Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1892-10-19
NEW YORK LAW VALID.
Decision of the Supreme Court In the
Apportioument Case.

Decision of the Supreme Court in the
Apportionment Case.
ALBANY, n. Y, Oct. BIN the cases
of the people ex rel. Pond, appellant.
against the Board of Supervisors OF
Monroe County, and the people ex rel
Horn, appellant, VS.. the Board of ST.
pervisors Of Oneida County, better
known as the apportionment test cases.
the court of appeals to-day reversed
the order in both cases, and motions.
for mandamus were granted with
costs in all courts.
These were cases in which the court
was asked to issue orders for writs Of
mandamus, compelling the Board Of
Supervisors of Monroe and Oneida.
counties to redistrict the Assembly dis
trict in those counties in compliance.
with the Bpportionment law passed by
the last legislature. The order Of the,
lower court was affirmed with costs ID
all courts.
In the case of the people ex REL
George Carter, of Utica, appellant,
against Frank Rice, secretary of state,
the court was asked to grant an iniunc-
tional order restraining the secretary OF
state from recognizing the new appor~
tlonment law or sending out no.
uces Of election of members OF
Assembly to county clerks except I'M
der the apportlonment law Ct 1889, the,
lower court having refused to grant such
an order.
The main opinion upholding the law
is written by Judge Peckham. Justice.
Gray also writes an opinion uphoIding,
the law. Judge Andrews wrote a dis
senting opinion which was concurred IN
by Judge Finch.
questions involved except those dis,
cussed by Judge Andrews opin--
ion. The justices practically agree
on all questions touching the con-
stitutionality of the apportionment
law except on the question of tho dis
cretion used by the legislature in appor--
tioning the remaining members OF As
semblv among the counties having frac~-
tional ratios.
The vote of the court of appeals sus--
tanning the apportionment is prac--
tically to 2, the five being judges,
Earl, Peckham, Gray, O'Brien and
Maynard. Judge Andrews fled sepa-
rate opinion.
To elect a United States Senator ira
this state requires 81 votes on Joint bal
lot of the two branches of the legislature.
The Democrats will have II votes next,
winter when the time comes for electing
q successor to Frank Hiscock, assuming
the majority in that body holds together
till that time. The Republicans Will
have Is votes, and one, Edwards, Of the,
Thirty second District may not be cast.
elect the Senator the Demo
Gratis must have "a votes in the
Assembly and the Republicans.
81. While therefore the Republicans.
Will be able to control the legislation in
the Assembly if they elect 65 members,
they will need three more to control
the United States senatorship. There:
were 81 Democrats and 81 Repub-
licans in the Assembly of 1892.
Three of the Republicans we're
from New York, and three from
Kings. If the Republicans can elect 4
out OF the 80 which this new appoAtion-
ment assigns to New York, and out Of
the Is which it gives to Kings, they
can secure not only the control Of the.
Assembly but also the Senate.
OF the judges, Earl, Chief Justice
O'Brien, Grasys, Peckham aDd May
nard are Democrats, ana Finch and
Andrews are Republicans.