New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-09-14
THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Continued from first pnge.

session. must Be held to have both significance and
session Of the legislature. under whose di.
recton an enumeration Is taken. Is not within the
first session We are also Of the oplnon that the
said provisions are mandatory. $500. -, y,,r.or
People 10 y. u, 49, ana state vs.. Cunningham,
Dist n W. Rep - relied upon BY appellants cns
sldsr,tion are merely directory, and do not think
they are authority upon this question Inc case OF
be made by subsequent Lesislatpre, when their
predecessors have neglected their duty In That regard
me Questions presented IN he case az bar wes not not
State VS.. Cunningham, supra, the supreme Court Of
Wisconsin adIudged an apport0nment act VOID be
cause IL unequal and fraudulent Judge Pnney,
In his opinion. suggests that another apportionment
be called. Ii casual suggestion evidently made
without an examination OF the question, ana was
obiter.
We have not been referred TO ard we are not awnre
OF any tdse deciding the questions here involved. IL
event that the legislature for any reason, should ail
to provide for enumeration at - decehnial year,
as required by the Constitution whether II could be
taken by some succeeding Legs ature we d. not dem
II necessary consider for that question is not before
us; nor Is 1t necessary to pass upon the question
whether an appointment can be made at an extraor-
vided II not meeting OF tie same Legislature
under whose direction the enumeration was taken.
The constintonaity OF the act under consideration
Is further assaed for the that the provisions OF
the Constitution requiring that each senate District
Of Inhabitants, and that the members Of Assembly
shall be apportoned among the several counties OF the
state, ms nearly rs may be- according TO the number
OF their respective Inhabitants, excluding aliens.
violated in the apportonment under consideration.
THE IyJUyrTCE OF THE APpoRTIoNMENT.
The ratio OF representation for member OF Assembly.
shown by the enumeration, IS 1924. Monroe's rep
resentatve population was 1s1, $50 The county was,
therefore, entitled four members. with n surplus pop
uation Of 266 she given but three. The pOpula-
ton Of Albany County 1j634e she was, therefore,
cd IN mpmbprS.
Two members We're awarded Duchess County. with
population Of 7501s and yet but one was given To ST.
lawrence County, with population OF sOO1O
These were not unntcntiona errors, The Constltu,
ton says the members Assembly shall be apportoned
among the several counties OF the State by the LegN
ture. nearly may be, according to the number OF
their respective Inhabitants, excluding aliens:
Of gross and ncxcusablc Irregularities In apportonng
members OF Assembly and In arranging senatorial as
tricts, etc. This point was so fully and ably as
cusSed and illustrated In the opinion OF Justice Rum
sew nj Special TERM that do deem It necessary
TO add anything except TO say that we fully concur
In his conclusions.
\ fragrant VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
No one can read the figures and facts set out in the
record and fail 10 to the conclusion that the APP
por,Ionmcnt was n migrant violation OF the plain pro-
visions Of the Constitution; that 1t could not have
been the result Of the Just Judgment OF the members
OF the LEGISLATURE but bold and partisan pro.
cccing enacted and cOnsummated With a view OF
giving to the party engineering the bill advantages
I'm representation 10 which tcy were not III IISice
or In truth entitled.
other points were presented and discussed by
counsel which do not deem II necessary To con
slider for we prefer to put the decision upon Inc
stated. think the act, Chapter 397, OF the Laws
Of sg2 unconstitutional which leads TO the alirmancc
Of the order appealed from