254 Mass. 617 | Mass. | 1926
On April 29, 1926, the Justices returned the following answer:
The undersigned, Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, have received a communication from the Honorable the House of Representatives as follows:
“House of Representatives, April 21, 1926.
“Whereas, There is pending before the General Court a bill (Senate, No. 328) to establish congressional, councillor and senatorial districts and to apportion representatives; and “Whereas, Doubt exists as to whether or not the provisions of Article XLVIII of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth relative to the Referendum, would apply to such a measure, if enacted; therefore be it
“Ordered, that the opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court be required by the House of Representatives on the following important question of law: Would the above mentioned bill, if enacted, be subject to a referendum petition under said provisions?”
The Constitution of the Commonwealth as amended, art. 16, provides that councillor districts shall be eight in number of contiguous territory and each shall consist of five
The House of Representatives, by art. 21, consists of two hundred and forty members to be apportioned by the Legislature in the several counties of the Commonwealth equally, as nearly as.may be, according to the relative number of legal voters as ascertained by the next preceding special enumeration. Then follow provisions for dividing counties into representative districts by the mayor and aider-men of the city of Boston, the county commissioners of other counties, or, in lieu thereof, by such special commissioners in each county as may be provided by law.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth as amended, art. 22, requires the General Court at its first session after each decennial census to divide the Commonwealth into forty senatorial districts of adjacent territory, each district to contain as nearly as may be an equal number of legal voters according to the enumeration in the census, with prohibitions against dividing towns or wards, and against uniting counties or parts of two or more counties in one district.
By 37 U. S. Sts. at Large, 14, c. 5, § 4, approved August 8, 1911, it is provided: "That in case of an increase in the number of Representatives in any State under this apportionment such additional Representative or Representatives shall be elected by the State at large and the other Representatives by the districts now prescribed by law until such State shall be redistricted in the manner provided by the laws thereof and in accordance with the rules enumerated in section three of this Act; and if there be no change in the number of Representatives from a State, the Representatives thereof shall be elected from the districts now prescribed by law until such State shall be redistricted as herein prescribed.” Section 3 provides "That in each State entitled under this apportionment to more than one Representative, the Representatives to the Sixty-third and each subsequent Congress shall be elected by districts composed of a contiguous and compact territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants. The said
The various districts are political divisions for the election of the various officers described in the amendments, as well as for the election of Representatives to Congress under the Federal law. The voters of one district may deem themselves aggrieved by the apportionment, while the voters of another district may be satisfied with it. It is true that the apportionment territorially covers the Commonwealth. But if it had been the purpose of the people to submit to the qualified voters on referendum the apportionment where there are or may be diversified, local interests, the language of art. 48, § 3, sub-section 1, excludes such construction.
It is inconceivable, in view of the confuson which might result from a referendum where the representative districts are determined by some tribunal other than the Legislature, that it could have been intended that the referendum was to be applicable to the congressional, senatorial and councillor districts, while it could not in any event apply to the representative districts. It has been said: “Principles of public policy constitute one of the sources of law. Where the decision of a case is not plainly governed by some constitutional provision, statute, or rule of law, and no previous authoritative decision seems to be applicable, such principles should be, and doubtless are, given consideration by the court.” This conclusion is supported also by the language of art. 48, The Referendum, § 3, sub-section 2, which excludes
The proposed Act, by its terms, is to “establish congressional, councillor and senatorial districts and to apportion representatives.” But when this has been accomplished by the Legislature, to which the power has been delegated by the Constitution, and in the manner therein provided, nothing further remains to be done. Opinion of the Justices, 10 Gray, 613. Donovan v. Suffolk County Apportionment Commissioners, 225 Mass. 55, 58.
We have not overlooked the decision in State v. Hildebrant, 94 Ohio St. 154, Ohio v. Hildebrant, 241 U. S. 565, State v. Polley, 26 S. D. 5, and Opinion of the Justices, 118 Maine, 552. The provisions in the constitutions of the States of Ohio, South Dakota and Maine, relating to the same subject matter, are distinguishable from the provisions of our own Constitution. The Constitution of Ohio, art. 2, § 1 (d), as summarized in the opinion in State v. Hildebrant, supra, provides that “ . . . laws providing for tax levies and certain emergency laws, when passed by a yea and nay vote of two-thirds of all members elected to each branch of the general assembly, shall go into immediate effect and shall not be subject to the referendum imposed by the preceding section. As to all other laws passed by the general assembly, the people have reserved to themselves the power of adoption or rejection.”
Article 3, § 1, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota provides: “The legislative power . . . shall be vested in a legislature . . . except that the people expressly
It follows that the question propounded must be answered in the negative.
The Chief Justice has been unable to participate in the consideration of this question.
Henry K. Braley.
John C. Crosby.
Edward P. Pierce.
James B. Carroll.
William Cushing Wait.
George A. Sanderson.