State ex rel. Barrett v. Hitchcock

146 S.W. 40, 241 Mo. 433, 1912 Mo. LEXIS 296
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 28, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 146 S.W. 40 (State ex rel. Barrett v. Hitchcock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Barrett v. Hitchcock, 146 S.W. 40, 241 Mo. 433, 1912 Mo. LEXIS 296 (Mo. 1912).

Opinions

WOODSON, J.

— This is an original proceeding by mandamus, instituted in this court by the relator, seeking to compel the respondents, the judges of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, to apportion or redistriet said city into six senatorial districts as is required to be done under certain' conditions, by section 7, article 4 of the Constitution of 1875.

A petition for an alternative writ of mandamus was filed, and after due consideration it was ordered to issue, and it was. made returnable January 2, 1912. The writ was issued and duly served; and upon the return day, the respondents filed their return.

Upon the incoming of the return, the relator filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; and it will therefore be necessary for a proper understanding of the case to set out the alternative writ, the return and the motion for judgment.

The writ is as follows (formal parts omited):

“Tour petitioner, Jesse W. Barrett, relator herein, respectfully represents that he is a citizen, resident and taxpayer of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and is a qualified elector in the Fifth precinct of the Twenty-eighth ward o'f said city, and in the Thirty-second senatorial district of Missouri; and that respondents George C. Hitchcock, J. Hugo Grimm, Daniel D. Fisher, Hugo Muench, George H. Shields, William B. Homer, Charles C. Allen, William M. Kinsey, James E. Withrow, Eugene McQuillin, Leo S. Rassieur and Wilson A. Taylor, are the du]y elected, qualified and acting judges constituting the circuit court, city of St. Louis, Missouri.
“Tour petitioner respectfully represents that in the year 1910, there was taken the thirteenth decennial census of the United States, and the result thereof as to the State of Missouri was ascertained and made pub]ic on September 30,1910, according to which the State. of Missouri has a population of 3,293,335, and the city of St. Louis a population of 687,029; that the next [442]*442session of the General Assembly was duly held in the City of Jefferson, as is duly provided by law; that under the provisions of section 7 of article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri, it became the duty of said Forty-sixth General Assembly to revise and adjust the apportionment of the State of Missouri for senators on the basis of such census, but the said Forty-sixth General Assembly failed to district the State for senators as required in said section and adjourned on March 20, 1911, and under the terms of said section it then became the duty of the Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney-General within thirty days thereafter to perform the said duty; that on April 18, 1911, the Governor, Secrtary of State and Attorney-General met for this purpose, and in pursuance of said section of the Constitution the Secretary of State and Attorney-General apportioned the State for senators and filed in the office of Secretary of State a full statement of the districts formed by them, including’ the names of the counties embraced in each district and the numbers thereof, which statement was signed by the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General, was attested by the Great Seal of the State, .and reads as follows:
“ ‘Statement of Apportionment of Senatorial Districts. April 18, 1911.
“ ‘This is to-certify that on Tuesday, April 18, 1911, under the provisions of section 7, article 4 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri (the Legislature of the State of Missouri in its session next after the decennial census, 1910, of the United States, had been taken and the result thereof as to this State ascertained, being the regular session of the Forty-sixth General Assembly, having failed to apportion and district the State into senatorial districts), Herbert S. Hadley, Governor of the State of Missouri, Cornelius Boach, Secretary of State of the State of Missouri, and Elliott W. Major, Attorney-General of the State of [443]*443Missouri, having had the matter under consideration, did district the State of Missouri for senators and divide said State into thirty-four senatorial districts, as follows:
“ ‘First District: The counties of Atchison, Gentry, Nodaway and Worth.
“ ‘Second District: The county of Buchanan.
“ ‘Third District: The counties of Andrew, Clay, Clinton, DeKalb, Holt and Platte.
“ ‘Fourth District: The counties of Grundy, Harrison, Mercer and Putnam.
“ ‘Fifth, Seventh and Nineteenth Districts: The county of Jackson.
‘ ‘ ‘ Sixth District: The counties of Chariton, Linn, Livingston and Sullivan.
“ ‘Eighth District: The counties of Caldwell, Carroll, Daviess and Ray.
“ ‘Ninth District: The counties of Macon, Marion, Randolph, and Shelby.
“‘Tenth District: The counties of Adair, Clark, Knox, Lewis, Schuyler and Scotland.'
“ ‘Eleventh District: The counties of Lincoln, Pike, Ralls and St. Charles. ■
“ ‘Twelfth District: The counties of Boone, Calla-way, Cole, Miller and Osage.
“ ‘Thirteenth District: The counties of Audrain, Gasconade, Monroe, Montgomery and Warren.
“ ‘Fourteenth District: The counties of Camden, Cooper, Howard, Moniteau, Morgan and Saline.
' “‘Fifteenth District: The counties of Johnson, Lafayette and Pettis.
“Sixteenth District: The counties of Bates, Benton, Cass, Hickory and Henry.
“ ‘Seventeenth District: The counties of Barton, Cedar, Dade, St. Clair and Vernon.
“ ‘Eighteenth District: The counties of Christian, Greene, Stone, and Taney.
“ ‘Twentieth Disriet: The county of Jasper.
[444]*444“ ‘Twenty-first District: The counties of Dallas, Douglas, Laclede, Ozark, Polk, Webster and Wright.
“ ‘Twenty-second District: The counties of Barry Lawrence, McDonald and Newton.
“ ‘Twenty-third District: The counties of Butler, Carter, Dunklin, Ripley and Wayne.
“ ‘Twenty-fourth District: The counties of Dent, Howell, Oregon, Shannon and Texas.
“ ‘Twenty-fifth District: The counties of Cape Girardeau, Mississippi, New Madrid, Pemiscot and Scott.
‘ ‘ ‘ Twenty-sixth District: The counties of Bollinger, Madison, Perry, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve and Stoddard.
“ ‘Twenty-seventh District: The counties of St. Louis and Franklin.
“ ‘Twenty-eighth District: The counties of Crawford, Iron, Jefferson, Maries, Phelps, Pulaski, Reynolds and Washington.
“ ‘Twenty-ninth, Thirtieth, Thirty-first, Thirty-second, Thirty-third and thirty-fourth Districts: The city of St. Louis.
“ ‘The said State of Missouri was districted for senators and divided into said thirty-four senatorial districts by the vote of Cornelius Roach, Secretary of State, and Elliott Major, Attorney-General, The Governor, Herbert S.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Johnson v. State
366 S.W.3d 11 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2012)
In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176
83 So. 3d 597 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Pearson v. Koster
359 S.W.3d 35 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2012)
In Re the Legislative Districting of State
475 A.2d 428 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1984)
Rybicki v. STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS OF STATE OF ILL.
574 F. Supp. 1082 (N.D. Illinois, 1982)
Shayer v. Kirkpatrick
541 F. Supp. 922 (W.D. Missouri, 1982)
Schrage v. State Board of Elections
430 N.E.2d 483 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1981)
Preisler v. Kirkpatrick
528 S.W.2d 422 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1975)
State Ex Rel. Scott v. Kirkpatrick
484 S.W.2d 161 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1972)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1971
Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri
279 F. Supp. 952 (W.D. Missouri, 1968)
Armentrout v. Schooler
409 S.W.2d 138 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1966)
On Motion for Reconsideration
90 P.R. 225 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1964)
Preisler v. Hearnes
362 S.W.2d 552 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1962)
State Ex Rel. Aamoth v. Sathre
110 N.W.2d 228 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1961)
Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. Woolley
161 A.2d 705 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1960)
Preisler v. Doherty
284 S.W.2d 427 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1955)
State Ex Rel. Wulfing v. Mooney
247 S.W.2d 722 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1952)
State ex rel. McNary v. Mooney
247 S.W.2d 726 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1952)
State ex rel. Sommer v. Calcaterra
247 S.W.2d 728 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 S.W. 40, 241 Mo. 433, 1912 Mo. LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-barrett-v-hitchcock-mo-1912.