The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-03-22
BEASLEY'S DECISION.
Text of That of the Chief
Justice Delivered In the
Quo Warranto Case.
EVERY QUESTION IN DETAIL
An Able Document Assented to
By All the Justices Except
Ex-Governor Albeit.
at Is the Will Of the Majority
Of the People that Is
Supreme"
VERY QUESTION NDETAIL
Special to the Jersey CITY Nsaus.

Special to the Jersey City Nslrs.
TRENTON March %, 1s94-The following
is the full text of the decision of the SUI
preme Court in the quo aoarranto hearing
delivered yesterday by Chief Justice Beas-
ley, and which is here published in full for
the first time in Jersey City
This case has been placed before the court
on rule to show cause why an information
in the nature of a quo toGrrGnto should not
be issued against these respondents OF
whom claims, and to some extent has exer-
cised the office of President of the Senate OF
New Jersey. Under this procedure evidence
has been taken, and it thus appears that the
twenty-one Senators of the State have di-
vided themselves into two bodies, |. O., nine
of the old members, who were styled in the
argument sshold-over MEMBERS constitut
ing one of such bodies-subsequently a
newly chosen Senator joined himself to the
body made up of hold-over Senators, max
ing that body consist of ten Senators, the
other consisting of eleven. The former of
these bodies will be referred to in order to
avoid paraphrase as the Adrain Senate, the
latter the Rogers Senate. The Adrain So
called Senate has been recognized officially
by the Governor and remains in session; the
Rogers so-called Senate is recognized offici-
ally by the House of. Assembly, but it has
been refused official recognition by the
Executive 1t has passed several laws, and
with the cooperation of the lower House has
appointed Treasurer and Comptroller of
the State
The above is description of the general
aspect of the case, and it will be sufficient
for immediate purposes.
The object of the present course OF law is
to establish by judicial Judgment which OF
these contestants is the genuine State Sem
ate, for they cannot both be genuine; but
before proceeding to dispose of that question
the counsel Q. Mr. Rogers have interposed
preliminary one, as to whether this court
can take cognizance of such litigation. 1t
is confessed that the argument on this sub
ject, the existence of the judicial power in
question, has not been embraced in my judg-
ment. It is founded in all its parts on
petitio orincipii or on general legal prln-
ciple so entirely established as not to be de-
batable; for it proceeds on the assumption
that the Senate it advocates is the constitu-
tional Senate, or that the judgment OF the
majority of the Senators held with respect
to the question whether or not they have or
ganized in violation to the Constitution OF
the State is conclusive and final. 1t will be
observed that the contention of the appli-
cants for the writs is that the Rogers Senate
has no legal existence, lnasmuch as 1t was
organized in manner contrary to the
fundamental law; and the proposition there
fore would seem self-evident that as no
power is vested by the Constitution in the
majority of the Senators to construe such
laws in this respect, the power to confirm
and enforce it is lodged in the ordinary legal
tribunals. Referring to the judicial prerog-
ative, Mr. Cooley, in his work on "Constitu-
tionai Limitations page 46, says.-"The
,rI,f o,,d Y,oxyar of tba court IN do this ra
SO plain, and the duty is so generally, uni
versally conceded that we should not be
justified in wearying the patience of the
reader in quoting the very numerous author
tiles on the subject"
COURTS RIGHT TO DECIDE INDISPUTABLE.
1t will certainly, therefore, be the unex-'
pected that happens when learned counsel,
in reply to the contention that the Senatorial
organization in question was inconsistent
with the constitutional prescription, assumed
a condition that this court could not enter
tain jurisdiction in the case, as the interpre-
tation of the Constitution was matter
handed in, of purely legislative character.
No decision has been made for a century
passed, that does not antagonize such a
proposition. 1t will be understood that in
this indication of what seems to be the I'M
denable prerogative of this court, there is
not the slightest suggestion of the existence
of either judicial capacity to control the
legislative authority when exercised within
it's appropriate field If the question here
presented has been whether this Senatorial
body had been organized in the accustomed
mode, or in open violation of its own prac-
tees and rulings, a totally different subject
of inquiry would have been before u.s. and
it may well be doubted that we have dis
cretion of reviewing such matter. This
court does not claim the slightest legal facul-
ty to supervise or interfere with such trans
action: all that is asserted is that when the
inquiry is whether the Legislature or any
other body of officers has violated the regu-
lations Of the Constitution it is entirely
claimed that the decision of that sub
iect must rest exclusively with the
judicial departments of the Government; !;
nor can we for moment forget that IN
entering upon the inquiry, that is now inn
posed upon us as a duty, that we have to deal
with subject of great Importance and
delicacy, and that before the restraining
power of this court can be exerted to inter-
fere with the action of a coordinate branch
of the State government we must be as
certain as care and diligence can make us;
that the foundation on which we place our
selves is sure and certain That this court
has the legal right to entertain jurisdiction
in the case displayed by this record we have
no doubt, and we are of the opinion that it
is scarcely possible to conceive of any crisis
in public affairs that is more Imperative than
the present one, 1mD5raUlVely Gaining lOE al
intervention of such judicial authority.
APPLICABLE To CASES OF UsURPATToN.
With respect to the further contention
that the President Of the Senate does not be-
long to that class OF officers whose legality
can be put to the test by proceeding in the
nature of a quo iudrvaato, our conclusion is
that such contention cannot prevail. The
statute of this State being broader than its
English prototpye; the scope of this remedy
for it declares, that it shall be applicable to
every case in which any person or persons
shall usurp or unlawfully hold or execute
any office within this State, consequently
it does not seem deniable that all offices as
well as those derived from the Legis-
lature, and those derived from other
sources are contradicted by this
definition. and the consequences must be
therefore that the statutory provision justi-
fies the present proceedings, unless 1t be
shown that such action will be inconsistent
with the Constitution or privileges of the
Senate, as an independent part of the gov
ernment; and, indeed, this was one of the
questions of the position of counsel in the
argument before us, but we think it is but
obvious that whatever seeming course such
an argument as is derived from the petitio
princspii before alluded to, assumes as its
basis that the court is taking proceedings
against the officers of genuine Senate;