Evening journal., 1892-09-23
THE DOCTORS DISAGREE
New York's Apportionment De-
F. clared Constitutional.
JUDGE MAYHAM UPHOLDs THE ACT.
Tho Mandamus and Injunction Denled In
the Oneidn Case-A Novel Meeting OF
Republican Newsboys and Bootblaeks.
General weaver Peltcd with Eggs.


the Oneida case--A Novel Meeting OF
Republican Newsboys and Boothiacks
General weaver Peltcd with Eggs.
ALBANY, Sept. %. There ismueh interest
evinced here over the decision IN favor Of
the reapportionment OF senate and assem-
bly, districts by the last legislature. This
decision, handed down by the Saratoga spe.
cial term, consisting OF Judges Mayham,
Herrick and pukam, is In direct contra
diction to that given by the Buffalo general
term, and SO two cases OF opposite opinion
will 20 up 70 the court Of appeals.
The opinion is by Presiding Justice May
ham. Associate Justices IIorrick and Put
nam do not express an opinion as to the
! constitutionality OF the apportionment, but
Justice Herrick ooncurs with Presiding
Justice Mayham in denying the writ in or
der to obtain an early submission TO and "A
decision by the court OF appeals on oil Of the
points ia the controversy.
The chief ground Of attack ON the law in
this case was That Il had been passed at mn
extra session OF the legislature and not at
/ the regular session next following the CEN
sus. But at the Same time IL was urged
that the constitution had been violated by
1 including persons OF color not taxed on the
basis Of apportionmont, and by failure 20
make tho districts MS nearly equal In popu-
I lation rs possible, ~ that the whole subject
as 81 was before another general term IN
the Monroe county case was before this gen
cral term with an opposite result.
Il Il q l.N
his opinion, which covers eighteen pages Of
legal cap, is now ga the hands OF his stenog-
rapher at schoharie for copying aud that
copies for the press will not be given out
until Saturday. The opinion fully sustaini
the constitutionality of the apportionmeni
Of 1892.
Judge Mayham's Points.
Judge Mayham's particular points IN th,
| opinion are first as to the cunstitutionalitA
OF the apportionment, and second AS e
the legality OF the extra session OF the legis
laturc. lie holds that before apportioninl
the state the legislature had finished IL
business and was reconveled 10 do
| special business. Therefore II was new
session.
The legislature Of this state had bee
called together several times In this wa
/
IS legal action. Tho law could not men
) TO refer this matter TO the next Legislature
~ that would mean delay OF two year
until there was u new senate
In relation TO the disparagcment IN nun
bers in senate and assembly districts !
holds that the law certainly was intende
Ia give the legislature some discretion, an
could not be construed into making thci
\ mere arithmetioal machines.
Out of the apportloned districts, 1913
q number, but two had complained Of vi
fairness and It would be indeed stranl
. II there were not at least that many obje
tons
/, The constitution read, "As equal a nur
d Der rs may be, % and thus left Il to the al
e erection OF the legislature. The question
u not what the public may think Of the
~ | suits, hut whether the legislature h
n adopted any unconstitutional methods.
r The case IS to De appealed 20 the high
~ court, but unless put In the form OF a m
I, ton or an order win not get on the Gale
dar