New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-09-14
THE ONEIDA CASE HEARD.
COySTITUTIONALITY OF THE NEW APPOR
TIONMENT ACT QUESTIONED.
AN APPLICATION TO COMPEL THE SECRETARY OF

STATE TIC ACT UNDER THE OLD LAW
eouo,or, Y v sent 13-On the opening OF the
General Term Of the Third Department. thls hornns'
tho matter Of the application Of The People OK rel.
Goorre e carter against Frank Rice, Secretary OF
state. was heard This is an application ior ""''
damus 10 be directed that the secretary oe COM
handed TO s@ue election notices under the hpp"'"o
ment law Of 1879 instead OF that OF 'eVI' Oh ,"e
rrd tina. the latter Is Unconstitutional ana VOID.
H. Rlslcy counsellor for the rciator' r''" Nv
srdavit OF the rclator that he is resident anu
eecor Of the seventh Ward OF Utica, ana thSt uuer
the law OF 1879 oneida County Is entitled 10 tn'ec
Assomhymen and under that OF lev. 10 o'"S w"
Assemblymcn, thereby dep-ivng the ren,or VI
proDer represc ,tstive In the legislature lie pray
tba tho respondent be commanded to is"ie h"uec
II, .ect three members OF Assembly In Oneida Oouh'y
and be forbidden 10 receive, Lle or ca"V"HS ~
based on the Apportionment act OF lso2'
Mr. R,slov argued TINT the relief demanoea 10y
,bis proceeding Involves tho restraining Oh 9"'e
officer and Is therefore properly Haac W '''' '',
in the first instance, being that st'ne IN ,,e
c.ror,n,cnt in which the officer is located lie
further contends that the act Of l7"- i u0o''' -
.ionaI and void because the enumeration on WHO" IL
+, ,,d does no, mention the number OF persons OF
COLOR not t,xcd rs required by Section 4, Arlcc III
~ the Constitution. Even II the amcndm'n, Vi i0
does allow such 10 be counted Tor HSse""'s w"
mor,on nurposcs still II holds good as to sena'ons
and f. therefore q bar 10 inc '""'u
,t,orotv Of N, act Of 1892. In this connection ne
asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment OF the
rpiad statcs Constitution does not remove th'S "r
but contends that the right 20 vote ana the Hght
70 no rcnre,ented are entirely dGcrcnc matters.
Mr. Rslcy also argued that no cohs'l'hu'""i c"u'"
Grafton on which TO base apportionmeni can DE- I'hen
q, - wear not ending In o. and that. as 1850 mas
pssscd no constitutional enumeration can 10 hnd
untn 1893. and that the extra session OF io'- Is
t.,,@ In
oIso tLo, the extra session Illegal ana us ac'S
vod becan,e Governor Flower dill not state III us
proclamation for what purpose II was TO DC con
vencd a. required by Article ", Section a. Ihe
Gnb and last poin, is, that the law OF $50
l. unconstitutional because does not comply with
.ec,,ons ~ and Y OF Article g. providing That each
senatorial and Assembly district shall contain " a'
nearly AZ NAV be- an equal number OF Inhabitants
Attorney General Roscndae replied lie argue1
,nat the state enumeration on which the apportion-
mont was made was entirely legal, that the consul
tutioual provision requiring an enumeration 10 oe
taken I'm 1s55 and every tenth year thereafter was
simply directory. Previous Legislatures had passed
app,rtIonment acts at sessions other upiil th' hist
after Tho airport comment. namely, In ieo' ana ~
1870 and no question had been raised az 10 IDeii
validity. The present apportiOnmciit law was tlssrn
al the first session OF the Legislature AFTER the ci
Grafton He commended that an extrdorunhrs sessioh
Is n,J as much a session In regular session.
lie contendcd that II was not IN the lurlsIGtlon VI
courts 10 declare apportionment act voih because
~ any INEQUALITIES that may he fouh ana tnAt
rourts could not interfere with exercises OF Legislative
except in the cearest and the present was not
one OF that character.