New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-09-24
THE ONEIDA COUNTY CASE.
POINTS MADE BY JUDGE MAYHAM IN HIS OPINION
SUSTAINING THE LEGISLATIVE AP-
PORTIONMENT LAW.

Albany Sont 23-Judge Mayham In his opinion
unfolding the constitutionalty OF the Legislative Ap
portionment law OF this year. says that IL seems 10 oo
conceded that, the Legislature Of 1850 leo 10 PER
form the duty imposed upon them by secuoh 4 VI
Article Of the Constitution, in negiccting 10 proiue
for the enumeration Of the Inhabitants In that year.
that duty might performed by subsequent Legls-
ature at any time before the expiration OF the oecade
for which 1t was to be taken. And he holds that ue
law authorizing the enumeration in 1892 was consul
tuonal.
In regard to the objection to this enumeration that
II failed to enumerate and tabulate persons Oh color
not Nxed,n the opinion says, after referring 10 tno
provision In the Constitution wmch ihci"deS pi'o"'
NJ color not taxed in the appoctonment OF Sehale
districts and the provision excluding such persons III
the apporionment Of Assembly districts
We are only called upon In this proceeding 70 eAao
the constitutionality of the law as applied 70 A''o'
a,strct. As the Senate and Assembly districts are In
No vav identical and the formation and erection OF one
in no way depends on the other IT Wou1d ioo" Una. "
tho apporonment Senate districts was uhcohS|eu
onal by reason rhe failure to exclude from e appo
tonment persons color not taxed that act couu no.
render the formation Of Assembly districS uhcoss'u"
when the Constitution in express Terms requires '''
class NJ ncrsons 10 be included In the enumeration
The next question for consideration Is whe'ner tue
reapportionment consttitionouy De Nauc q. d" '
traorpary session OF the Legislature during the sa"o
wear that the enumeration IS taken and by the sae
,o,,s,tivo hodv The only constitutional limitation Or
restriction upon the time for making the apiorAoni'i'
Is that it be made the FIRST session after the return
Of every enumeration"
From the decision on the appcrtonment OF 1901,
the opinion SAYS 1t appears that the constitutional
provision Is not mandatory that the apPofuohmeh'
shall be made at the next regular session OF mo
Legislature chosen at the succeeding electon. i1''
belng So II the extraordinary session at which the
aproronment was made was legal ana CONSTITUTIONS
one. then 1t could properly make this appointments
Judge Mayham holds 1t was constitutional session.
II remains. continues the decision, to consider
whether the Assembly apportonment was such as 70
authorize the court the act aside as unconsu'u
tonal and void The Judge then cites many aulhon-
Ties to show that the provision empowering the Legs
atnre to apportlon the Assembly dstrc'' a"'one ."o
counties. "as nearly as may be-" according 10 the
number OF their respective inhabitants clearly cohe
discretion an the Legislature In making the ap'
portIonment, and continues:
II will he seen that in constituting constitutional provi
ons Ike the one under consideration where the Legs
lature has discretion in making the apportionmht inc
courts have not regarded themselves as authorized 70 re-
vew that discretion.