New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-08-06
THE STATE GERRYMAN DER
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
JUDGE RUIISEY DECIDES AGAINST THE
TAMMANY CONSPIRATORS.
HE HOLDS THAT THE OUTRAGEOUS IEEouAi~
ITTEs OF THE REAPpoRTIoNMENT VIOLATE
THE PLAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND RENDER

THE PLAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND RENDER
THE ACT VOID.
Rochester, Aug. 5.-The Democratic gerry.
mander of the State by the followers Of David B.
Hill, Edward Murphy jr, and Richard Croker, 10
declared, by Judge William Rumsey, Of tho
Supreme Court Of this judicial district, to be un-
constitutional This decision was rendered BY
him this afternoon, and with the accompanying
opinion showing how he had reached that de.
cison, it was filed soon after with the clerk Of
the court.
Judge Rumsey denies the mandsmus, for wAich
application was made on Wednesday Of last week
by 9. y. Kiehel, the city attorney, to compel th0
Board of Supervisors of this county to met and
carry out the provisions Of the unconstitu ionaI
qcrrymanderng act That so able and upr yht Q
Judge as Judge Rumsey should declare tht law
TO he void Ia great gain for the Repuhlica IS In
their fight agnirst the vicious gang Of Democratic
politicians who sought, through this gerryman-
derng act to secure control of the State for many
years.
William A. Sutherland who made the tight
against the constituonality Of the act raised four
main points to support him in his claim. TIE frso OF
these was that the enumeration was taken In 1893
instead of ls95 next that the extraordinary ses-
sion at which the gerrymandering act was passed
did not follow the constitutional provision that tho
apportionment should he made at the first ses-
sion after the return of the enumeration Then
Mr.. Sutherland held that the act was unconsti"
tutional because in estimating the number Of in
habitants ip the Senate districts persons OF color
not taxed were included. This the Constitution
declares distinctly shall not he done. The last,
and in reality the strongest point which Mr.. Suth-
erand raised against the act was the gross
inequality which exists in the number OF inhab"
itants of the Senate districts and because tho
members Of Assembly were not apportioned among
the counties Of the State as nearly as may be- In
accordance with the number of citizens.
Judge Rumsey dismisscs the first two points
which were raised against the cOnstitutionality
Of the errymander In regard to these two ques-
tions he says that practically they have been
settled by courts Of high authority. and he would
not therefore consider them. 1t was clear -
his mind. however, that a census for the purposes
of an apportonment canpst be taken until the tima
for taking it had arrived, and whether If not
then taken at the earliest possible moment there
after might be doubtful if it were new ques-
iol but it had already been settled by the courts
th2. il never was too late TO perform constitu-
tional act.
Judge Rumsey next takes up the failure Of tho
LEGISLATURE to provide for asceraining the numoef
of persons of color not taxed as the CONSTITUTION
directs 1t is clear he says, that the Constltution
REQUIRES that they shall be excluded In making
nm tho Senate districts Why it does 80 does nos
appear II is sufficient that the people, In passing
upon the Constitution 80 ordained It, Ihls ques-
ton Judge Rumsey discusses at consiaef@oA
length after which he takes up that Oh the gro"
inequality of population in the oena1e ds"i.'S'
and the unfair discrimination in the distribution
counties Of the State Judge Rumsey here shows
nv, actual figures wherein certain sections OF tho
STATE have been favored, especially IN New-iorS
County. where the Nth Senate District mas
nonulation of 93G and the Ath Senate Ds-
trict a population of 2O6,463 !.
I. vns the intention of the constitution no
urges. that each person though his Fo'e' '''''i1
hov. .s much influence in the Government as any
o,bcr person. In conclusion. Judge kuhlseS saso'
.Tha,,a can be no doubt that the apportlohmeiS
Of several Senate districts is SO maniiesoy anu a
erantly unequal as to amount 10 clear 'loi"''Sn
- tle constitutional requirement as is also tho
nndoubted disparity between the numDcrs Oh ih-
hobitants in the country distinguished from
81. ,i,v districtS 1t is clear, too, that the con-
,tirution was grossly dsr garded by giving 10 Ale
h,,,, rountv one more member OF Assembly IMAM
4. allotted 10 Monroe County, with over 24'ooS
nore inhabitants, as well as by allowing I"
Dntchcss Coety, with 75,O's people TWO me.n'
bels and 10 ~. Lawrence N0uhs' " O'''"
only one -.
Tho case now will 20 TO the General Term Ok
rho Suprcmc Court which meets IN BuHaio Oh
,ucust le judge Ramsey's opinion IN iull ~
as follows
MONROE SPECIAL TERM, JULY, los2'
,...t l. p,,d Art the Board a
The People eA rel, Charles T. fonu' as,; '' ~
49, >upcry. sors .. Monroe county
Nation lts Il writ vi man1anus ~ tAe dclehoaii1s en.'
inanuin. In, m 10 ulNiee the County U Monroe hoS
,S.rn,I,y a.,,r.cs. AI. \. H. h.ehel Tor rei1tos'
,ir W A. sutherland for defendants
Rums,y Jon the aUtn II Aprd, 1917, az an
rar,,lna session VI TIE Leg.Iature, caAco iOi lnss
ntpS,c an act passed 10 Srsan1e the ai,v aeIa.e
49, n La