The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-11-06
M'GRATH'S OPINION.
He Considers the Law Valid and
Constitutional.

The full text of Judge McGrath's
opinion is IA follows:-
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF JERSEY CITY.
Before JOHN A. MCGRATH. Esquire,
Ju ge.
BLACK
RANSOM,
Re sous given by the Court In support
of Judgment rendered.
Mr.. Kennedy for plaintiff.
Mr.. Ransom, Pro sc.
The facts OF this case having been
agreed on rs appears by the state OF the
case agreed upon" annexed. The defence
made chiefly consisted OF an attack on
the law itself, title of which Is given iu
said .'case agreed upoa,", comm monly
known as the Ballot Reform Law"
The particular cnarge, as ! UNDERSTOOD
it, aimed at aud charged against defend
ant, Mr.. Ransom, was:-That he violated
Sec ion 63 of said law and In doing that
also was guilty of violation of other pro-
visions thereof, Section SO, &c.
The attack was based on the ground
that the law was unconstitutional and
void aud the order Of attack maze by Mr. :.
Ransom as counsel for himself was sub
stan tally as foilows:-
GENERAL ALLEGATION.
First-That the law violates the Consti-
tuition or the State of New Jersey.
PARTICULAR ALLEGATION.
Second-TnAI Sections 25. 26. 27 and 2S
of said law violate Article l, Paragraph
l of the Constitution.
Thlrd-That the requirement made
| necessary to enable anu entitle defendant
to vote an official ballot for "Prohibition
party candidates" under the circun-
stances as disclosed in the cease agreed
on" made absolutely essential to do so,
the use for a heading of the ticket
at least Of that used by the De.
mocratic or Republican party, and
thus while the Prohibition voter could
vote vote for his party's candidate, he in
doiug so was obliged. to use a familiar
phrase, to sail under ia Sc colors. and in
| this way was deprived of vindicating the
principles of his party being thus COM
pelled in the exercise or his elective fran
chise in voting. AS stated, to adopt aud
endorse by use of the head of the ticket,
| as aforesaid, of another party's priu-
ciples, which PRINCIPLES were dianietrl-
cally opposed to those OF the Prohibition
| lists. in contravention OF Article IL. of
| the Constitution headed Right OF Suf-
| frage."
| or special and violates Article Nv, Section
| Z. Paragraph III, of Constitution partfc-
| ular claim this head was, that the law
| favors one or certain political parties and
snuts out another
Here preamble to Constitution of State
and OF United States were read and re-
| ferrea to aud contention made that the
| law contravened both.
FIT, f,h-That the law is violative of
| Clause 20 of State Constitution. Article l.,
| under head of Rights and Privileges" I"
| because Section SO of law provides for
substituting of certain political parties in
the matter of providing payment by the
| public for the expense OF tickets. &C.,
| and excludes others therefrom. ana
| further because this section vio-
| lates another right under the Con-
stitution in limiting the lumber of bali
| lots permitted to be used, etc. There
seems little if any force i'll this conten-
tion. Audit any. It may be pertinently
| suggested that the Prohibition party may
| overcome the objection by decreasing
! their numbers In the future with little
| more rapiditY than they have been wont to
| do in the past. These several objections
| overrule, the only one about which l
had doubt of consequences being that one
| recurring, as shown above, II a prohibit
| tion voter voted under the circumstances
mentioned he had to resort to ticket
| bearing in Its heading the endorsement or
| proclamation of principles entirely diff
| ferent TO and at variance with the real
| principles of the voter.
| Applying to this matter of doubt the
we'll recognized principles followed IN the
construction of statutes, in instances
such as those present in this case, that TO
be in doubt is to be resolved in favor of
the law, / am constrained TO and do thus
sustain the law. Besides, l should re-
| mark that it is not the practise for iufe-
| rior courts to attempt to settle constilu-
| tional questions: that function is rele-
gated to the Superior tribunals.
This law while not. / think, by any
means to be regarded as providing per-
fect system for the Cover nment
of elections is, nevertheless, a
most wonderful and admirable
production, creditable alike to the State
| favored by 1t and the mind or minds
which conceived II aud caused it to be
enacted as law OF State tarfamed for the
| justice and wisdom of her legal system.
There is justification enough for the
law in the one fact alone that il has
driven from public view nt eiections.
trust for ever, the political heelers and
strikers" who SO often in times past
Brought to our brows the blush Of shame