New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-08-02
TIE GERRYM4NDER md THE COURT or
IPPE4LS

he himself has said IT.
TIE GERRYM4NDER md THE COURT or
APPEALS.
The Democrats are greatly worried over the
judicial proceedings instituted at Rochester 10
test the constitutionaity of the Legislative Ap-
portionmcnt Act. At first they were inclined
10 treat these proceedings with sort OF arniaplc
contompt Senator Hill was freely quoted as
advising that no notice be taken oi them II
the Supervisors of Monroe County" ne SAD
evidently thinking that he was saying some
thing very shrewd, do not want to rearrangc
their county let them alone there VIII he thrce
loss Republicans in the Legislature next WIN
tcrD But the Michigan decision. unanimously
annullinc the gcrrymander in that State coming
on top of the Wisconsin decision annulling
similar outrage in that State both on the ground
If gross inequalities in representation and OF
a fragrant abuse Of the Legislatures diScre'l"h
in apportioning seats has given pause 10 these
easy-g going Democratic rogues. They are no'
50 much inclined to be funny. They are be-
Ginning 10 realize that their daStardly abuse OF
stolen power is a serious matter that tho people
do have few occasional rights which poll
ticians are bound to respect, and that II the
courts are as honest. as courageous ana a. loyal
in York as they are in Western Stat's' the
proceedings begun nj Rochester will have an
effect very different from that predicted bN
Senator Hill.
During the last week Democratic politicians
have been curiously glib in asserting n pro-
prictary authority over the New-York Cont
Of Appeals. They have admitted that tho WIS
10 araI dead 1.-aluSf
the New-York aDportionmcnt, and that II those
decisions be followed here the act OF lse2
must be overthrow. But, they say, with sig
nifcant and confident smile, We have inc
Court Of Appeals" Have they? What docs
this kind Of talk mean? II has been heard, we
say very frequently in the last w days, ana
il has proceeded not only from small-fry poll
ticians. but from men high and prominent IN
the management of the Democratic party. " hat
does it mean? What has given to these peo-
ple the idea that partisan considerations are
strong enough with the judges OF our highest
court to induce them 10 tramplc on popular
rights, 10 tolerate admitted violations OF con
StitutiOnal law for the sake OF giving the Demo
cratic party an unfair advantageP Was 1t the
decisions in the election cases last winter' By
one of those decisions it is true, the court gave
a Senator to the Democratic party by refusing
10 mandamus a Board of County CanvaSScrS to
return as elected the Republican candidate in
the Stcuben- Chemung District, who had ad-
mittcdly received the highest number of votes,
because, in the Courts opinion, he was dis
oualfed from holding a legislative Office The
Court admitted that the Senate itself, ana not
the judicial branch Of the State Government,
was the Judge of the qualifications OF its own
members, and it rcconcilcd this necessary adj
mission to its apparently inconsistent decision
by claiming that il not called upon to give
relief to petitioner when, on the facts within
lis knowledge, he was not entitled to relief.
There were two members Of the court and
great host Of lawyers throughout the state, who
looked upon this decision as bad law. but it
saved a Senator to the Democratic party.
By another decision another Democratic can
didatc admittedly defeated at the polls, was
put into the Senate on the ground that votes
pollcd for his opponent had not been properly
indorsed. The conceded facts were that bal
lots. indorscd for Poll No. l had been delivered
and were used at Poll No. ., and those indorScd
for Poll No. had gone astray to Poll No. 3,
and so on. Eight packages Of ballots, all pre-
ciscly alike except as to the number of the poll
ndorscd on their backs, were thus mixed up.
The election officers did not notice the mistake,
and the voters. Of course, received the ballots
nnocently, and innocently voted them. But all
such ballots, by the act Of the Court of APP
peals were thrown out, on tho ground that,
however innocent the affair may have been in
this instance, il opened the door To violations
of that secrecy which the new Election law in
tended to secure There were three judges OF
the court and a still greater host Of lawyers,
who thought that this was more bad law, and
it was done in curious contradiction of a prcvi
Gus decision, only two years old, in which the
Court unanimously held that innocent voters
must be protected against narrow and technical
constructions of election laws, that the right
of suffrage was the highest right of citizen
ship. and that it must not be denied on mere
tcchnicalities But it saved a Senator to tho
Democratic party.
Are these the grounds on which Democratic
politicians profess to own the Court Of An
peals? In our judgment, they are not enough.
The people of New-York are confronted by n
fraudulent Legislature, seeking to pcrpctuato
itself and the party dominating it in power by
means Of an Apportonment act palpably and
VIGOROUSLY unequal, and, if unequal, unlawful
We do not believe that they will also be con-
frOntcd with the spectacle OF corrupt and
partisan court spurning their prayer for relief.
We do not believe that the Democratic party.
or any OF its politicians, or all of them holds
any mortgage on the Court of Appeals. We
believe that the suggestion that it does is both
impudent and false. We believe that Mr..