New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-08-26
BROOKLYN,S APPORTIONlNENI.
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
STRONG REASONS AGAINST TIE GERRYMANDER
ASKING FOR MANDANUs TO COMPEL
REDIsTRICT1 NG-JUDGE BARTLETT
RESERVES HIS DECISION.

Supreme Court Yesterday upon the application by
Colonel A. d. Baird and other members OF Tue b'ooh
| Ign Union League Club living in the ne" ''h AZ
scnby District who feel outraged by the gerry
mander by the OF Supervisors In the recent re
apporonment for a writ Of mandamus 10 compel inc
Board 10 meet and make an apportonment ACCORDING
| TO the State Constitution. The REALTORS were repre-
sented by United states DstrictAttorney Johnson
Benjamin F. Blair. +. ii. Hobbs and r H. barharu'
The counsel for the respondents included Corporation
| Counsel JcnkS John b. MeyenborS, Thomas E rear
sail w. r. Gilbert and r. B. Greenwood
on behalf Of the REALTORS Mr. Blair argued that Tile
inequality OF representation in the new Assembly as
tricts made the action of the Supervisors void IN
the nXth District, formed Of the Twelfth Ward there
were only 81 685 inhabitants while In the Nth Dis
| trict. composed OF the seventh, Nineteenth anu
Twentieth wards, there were 1o2, sos. The popua-
ton OF any two lof these wards Is In excess OF the
average II the county Is divided into eighteen equal
| districts. The law declared that no clecor should
be DISTINGUISHED but this practical dishanchiSe
ment Of the electors in the With District as they ola
not have the same representation that the voters In
other districts had.
All elaborate argument for the REALTORS was mace oy
Mr.. johnson. lie Gained that the supervisors In
their action had not compiled with the provisions OF
the AppOrlonment act defined and limited by the
State Constitution. II they had acted In such way
as to perform the duty imposed upon them the motion
for mandamus must be denied. but If they had
N''N
first point against the apporionment made was
that 1t void by OF gross inequality In the
population OF the several districts. The most nagrant
| example of this In the Win District where the
seventh and Twentieth wards had 65.610 population,
or 10, 900 than what the average should be- and
TO this another great ward added.
To attach TO wards having such population an
other large ward, Bringing the population to almos'
double what the average population should be, and
giving the Dement, OF the to other districts by
reducing their population, Is simply grab, violation
OF all principles Of representative government, and
cannot be defended without admitting that system
OF government is failure and an Overcoming In
strument for fraud
The provision Of the law in regard TO dividing into
districts, Mr.. johnson held undoubtedly meant to d
vide equally, and he quoted many authorities to sus
tain this The law Of the State provides Tint no per
son shall be dsfranchised except by law or the Jndg
ment OF his peers If the division Of districts made
by the Supervisors stands the REALTORS are deprived
Of three quarters Of their sutfrages.
The presentation OF this question in n court OF
justice devoves on one of the most solemn duties
ever imposed on a court. The question which Is
before It is whether not this is such a govern
ment that the right Of representation be dcbased
or practically taken away without any Infringement,
Of the rights reserved TO citizens.
We need not Ignore the fact that there IS some
thing OF politics In this. What would be said OF
an act that gave the wards OF this CITY Young WIN
the minority party three aldermen each, and
the other wards one each, and giving the
aldermen the power to elect Mayor and govern
the city! There IS nothing In the Constitution
about the Board Of AldeTpen. Yet there Is noth-
ing In the fact that this Is Government by repre-
scntation ard in the fact that citizens cannot be
DISTINGUISHED, that would prevent such gross and
wicked legislation.
on the point Of the equal division by Law Mr.
johnson said
"But IT may be said that there Is an express
provison in the Constitution that the Legislature In
constituting the Senate districts and in apporonne
Assemblymen to each county. shall do so according
to population and there Is no such provision as 10
the action OF the Supervisors. We submit rhat mo
Court will 60 far not find that Limitation which
was nut on the Legislature does not exist as to
Supervisors.
at may be said that there was such hmi"'oh
in the Constitution OF 1916 which was left out OF
the amendment passed In 1874. Reading section .
as adopted In 1874, In connection Win secuoh u
adopted in 1846 1t will BE- seen that the change mere
referred 10 was not the only change mace Inc
form, phrasing and entire arrangement Oh '"e s'o
ton was essentially modified
"Tbe omission OF any clause In the original section
has no Specification, coming as II old from a re-
writing OF the whole article
ave must obviously construe the Constitution ~
we now find 1t as whole
The next point made by Mr.. Johnson was udt 'ne
action % the Supervisors void because In many
eases a town was divided as IN be IN two dls-
tricts This involved the validity OF the action OF
the Aldermen in changing the boundaries Of wards
which are towns for election purposes This a'uoh
he he'd was clearly Ineffective, As non-conNuntoha
BODY like the Common Council had no power over
the units Of the body polite which the towns were
under the Constitution.
lie held that the Legislature could not dcvolve
he That
district into another similar district, or to divide H.
ar to add 10 II or take from II. II Is certainly inc
law OF this state that legislative powers cannon nc
delegated by the Legislature unless there is fohd ID
the Constitution express authority FOR 80 dcesa'he'
The county towns were protected against division In
to apporonmcnt and IL was absurd 70 hold that the
city wards wcrc not protected in the same way.
Towns were obviously thus protected because they
were units for all election purposes. and not because
they were more less corporations. lhcy were
thu, protected In order that tho boundaries OF As
senlly districts should run by old and familiar land
marks, and that the inhabitants III thcsc loh'haf
divisions should be, and elections therein should
NOT he embarrassed by an imaginary line, on either
side OF which political power must be exercised with
different associates and different results.
Mr. johnson said that monumental wrong would
no ncrnctrated under the shadow OF right II the
present apportiOnmcnt were permitted 10 stann
.Judce Bartlett put two three pointed questions
regard the similar Injustice IA NOtIo ui"' '"o
former apportionmcnt and expressed doubt as to
whether n mandamus was the proper remedy to be
sought
For the respondents, Corporation Counsel jerks
argued at length lie claimed that nothing coIld
be read into the law that was not in the letter OF It,
and that a. the state Constitution as recast In 1874
left ont the provision for the equitable division OF the
population In the Assembly districts In 1t In 16f6,
that therefore the Supervisors had perfect right to
comfy they pleased. All the law
required was that there should be many districts
as there we're Asscmblymen allotted TO the county,
which was the unit Of representation.
He cOntended that the REALTORS were not dfran
chised rs they each had opportunity 70 vote for
member OF Assembly. Whatever the number OF the