New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-07-28
ARGUMENTS AT ROCHESTER.
TESTING THE GERRYMANDER.
THE LEGAL FIGHT OVER THE REAPPOR
TIONMENT ACT BEGUN.

TIONMFNT PRACTICALLY sUs
rAINED-crrY ATTORNEY KrE-
HELs POINTS OF LAW.
rBY TELEGRAPH TO THE Tribunal
Rochester July 27.-Within the next ten dayO
Judge Rumsey, OF the Supreme Court, will hand
down decision as to the consitutionality Of tho
Democratic gerrymander Of this State, which was
of the fruits Of the theft of the State Senate
Judge Rumsey's decision, and the accompanying
opinion; will be read with interest, not only BY
lawyers but BY all who are interested In the
welfare Of the State. With no less interest will
the public read the arguments which were made
here to-day in the Supreme Court before the
Judge by the lawyers who represented either side
of the question.
So great is the interest which has been attached
to this most important conest-a contest to deter
mine whether or not any political party through
it's leaders defy the plain commands OF the
constitution and give to one section OF the Stafe
double the representation in the Legislature 10
gives TO another section that the Supreme Court
room here was hardly large enough TO hold all OF
those who wanted to hear the arguments. General
John n. Knapp of Auburn; exAssemblyman NJ
J. Cookingham, Of Oneida County, who has en-
gagged in the task to show in the Supreme Court
OF that judicial district that the Reapportionment
law is constitutional; Postmaster w. z. Scripture
OF Rome, who has taken the opposite side Of tha
case in Oneida County; Internal Revenue Collcc-
tor Charles f. Fitch, Martin w. Cooke, George
p Decker, the president Of the Flower City Demo.
cratic Club; Charles J. Bissell, ex-president Of the
Board of Education and leading Democratic
lawyer; City Judge Woerner, James NJ. e.
OGrady, John A. Barhite Police Justice Keeler,
eX-Congrssman John Van yoorhis, Arthur E.
Sutherland, Sheriff Burton H. Davy, John Dcs-
mond, George w. Aldridge, of the Republican
State Committee; Mayor Richard Curran; State
Senator Parsons, and many other leading Rochester
men of both political parties, were in the court
room.
THE Alto RNEYS IN THE CASE.
w. A. Sutherland. who was the Republican cam
didate for Acknowledgement last fall represented
the members Of the Board Of Supervisors of Monroe
County BY his energetic action and his ability and
the manner in which Mr. Sutherland has prepared
his side of the case he has shown that he we'll
worthy of the place for which he was nominated
by his party friends. c. d. Kehel. the City
Attorney of Rochester. appeared for Charles f.
Pond. the cashier of the Commercial Bank on
whose affidavit City Judge Wocrner on Tuesday
of last week. the day when the Board Of Super
visors met and refused to proceed under the new
law on the ground that it unconstitutional
issued an order for the Board through its counsel,
Mr.. Sutherland. to show cause before Judge Rum
sey, in the Supreme Court, why mandamus
could not issue compelling the Board to meet and
redistrict the county Of Monroe as the new law
directs. The Attorney General was advised i'm.
medIately by Mr. Kehel of the action which
Ind been taken both by the Board OF Supervisors
and by himself and he asked that official to come
in and help him the case; but with the ex-
ception of acknowledging the receipt Of the infor
nation and replying that the Attorney-Generals
Office would he represented at the proper time no
other word has come here from Albany, and no
one representing the AttOrneyGeneral was here to-
day. Mr.. Kichel's argument was listened to with
the closest attention. He is bright and able
young lawyer. and he went into this case with
the intention of making the best showing possible
AFF;DAvITs READ IN COURT.
The hearing before Judge Rumsey opened
by Mr.. Sutherland reading two afidavits. One
Of these was that OF Charles p Lee colored
man. Of Rochester, who declared that TO his per.
sonal knowledge there were in this State persons
Of color not taxed. and who had not been enumer.
ated as the Constitution directs. The other am
davi1 was that of n newspaper correspondent who
was ia Albany at the time when the Governors
message was read in the Assembly calling the OK.
traordinary session. previous 10 the ad iournment
Of the regular session. This affidavit is intended
TO support the claim which has been sustained by
nj least one we'll known Judge, that the Governor
has no power 10 order extra session Of tho
legislature during the regular session of the Iegis-
ature.
Mr. Kchel then began his argument in favor
of tie Issue of mandamus to compel the Board
Of Supervisors to carry ont the provisions OF tho
law lie introduced his argument by saying that
it was q delicate duty for a court TO determine
l,u, itufi hat on
tered upon with reluctance and hesitation. IL
was a solemn act 10 declare that body OF men
10 whom the people had delegated the function
Of making laws had deliberately disregarded the
limitations imposed upon it, and usurped power
which the people have been careful to withhold.
Mr.. KIEHEL'S SIX POINTS.
There were six main points in which Mr.. KieheI
argued that the mandamus which he asked for
should be issued. They are as follows: First-This
proceeding has been begun by the relatOr as q
citizen who has sufficient interest therein to insti-
tue the same and it is necessary to show that tho
relator has any private or peculiar interest
in the matter. Second-1his court can compel
the Supervisors to perform the duties required Of
them in Section of the Reapportionment act
though they omit to perform the same the
day therein mentioned, namely, the third Tues
day of July; the time TO perform this duty y
directory and it is within the province Of this
court to issue mandamus to compel them to
perform it at any time. Third-The constitutions
ality Of this act is attacked upon the ground that
no constitutional enumeration can he made ex.
ceptng in year ending with the figure 81 SEQ
ton 4. Article III, of the State Constitution pro-
vides that an enumeration of the inhabitants Of
the State shall be taken under the direction Of the
Legislature in the year 1855, and at the end Of
every ten years thereafter" To maintain this
objection. the court will have to hold that the
provision is mandatory. 1t is a well-established
rule, laid down by the courts of this State, that
statutes directing the mode of proceeding by puh.