Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-10-14

SETTLED AT LAST.
The New York High Court Sus-
tains Hills Law
BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO TWO.
Now HiscOck May Get His House in Order
to Move Out
For Stalwart Democrat VIII Succeed Him as
United States Senator at Washington.
How the Assembly VIII Stand
Politically.
BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO TWO.

ALBANY, N. Y, Oct. BIN the cases
OF the people eX rel, appellant, against
the Board of Supervisors OF Monroe
county, and the people ex rel, Horn APP
pellant, We. the Board Of Supervisors Of
Oneida county, better known as the ap-
portionment test cases, the court OF APP
peals to-day reversed the order in both
cases and motions for mandamus were
granted with costs in all courts.
These We're the cases Ia which the
court was asked to issue orders for
writs OF mandamus, compelling the
board OF supervisors OF Monroe and
Oneida counties to redistrict the as
sembly districts In those counties in
compliance with the apportionment
law passed by the last legislature.
The order OF the lower court is az
firmed with costs in all the courts in
the case of the people OK rel George f.
Carter of Utica, appellant, against Frank
Rice, secretary OF state. In this case
the court was asked TO grant an injunct-
ion order restraining the secretary OF
state from recognizing tho new appor-
tionment law or sending out notice of
the election Of members of the assembly
to the county clerks except under the
apportionment law Of 1879, the lower
court having refused to grant such an
order.
The main opinion unfolding the law
was written by Judge Peckham. JUS
tice Gray also writes an opinion up
holding the law. Judge Andrews
wrote dissenting opinion, which was
concurred in by Judge Finch. The
court was unanimous an all questions
involved. except those discussed in
Judge Andrews opinion.
The judges practically agree on all
| questions touching the constitutionality
| OF the upportionment law, except on
| the question of discretion used by the
legislature in apportioning the remain-
| ing members OF the assembly among
| counties having fractional ratios.
The vote of the court of appeals sus-
tanning the apportionment is practi-
| cally five to two, the five being Demo-
cratic judges-Earl, Peckham, Gray,
Obrien and Maynard.
Judge Andrews filed separate opin-
ion.
To elect United States senator in
this state it requires eighty-one votes
on joint ballot Of the two branches OF
the Legislature.
The Democrats will have seventeen
votes next winter when the time comes
| for electing a successor to Frank His
cock, assuming the majority OF the sem
ate holds together until that time.
The Republicans will rhaye thirteen
votes and one, Edward of the thirty
second district may not be CASTOR either
of the regular party candidates.
To elect senator the Democrats
must have GAG votes in the assembly
and the Republicans sixty-seven:
While, therefore, the Republicans will
be able TO control the legislature in the
assembly il they elect siXty-tive mem
beers, they will need three more TO CON
troll the United States senatorship.
There was sixty-seven Democrats and
sixty-one Republicans in the assembly
OF l892-three Republicans from New
York and three from Kings.
II the Republicans can elect four out
the thirty which this new apportion-
ment assigns to New York, and four Of
the eighteen which il gives TO Kings,
thoy can secure not only control OF the
assembly, but also Of the senate.