New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-09-15
ARGUING THE APPEAL.
THE BROOKLYN REAPPORTIONMENT.
MEssRs. JOHNSON AND jerks DEBATE THE CASE
BEFORE THE GENERAL TERN.

MEssRs. JOHNSON AND jerks DEBATE THE CASE
BEFORE THE GENERAL TERN.
The appeal from the decision Of Judge Bartlett
DENYING the motion for q mandamus to compel the
supervisors TO apportlon the Assembly districts OF
Kings County properly heard by the General Term
OF the Supreme Court in Brooklyn yesterday. Judges
Pratt Barnard and Dykman composed the General
Term The argument for the relators-A. d. Baird.
O. E. Houghton and others-members OF the Union
League Club was made by Jesse johnson, United
states Distrct-Attoney, and he was opposed by
Almet F. jerks, Corporation Counsel Mr. johnson
reviewed the case as he argued IT before Judge Bart
lett last month. He maintained that the Supervisors
made no attempt In the apportionment to make the
districts equal in population. IL their action was
legal they could just well have given to ward
~ town seventeen members OF Assembly and the re-
naming one TO the other thirty wards and towns.
one of the grounds for saying that the work OF the
supervisors was illegal was they divided towns
r., making the districts. If the defendants contention
Uas correct that there towns in the city Of
Brookyn according TO law, then there was nothing 10
prevent making the districts practically equal.
But the population Of the With District. as con-
s.,,uted. was about three and half times great
that of the IXth District and larger than the popula
,ion of the IXth, LIST, and With Districts. No such
,neouaty OF representation had ever before been
attempted except in North Carolina case, where the
narts of city containing white people had three or
four times the representation IN the City Council that
the parts inhabited by negroes had. This apporton-
ment was overthrown by the courts. In the famous
,r infamous Michigan gerymander the largest district
was less than two and half times large as the
smallest district. In Wisconsin the disparity was
much less than In this In both OF these cases
the lines OF apportionment were limited py county
boundaries, and some inequality was necessary. But
with no such excuse for any inequality, the Kings
County Board Of Supervisors had made gerrymander
unprecedented In its wrong, and this alone OF all cases
OF the kind brought into court had gone unrebuked
except by the indignation OF an outraged community
II the Supervisors compelled to follow town
boundaries as the REALTORS said, the Inequality was
almost as apparent The Seventh and twentieth wards
had A population OF $3.50 and would make an AS
sembly District larger thav fourteen OF those con-
stiuted by the Supervisors but TO this large popula
ton that OF another large ward had been added
making over 1O2, 900. This clearly made the case
indefensible save on the ground that attempt at
eonulitv was necessary The supervisors had de-
based the franchise of the REALTORS by making 1t less
than onehird OF that of electors in other parts OF
the city. 1t for the defendants 10 show the
authority for this The other side said that the rela-
tors had not taken the right remedy. but suggested
no other. When the action was taken in behalf OF
voters to maintain their legal rights this was the
proper remedy.
Mr. johnson asked for a speedy decision that
the matter could appealed TO the Court OF Appeals
at once in order TO have determination before the
election
Corporation Counsel jerks contended that the
motion for mandamus was In effect motion 10
change the State Constitution. was charged that
the supervisors dividing the county into eighteen
Assembly Districts made them unequal In popuia-
ton as not to comply with the law and practically 10
dsfiancllse the voters in several wards. II was
further said that town lines had been divided ana
that this made the action void But there was no
requirement in the Constitution Of any approach
to equality the population OF the several districts
There was such a provision in the Constitution OF
ls4G but in 1874 1t stricken out. None OF the
realtors were even partially DISTINGUISHED Ihey had
The same right to vote for AsSemDymen as the olher
voters in the county, and would he represented DN
eighteen Members OF Assembly In the Legislature
AS 10 the contention that town lines had been crossed
Inc ward was not within the meaning OF the law
There was no allegation of fraud, and the application
for n mandamus must fail on its merits There could
be no review of the action OF the supervisor: as the
apportlonment districts according 10 the law We're
10 remain unaltered until new enumeration was
made. ,.,-,. .rae .osorvoa