New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-10-05
THE APPORTIONMENT ACT.
BEGINNING THE CONTEST TO HAVE IT
ANNULLED.
THE CASE ARGUED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
Mr.. sUTHERLAND's STRONG POINTS AGAINST
THE LEGISLATURES ACTION-ATToR-
NEY-GENERAL RosENDAIE FOR
THE DEMOCRATS.
rrnox srArr conREsroxpEYr OF THE TRLary..

strong arguments Of the lawyers who assaed the law
whether 1t would not suffer the same fate as The gerry
Wandering laws os the states Of gan and Wlscon-
sin-declared invalid this year by the highest courts
OF those States.
All the Judges Of the Court Of Appeals present
Robert Earl Charles Andrews Francis NJ Finch,
Rufus W. Pcckham. John Clinton Gray, Denis oBren
and Isaac H. Maynard. The Attorney General. simon
W. Rosendalc OF Albany, appeared TO defend the Legs
lave Apportionment law. The lawyers who had
come TO Albany To attack the law were William A.
sutherland OF Rochester, and Edward II. Rsiey and
j. W. Scarf Of Utica. Mr.. Rosendae was assisted by
Henry J. Cookingham, Of Utica, and City Attorney
Kiehel OF Rochester.
When the court met, Mr. Rlsley informed the
Judges formally that the counsel all sides had arranged
among themselves that William A. Sutherland should
make the chief argument, attacking the constitution
ality OF the law, and that Attorney General Rosen
dale, by the same agreement, would defend the Law
Mr. sutherland, who WAS the first speaker, ably ar
gued that the Legislative Apportonment act was
unconstitutional, because the Legislature had mol
obcyed the command Of the Constitution, that the
senate Districts should be divided that each Senate
district should contain near as may be an elual
number Of Inhabitants nor had the Assembly districts
been apportOned among lthe several counties ol the
State as nearly as may be- according to the number
Of their respective Inhabitants
THE GROSS INEQUALITIES SHOWN.
He oontrasted the Senate districts In New-fork ana
Brooklyn, containing only . small number OF inhaoi
tants with those In rural New-York, FAR exceeding
them In population, and the gross inequalities IN ap
portionment OF the Assemblymen among the coul-
/ t.s This special example Of the Inequality OIL
the Assembly representation was the granting Vi
only three Assemblymen 10 the County OF Mohroe' al
though IL had greater population By 23ooo uah
Albany County to which were granted four Assembly
men, yIr sutherland said in part:
90, , N..,... County met In July to
divide the county Int, Assembly districts. Inty were
ady,sed by counsel that the apport Jnment Law w;s
H. nonulaOn TO four Asscmh ymrn. Instead OF tree,
A, provided by the act They Ihereioie urch.ou o ~
G,. he.n brought to compel them 10 divide the cGuhp
This /, the suit hcior' you. Al over t"c M v,' 'n
,aI a,ysion OF legislative districts. The supreme
Court, Of Michigan. Wisconsin alu No,t' ,oou a. ''''"
have recently ovcrthro"h "ppo'uo'i"'nl '",' -. ~.
Have YOU those decisions OF tn" courts OF ouef
s,atcs and the opinion Of their judges here!' In
qurcd judge Andrews .,
~ nave one COPY replied Mr.. sutherland and
| Will supply It to the court 'ohuhui"s he S'''
TIE CONSTITUTION MANDATORY.
There Is one thing Observable in al these deeiSnS i
I'm nthcr ,iates namely TIA the courts d,cme t'I,'
81 NJ ,,,ule IF the cOn~uio's Of tn States rcSdIu
r. I. M g, tOnmeLt Il c. i7.i N' u 81 i'.o y '!'''
,ssry Iii = ,ay that the legislative districts must De
S;,,dJ ounlk AZ nearly n may be In regard 10 pop
ulati,n Thty ay that the people must nav M 0r', @ n
OF representation IL r IsJ % merely bound in honor
p e,yISc the dtricis equally Chief Judge Morss OF
Michigan. has spoken on nus Of Mi the Union
whicn m, attracted me a"en''''' VI "-
ms 10 ,,ay NJ Tint The time for plain speaking has
arrived IN relation to the outrageous pmcuce 9i seiiS
Wondering which has become cOnInoi anu ma 80
inng been INDUCED in without rebukc that II urn.ens
not only ng pfnIs OF the S goPe Sars 9 alone this
spec, can the rights C ths p.opS n'tu II
tas been demonstrated that the 1eopse te ,,ca,
not hight hi, wrong They may chniiso u'g ,, Po d"ne
% ~ ,cw majority proceeds at once to make an al
p"rtionment In the interests OF Its parry, a. naI
and ,,olitlcally vicious the one that IL lcPuIt
- a. moi nm Intelligent school boy but knows "iia d
/, the motive Of these legislative appo, NV thrr
+. de for the court en p e 10 the real reason which
= n"thins more or less than partisan advahISr t"n, ~
in dchnnnce of the Constitution and IN utter
OF the rights OF the citizen
THE FLAGRANT CASE OF MONROE CouNlf'
The county Of Monroe, with 23oW NOR ,eiimpIy iTpIPIe
than the county Of Albany ha ohiy t,to - ~ come
men: while Albany has four; fVT fnr an to have a
e,rcr voice In the Leg Stature man M"n'Je % M eiatmTe
been said by Judge Macom9'r UNA, sIe % nf The CON
did wrong but did not travel tIr Ou'suc WI C"ostitW
afitufipn Are YOU Ia measure how far tle & oInS'Mu M
ton has been dobeyedi II yon do yon ond strct
Constitution: Tor IT. language ~ Ptn Pi % ne.r as may
ay that the districts must be divided & a. Sat ne%' NJ Monroe @
be accoTdnf o TO sIptded p9P@dnd'i Of it's "" t to representa-
don and viii be for ten years. II this ac' s"u''
Cbiof .mdrc EarI here interrupted Mr. sutherland
with the question: Do You say tba' your
contend tpa another apporionmcnt cannot t'Nc p''''
in less than ten years :! ,d vr
"I, Is the Language Of the con'u'nio" ''l"'N
sutherland .,
No do not so CONTEND" said Auorney-Gener'u
po.uc,rc eve say that AN thcr app)rtonment VIII
have 10 be made in 1885,
nm gad 10 hear thr Attorney GenerTh thdN' ''"
| statemcnt" said Mr.. sutherland
Judge Andrews then had question ~ ~"
contend y he SlId to Mr. sutherland, that the Legs
sturc OF iss5 having failed 10 take cehs"'' 'o'''
could not b. taken until 1oVo''
.That * nv contention,r sail Mr.. Sutherlahn'
"What do you think about the Appofuoh'h'"' '''
+ is7o?r inquired Chief Judge Earl.
a. mini, that the act was CONSTITUTIONAL" repheu
sir. sutherland "becaUse ii was based upon '''''"
taken at the regular time, namely, in 1919
But surely sald Chief Judge E4rl' t"e'o "'o
o.., uber. jf n state officer has neglected I" 90
dutv st stated period, his neglect has been re"ccu
suppose the Secretary OF State had eiuSed 10 'o''
census statistics in 1879"
81 would have applied to the courts ior mai'u"i,"S
TO compel him to act.' said Mr. eutheria'u o
argued tbst the Legislature Of New York was authorNu
10 mako a census only once in ten years ho ai'o
v,,.od the opinion that IA Governor OF Ncw-iorh
VA r outhor,ty under the Constitution to veto
census act Ic thought the Legislature oil 1000 co"'u
have made enumeration OF the lihaoiH.ee VI Wv.
st.,. unon its own responsibility. lie theh con
tlnued -
THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD THE ONLY LEGAL oNh
II seems to me tlat the Constitution oi Nc"
York actually prohibits tho bikng OF census at any
other than tie ten years pcriod. 1t says an appor
u6nment shall stand until another census Has occ"
taken. ,.. .,
chief Judge Earl Were again h'err"pus WI
su,hor,,nd saving: If Legislature should refuse
a. ,,.Lo :, census at the decennlal period, do you
contend that 10 census could legally be taken LOT
ten years succeeding :!
"That is my contention replied Mr. sutherland.
.I seems 10 me-" said Chief Judge Earl thao
such a proceeding OF Legislature would De "orSc
than any gerrymander act you could pass
Mr. -utherland replied as follows:
Ips, sucb a question was presented TO the supreme
Court OF MaIne, and the Court said that l. m.s' a. a.,
wavs be presumed that LepsHiture "o1nu JIM w ,,ro 1
49, rLfs duty was performed by the Legislature
~ Work state In 1853 and, in my judgment Nhe