and entitled, provisions regarded in- the of cannot be as 1911 import.” a different to have tended Virginia, under In Brown 159 Va. 28, Saunders, Congressman, the the recent lost one and most census, Legislature to the State into nine Con- failed divide gressional the 5 of Vir- ten. Section districts instead ginia identical lan- almost the contained Constitution high- Virginia’s guage Pennsylvania’s Constitution. upon Secretary est issued mandamus (page 47) cir- : and said “Under Commonwealth, already to are as forced conclusion, we cumstances, chapter Assembly of of the Acts 23 indicated, necessarily follows that invalid, representa- reapportioning the nine act there is no valid Rep- Virginia is entitled in House tives which necessary Congress, that it will resentatives large, at the nine vn the State select the electors legisla- represent national in the State members ture.” Apportion- County Attorney General Suffolk 224 Mass. the Constitution
ment 598, Commissioners, requirement almost the same had of Massachusetts contiguous territory representation as does Pennsylvania. di- had unequal according into districts, vided each district. The Court said of voters in number 609-611) right Scarcely any (pages : “. .. more liberty nearly of the inde- relates to the citizen and the republic equality pendence of the freeman in a voting conditions of his the method and than representatives efficacy his when ballot, cast, department government. legislative It was said page Opinion Gray, at Justices, ‘Nothing deeply freedom, can more concern representative harmony stability, success of nothing directly republican government, more affect the political rights and civil oí all its members and sub- jects, popular than the manner branch of in which *23 legislative department its is constituted.’
“. . . When men from an examination fair-minded apportionment of entertain no rea- and division can grave, unnecessary sonable doubt that there is inequality unreasonable different between districts, duty Constitution has been and it of violated is Supervisors Kings court so to declare. Baird of v. County, 138 Y. 114. N. 95, appropriate
“Mandamus
affords
relief.
to
form of
remedy
is
usually
It
to which
resort
had
set
illegal
compel
performance
duty
aside the
of
and to
performance
duty according
public
by
to
offi-
law,
po-
discretionary,
cers entrusted with
administrative or
duty
litical functions
is their
when it
act. Flanders
Segee,
v.
182 Mass.
529. Cox v.
206 Mass.
Roberts,
Moneyweight
380.
Scale Co.
v.
199 Mass.
McBride,
Attorney
505.
General
123 Mass.
v.
479.
Boston,
Rea v. Aldermen
217 Mass. 427. Luce v.
Everett,
County,
Examiners
Board of
of Dukes
153
108.
Mass.
Keough
Holyoke,
Cheney
Aldermen of
156
Mass. 403.
People
198 Mass.
367.
Barker,
v. Ammenwerth,
“. . the. division and representative already into of Suffolk districts made by and filed the commissioners is void as con- not in formity to the and . . . the commissioners Constitution, proceed may county must ‘as soon be’ to as divide representative appor- into Suffolk districts so as representatives assigned tion number to that county ‘equally, nearly may according as as to the be, legal relative number of voters’ in the several districts, conformity and otherwise .” to the . . . Constitution, Amendments art. (Sec Sawyer Youngstown Tube Co. v. Sheet and Commerce), the President retary U. S. 579, Secretary through (acting his States United strike Steel Commerce), order avert jeopardize immediately nation our “would Mills which claiming “inherent al seized certain mills, defense”, property power” officers, removal of of seizure powers aggregate of his “the Constitutional under Executive and the Commander-in the Nation’s Chief Forces of the United States”; of the Armed Ohief “supported by inherent that such further precedent, court historical the Constitution, *24 Supreme the held that President decisions”. The Court enjoined Secretary powers, the his and exceeded had companies property seizing steel even the of the from jeopardize immediately which would to a strike avert Defense. our National enjoined In likewise a Governor. have
The Courts Arkansas v. United States Governor Faubus, John Aaron et 254 F. 2d defend- America and al., 797, enjoin proceeding brought the a the ants Governor, Adjutant and Commander State, General control, and others under their National Guard negro prevent eligible using Guard National from attending High from Little Rock school children School pursuant school) approved (a public to the Court’s injunction integration. plan restraining An the Gov- important and other Officials of Arkansas ernor Appeals. by the affirmed States Court of United v. United Mine United Workers In States Amer- Supreme S. Court of the 258, 330 U. United ica, enjoined John L. President States Lewis, United calling a from strike Mine Union Workers, Supreme participating a strike. The from Court dis- thereafter found that Union had Lewis injunctive obeyed rea- decree and this the Court’s Contempt. guilty of both Criminal and Civil son were contempt L. criminal For the Court fined John or- and further $700,000; Lewis Union $10,000 “pay fine of Union an additional $2,800,- dered days 000 unless the defendant within five after union, the issuance of mandate shows it has herein, complied restraining fully temporary is- with order injunc- preliminary sued November tion issued December 1946.” The army money had no of the United States or mate- rial means to enforce its but the fines were decree, promptly paid. Dyer Supp. Kazuhisa 138 F. the Dis- Abe, complaint
trict Court of United Stales sustained against Legisla- territorial voter the Territorial ture and Governor of to obtain relief from Hawaii, reapportion legislature failure the territorial ac- Organic cordance Hawaiian Act. The Court deprived (1) equal held this failure the voters of the protection of the law constituted denial due process, (2) reapportion ordered equivalent being in accordance with the the Order Act, to a mandamus. The exceptionally in an Court, able opinion Judge (page 236) said : “The *25 McLaughlin, hag time and the Court come, the has marked way, given when serious consideration should a be to judicial reversal of the traditional reluctance of inter- legislative reapportionment. vention in The whole today’s legal thrust of climate is to end unconstitu- preclude tional discrimination. is judi- It to ludicrous representative mainspring cial a govern- relief when of impaired. Legislators ment is have no immunity from legislatures the The Constitution. of our land should responsive be made as to tbe Constitution of the United States as are citizens legislators.” the who elect the
188 City Jerseyville, 7 125 Circuit Connett v. Justice) speak- (later Judge
F. 2d Mr. Minton, 124) ing (page the . the said : “. . Circuit Court, part of District a the Court entered essential decree, as follows: which reads “ municipal City Jerseyville, a ‘The defendant through its corporation, is commanded now forthwith, adopt proper corporate to a schedule authorities, pro- Jerseyville for the Waterworks which will rates operation, pay the costs of income duce sufficient provide adequate depreciation fund an maintenance, upon pay interest the certificates indebted- the princi- plaintiffs discharge by the the ness owned pal time.’ reasonable thereof within of the District is This action now 2]
“[1,
ground
challenged by
City
the
court is
indirectly
it
do
to do
what
cannot
without
engage
legislative
directly, namely,
function
making a
the court
fixing
But
is not
a rate schedule.
City.
clearly
duty
The
rate schedule. That
compelling
merely
City
duty,
do its
court is
by
conformity
the statute enacted
the State
City
duty,
does its
and when
it,
Illinois,
legislative power.
exercising will
court,
the court
be fixed in
decree of
will not
rates
water
City
city
council.
the ordinance
When
but in
an
duty
act and refuses to
that is not
act,
is under
arbitrary
contrary to law.
act,
but
act of discretion,
United
Commission v.
Interstate
States,
Commerce
Huidekoper
56 L. Ed.
849;
189 not an invasion of the discretion. State Board City’s of Equalization v. Ill. 61 58 191 N.E. People, 528, 339, L.R.A. 513. It must apparent that by now law
“[4] this case court this has exer- power and will cise it to compel the perform its legal clear City duty. have do compelled
“Courts years councils city their legal though performance of that duty, duty the exercise may require of discretion and be in performance of legislative levying such as functions, of East taxes. Louis St. City v. United 120 U. S. States, 7 S. Ct. 30 L. 600, Ed. Von 739, 798; Hoffman City v. 4 Wall. 71 U. S. 18 Quincy, 535, 403; L. Ed. 535, of Cairo 116 City v. Ill. 5 8 Campbell, N.E. 305, 114, N.E. People 688; 279 Massieon, Ill. 116 N.E. 312, 639. bodies have
“Indeed, been regulatory compelled mandamus assume fix Inter rates. state Commerce Commission S. v. United 224 U. States, 32 S. Ct. L. 474, 56 Ed. 849; 187 Lewis, Ind. 120 129. N.E.
“In another the Interstate case, Commerce Commis- sion had refused to follow mandate re- Congress it to value certain quiring railroad properties, the mandate ground of Congress impossible But the performance. Supreme United States that the held Commission could be compelled mandamus proceed performance of its duties laid down of Congress. Kansas City Southern Co. Ry. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, U. S. S. Ct. 64 L. Ed. 517.” States, Court of the United has re- cent extended the years greatly of the Courts— interest —to public uphold *27 conglomeration but of words, it not a mere
to make sweeping are omnipotent power. and living broad How by strikingly powers demonstrated the the Courts “Segregation Board In Brown v. Cases”. the so-called Sharpe, Bolling et al. and v. U. S. 347 Education, and extended followed which were 347 S.U. public Supreme the ordered Court later ldndred cases, integrate negro and children under to schools white to the 14th Amendment Constitution virtue “equal protection the every guarantees citizen which law.”* not did to the Amendment
The 14th
Supreme Court
or
and the
schools;
mention “education”
jurisdiction
given
specifically
expressly or
never
was
Supreme
subjects.
neither the
of these
Furthermore,
ever
nor District
were
the
Courts
nor
Circuit
Court
(a)
specifically
restrain
given expressly
to
or
the
President
or
or the
school authorities,
State Officers,
Legislatures,
or Governors and
of the United States,
compel
(b)
effectually
to
which
they
or
them,
do,
which
mandatory
obey
they effectually
to
affirmative
do,
vehemently re-
The South
or Decree of Court.
Order
vigor-
segregation-integration
the
decisions,
sented
ously
schools
that education and
were mat-
contended
Supreme
that the
Court
or local in nature;
ters State
Courts)
(and
Federal
had no
the lower
questions;
usurping the
that the Court
local
was
such
rights
pow-
powers
Governments and
of State
by the
Tenth Amendment
reserved
ers
were
which
People
to the
that
of each State;
States
unjusti-
interpretation
Constitution Court’s
people
illegal,
unconstitutional;
fied,
*
completely
Plessy
Ferguson,
nullified
The Court reversed
(1927),
Gong
Rice,
(1896),
Lum
It if not must be ironic, that the assert Constitu- that learn Northerners now ** Education, U. 301. Board S. Brown v. of * terribly to Appellant be difficult would also contends that it Apportionment with the Constitu- Act in accordance a new draw if requirements, create chaos would and that this Court tional presently unconstitutional invalid under elections restrained The contentions. there no merit these course is of 1921. Of Act “po- drawing Reapportionment only difficulty is a a valid Pennsylvania Furthermore, difficulty. of when Courts litical” unconstitutional, prior Apportionment no chaos be Acts to declared Legislature to avoid which is in session wishes If the resulted. easily by pass- chaos, possibility forthwith it can do so even the “pos- Moreover, Reapportionment if ing Act. constitutional valid legally mandate of the avoid clear sufficient is sible” chaos Supreme Segregation Constitution, decisions can the how justified undoubted- its decisions would when it knew be Court ly produce chaos.
tion can violated with Pennsylvania be impunity our election our and that such officials, or violation is without because the Su- remedy redress, no au- has or preme Pennsylvania Court or or means enjoin violation of thority or to enforce a make and De- Constitution mandatory cree for State held compel election Senators in accordance with of Pennsylvania the people! and the will controlling
The disregarding majority opinion, has Supreme Pennsylvania, decisions from the of our sister cited some decisions Courts same States which do have Constitu (most tional mandate does which hold Pennsylvania) Legislative apportionment or even Congressional therewith should questions dealing purely political mainly relies majority be shunned Courts. S. case 326 U. leading Colegrove upon Green, con that case the 549. In Court refused or of a equities inequities sider the Con validity, its statute gressional Illinois, between Congress possible resulting conflict the Colegrove sat; State. Justices 3 Justices case, *29 had 3 Justices believed believed Court jurisdiction, it 1 Justice believed the lacked Court jurisdiction, of the facts case but because jurisdiction had in it. to exercise Net result —a declined majority as to that even Congressional apportion believed Court It is possessed jurisdiction. clear that Court ment, case does Pennsylvania’s juris Colegrove deny act a State legisla to invalidate providing diction on if reapportionment; contrary, tive apposite, it. supports S. v. Governor 335 U.
MacDougall Green, Illinois, In that case inapposite. complainants clearly 281, the enforcement a injunction against stat- sought
193 setting requirements ute of out for a new Illinois, found, political party. The District Court want Fed- injunction. jurisdiction eral and denied the The Su- preme opinion in a Per that a Curiam held State pursuance policy has the in assure proper political diffusion of initiative that this any provisions would not violate Federal Consti- parenthetically tution. We note that even on this point, ground Justice concurred on the Rutledge equity should decline to exercise its be- question presented cause the of a eve na- tional and Justice election; Justice Black Douglas, opinion they and Justice dissented. In their Murphy very said that “free and honest are the elections founda- republican government”; tion of our form and held provisions that several of the Constitution Unit- ed States were violated State act.
In Kidd v. v. 352 U. S. McCanless, 920, Radford Gary, 352 U. S. in Turman v. Duckworth, U. S. in South v. in other U. S. Peters, Supreme majority cases not opinion, cited merely Court of the United States entered Per Curiam (always dissents) “Judgment several affirmed: Colegro (and see ve v. 328 U. S. sometimes Green, also) MacDougall 281.” All these U. S. Green, question appor cases involved the whether State’s legislative tionment into districts violated Federal supra, Constitution. In South v. Peters, Court, very opinion, brief Per Curiam stated that Federal consistently equity Courts had refused to exercise their powers arising geographical in cases from a State’s strength political distribution of electoral among its subdivisions.
The aforesaid decisions of the Court, particularly grove upon Cole the ma Creen, *30 produced jority only have uncertainty relies, con- and exactly they hold. as to fusion in Bench and Bar what Apportionment They apparently Stat- that hold State Clearly, the Federal utes not violate Constitution. do they cannot not decide that a State do Court however, Constitutionality act which State determine legislative apportions is the districts. That, course, clearly question present it key has been and case; in prior specifically by this decisions of Court decided and jurisdiction. possess such our Courts quoted light cited, hereinabove or all the decisions Pennsylvania have that the am Courts I convinced protect power, order Pennsylva- rights people the Constitutional interpret duty obedi- enforce have we nia, Pennsylvania, to re- to the Constitution ence any thereof. violation strain opinion if majority an ominous result The forecasts It unconstitutional. 1921 is now declared the Act of enjoin any No- thereunder newt that to election states (a) all elections heretofore vember invalidate would (b) passed by Sena- all laws held under said fortunately position Act. This said tors elected under clearly con- completely It has been untenable! opinion vincingly a learned and refuted in answered King, Armstrong Simpson Pa., Mr. Justice Representa- supra. or an election Senators Where public im- and laws or held matters tives has been legislators peo- upon by passed portance elected question years their ple, thereafter, is too late, validity deny of their Acts. This is so election public public obviously it is interest —indeed ques- astonishing necessity it seems it should be —that segregation recent decisions of or doubted. tioned as re- of the United well States, and District Courts, of Federal Circuit cent decisions concept judicial changed the timorous have *31 legislature a a a or of actions of Governor or of even political” “purely outside President therefore are and beyond jurisdiction These deci and the of the Courts. power of the sions have extended the and (1) effectually the restrained uncon Courts and have highest public stitutional actions of the officials, compelled compliance (2) effectually a Presi have high a officials Cabinet a dent, Officer, Governor, legislatures provision mandatory of a even with mandatory De the and an affirmative Constitntion, the sound, cree of a decisions are Court. These based people ground the cannot American that solid, protection any redress must not be left without rights;* onr their fundamental otherwise American pa scrap meaningless of become a Constitution would per System our American of of which Government, mockery. proud, are a we so be hollow would appellee (Secretary of The of Commonwealth through speaking Attorney Pennsylvania, General Pennsylvania) Is- admits that Justiciable State “A appellee agrees courts that the sue is Presented . . . validity Pennsylvania jurisdiction to consider the have Pennsylvania reapportionment statute under present . . that the when [and] . statute, approxi- requirements the constitutional tested population among equality Art. II, mate districts, equal violates of free and Art. elections, I, §5, §16, requirements present . . . . . . those unquestionably with Constitution. conflict dispute problem only centers around The area of argued (a) remedy.” Attorney General then into that could not mandamused * right suffrage, important Including is even more —which rig'ht i.e., right freely choose and than education — representatives provisions in accordance with eleet their Constitution, Reapportionment
passing Constitutionally valid parties (b) they because were not suit, large have to decree at no an election Courts Assembly are made even if the members of General parties-defendant. crystal clear the Attor- It is agrees ney prior this decisions of General unequivocally contrary to the ma- Court which hold— opinion jority Pre- State Issue is Justiciable —that *32 require this as our bounden and Court hold sented, duty, that Act is invalid unconsti- the of 1921 and now tutional.
The fundamentals of our American Constitutional powers of the traditional inherent and Government, Pennsylvania the of the decisions of the Courts Courts, point directly buttressed, are are which in and which although necessary, by no recent decisions buttress is of District the and Circuit and of beyond pos- the of the make clear Courts United States, Pennsylvania (1) sibility of of doubt that the Courts enjoin right, power, duty the have the and application presently in- and the enforcement of Reapportionment by the of valid Senatorial Secretary offi- election Commonwealth and Philadelphia throughout Pennsylvania; cials and injunctive (2) any violation of this Court’s (a) Decree will make an Act void, election under said (b) subject Secretary and the election will penalties disobey officials the Decree to who severe contempt of Court.
I hold that Article would clear man- I, §5, §16 date Article of the II, §18, slightest Pennsylvania have without been, doubt, Legislature Pennsylvania. violated I would enjoining Secretary enter Decree likewise certifying Commonwealth from to the Elec- Board of Philadelphia County tions all other Counties Pennsylvania any for the names of candidates office of State Senator in those districts for provided by May election is the Act 10, 1921, certifying from the election to office of State Sena- person any tor of districts. within said Legislature’s respect I confident that am our Constitution and our as the Will of well Courts, people compel Pennsylvania, only obedience will Legislature such Decree move the but will forth pass Reappor a valid Constitutional Senatorial tionment Act.* * sought relief, namely, Plaintiff further Court maa- this
datorily adjournment, Legislature pass, order the before its ,tho Reapportionment in obedience to clear Senatorial mandate of upon Legislature the Constitution and so failure to- do with- general Legislature time, in a reasonable Decree a election. The probably presently in session and will continue session for reapportion months. If another six or two it fails to weeks (the power present regular session, at Senate its Governor has IV, §12, special under Article to call a session of the Reapportionment purpose passing for the a valid Act. The Gov- *33 ernor, however, compel Legislature cannot -the act. clearly completely This intolerable situation would be cured following Constitutional Amendment which is recommended
by the Commission on Constitutional Revision: regular
“Recommended. Before the close of each session of the Assembly -officially figures General at which the certified available, United States decennial census first are the General Assembly apportion shall the Commonwealth into senatorial and representative Assembly so, If districts. the General fails- do- to- shall, immediately adjournment, the Governor after final call the Assembly special purpose General into session for -the sole of mak- ing apportionments. special At the session there shall no be any subject. legislation Assembly other The General shall not adjourn completed die sine until has into representative both senatorial and districts.” Under recent decisions of the Court of the United States, particularly segregation-integration eases-, in the the Courts people any protection leave will not without redress their rights; appear upon and it Constitutional would fundamental Benjamin dis- in this R. joins Jones Mr. Justice opinion. senting proper proper could mandamus time the Courts at a suit Legislators, duty, perform as since its Constitutional responsive Judges, as should made well Governors who elect them. as axe the citizens Appellant, Rice.
Costello,