New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-01-08
CITY REFORM CLUB HEARD.
MESSRS ROOME AND DELAFIELD BEFORE
GOVERNOR FLOWER.


cism Of the Constitutional Convention bill Both
of them were Of the opinion that the bill uncon
sdtutonal since limits the right OF Voters 10 vote
for than sixteen OF the thrtycigh deieSa' es-at
large provided for by the bill. The section objected
to Is Section g. and 1t reads as follows:
Each entitled by law to vote for member Of As
sembly at such election shall be entitled
four district delegates and sixteen deegacsaa and
more, IN his election district and elsewhere. The
four persons receiving the highest number OF
for district delegates in each Senate district shall b.
elected district delegates The hirtyfour persons re
ceivng the highest number of in the State for dele
gasstarge shall be elected delegates atlargc The two
persons nominated for delegates atl0rse by certificate
Termination containing the Of any OF such
thirty -four persons elected and receiv
Ing the highest number OF In the State for dele
gstesaarge. shall DO elected deegatcatarge. The two
persons nominated for delegates a;arge BY certificate
Of nomination not containing the of Of the
hitysk persons elected dooeatesatarge and receiv
lnG tho highest number Of the State for
delagaesatlarse shall bc elected delegaes.asrge. If
thre be mere than two persons nominated by one certd
cate OF nomination who receive the number OF
votes for delegates atargc and only persons
can DO elected such delegates herenbeoro provided
tho two such whosc first in order OF
uapes such certificate OF nomination shall be
such delegates.
! Mr. Delafeld argued that the delegates to the con-
Vention were elective officers and therefore, IN obedi
ence to the Constitution voters must be permitted TO
vote for the entire number of large 10
elected, namely, thiryclsht instead of being limited
to sixteen. He also contended that the Constitution
WAS dsobeyed In tho provision that for persons
not duly nominated by certificate should not be
counted Every voter, he argu.d. had a right to
vote for whomsoever he pleased In the course Of
bis argument, Mr. Delaneld said
Tho Intention Of the provisions with reference the
deegateSatarge ia perfectly clear Having declared that
there should b. thirtyeght such delegates elected
the sbate large tho Legislature designed by providing
Acpfor hnu,d v,cix.a anh
dates, insure the election OF least sixteen such
delegates by the party in the minority. Concedng the
abstract justice OF the object view, the question
nevertheless sharply presented whether by providing that
ooctor should for than sixteen Of such dele
gates the Legislature has infrnged upon the constu
ona guarantee that every male citizen having the
ssry qualifications ''shal be entitled to vote
for ell officers that ore hereafter may be elective
BY the people"
decided BY the Court Appeals in 1865 stands
ct the very threshold Of this inquiry. The
Convention act Of 1867 lCh 1oD had provided that
person should be ellOwd TO vote for delegates to the Con-
vention Of that year who would challenged take and
subscribe oath that he had borne AGAINST
tho United States. One Green, having been duly cha
lenged, refused TO take this oath and his ballot
jected Thereupon no sued the inspectors OF election
claiming that the statute void in far 1t pre-
scribed a OATH Appeals (Ctrecn
shumway. 80 ". Y. 419) Judge Miller declared that
statutory provision in question offended against the decs
Of the Federal Constitution that 'no State shall pass
any bill Of ottsnder or ex post factO law.
He said: This involves the constitutional validity
Of that portion OF tho act to provide for convention to
revise amend the Constitution Of this State. which
excludes privilege OF voting all who refuse to
take the test oath prescribed by the act in question
am also Of opinion that in qUesn violates
Con:tituon Of the State OF NcwYork The first sec
ton second article OF tho Constitution pcscr!os the
qualifications Of electors who shall be entitled TO vote for
ell officers that hereafter may be elective by the
people, The section Of the thirteenth article
vides submission Of the question whether conven.
shall called the electors qualified TO vote for mcn
bers Of the Legislature and in case majority OF the
electors qualified voting at such eecoo shall decide
favor o; such convention for such purpose the LeSis
a:ure provide for the election OF delegates 10 such
convention This does not confer upon the Legis
ature any power TO disabilities not existing at the
tne under Constitution 10 restrict the RICH. OF
suffrage which the Consultation has established.
"It would be extraordinary the Legislature had the
right determine who entitled TO the privilege OF
voting and thus, In the exercise OF unlimited discrc
ton be able to dsfranchise any class Of czss, when
the right is already clearly established Such power
would liable 70 grosses abuse in the
:reme and obviously intended TO he conferred
is evident think. that the above section specifying
qualifications of electors To pass upon the question
whether there shall be convention pdnly inn
por,s that the same and Others qualified 70
vote for delegates and Acknowledgement OF any portion
II is violation OF this section and therefore
roid.'
"n the schcm, OF minority representation is IN
O'''~i
plan to give minortes voice In the convention
.ould we adopt for certainly ought to lave the
Prohbitionfsts, the Socialists, the POpuit5 and The
Women Suffragists represented In the C0nven'i2n!
az cumulative voting plan would be cons;it'-
tionaI" replied Mr.. Delafeld; "that Is the author
fling OF voters to throw their sixteen votes for any ono
man. That wouM give the Prohibitionists and other
political parties chance 10 secure representation In
the convention. They have such a system IN |
Illinois,"
But is our Constitution like that OF Illinois - in
1uired Governor Flower
IL DO not know" replied Mr. DclaGed but this |
thing can state-that once suggested cumulative |
voting scheme during an argument before Governor
Ill., and he said he not prepared 10 say that 1t
vas unconstitutional. And several distinguished
lawyers of my acquaintance have said that II would
be constitutional. 1t will doubtless be said that two
81 the provisions OF the statute To which ! have
Erected my criticism are bencfcent and wise: that
the system OF minority representation Is approved by
all students Of the problem OF representative govern
nent; and that the permission accorded to the con-
yention to I'll vacancies In the Office Of delcgate-af-
argc is wisely designed for the purpose OF avoiding
lie great expense OF holding special election through
mt the State In the event OF tho Death disability
Of arr incumbent OF that Office. In the
hstract This reasoning IS doubtless correct. But
hese provisions can be sustained only ty placing upon
he Constitution a construction Of so dangerous and
evolutionary a character that the temporary benefit
onferrcd by the unauthorized provisions should weigh
Or nothing in the scales For to sustain these pro-
fsons Implies concession that the Legislature may
eprive people, and their immediate representa-
ives the electors OF all Voice in the choice Of con-
entlona delegates that 1t may restrict the electoral
Ircle in such manner and to s1ch extent as 1t may
Gem TT that It may remit the election OF such dele
ates to a religious sect, or to club. or 70 COM
,,ttee OF its members and In short, that II may
reak down every safeguard which should surround and
rotect the fundamental right Of the people 10 revise
nd amend their organic law.
Governor Flower then read tn Mr.. Delaich the
ct of 1867 the election Of delegates TO the
Convention of thnt year, and showed
hat at that time voter was permitted u vote for
,ore than sixteen OF the thlrty.twO delegates pro
ided for in the act. YETI he said, "they sub
lifted q constitution to the people, part Of which