New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-03-22
TEXT OF THE DECISION.
EVERY POINT DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE
REPUBLICANS.


TIE OPINION WRITTEN BY CHIEF JUSTICE
BEAsLEY AND CONQUERED IN BY ALL
But ONE OF THE FOURTEEN JUS
TIcEs-EX- GOVERNOR ALBEIT
DIssENTs.
Trenton. March 21-venerable Chief Justice
Beasley to-day read from the bench the finding
OF the Supreme Court of the State in the quo
warranto proceedings brought by Governor
Werts 10 decide which the legal Senate or
the State that organized by the Democrats or
that consisting of Republicans. There was no
room for doubt when the Chief Justice hnlshed.
Every contention set forth by the array of coun-
sci for Senator Rogers was upheld and the
claims of Allan McDermott, who appeared for
Senator Adrain. the Democratic leader. were
set aside. Twelve of the judges who sat on the
bench concurred in the opinion rendered the
fourteenth, Justice Albeit. differing in points.
This case has been placed before the court on
rule to show cause why information in the ma
ture of a quo warranto should not be issued against
the respondents. each of whom claim. and to some
extent have exercised. 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 DIVIDED
themselves into two bodies that is, nine of the
old members. who were styled In the argument
''hold-over members" constituting one OF such
bodies. subsequently newly chosen Senator joined
himself 70 the body made up of holdover Senators,
making that body consist Of ten Senators. the
other consisting, as just shown. of eleven The
former of these bodies will be referred to in order
TO avoid paraphrase as the Adran Senate, the iat-
ter the Rogers Senate: the so-caled Adrain Senate
has been recognized officially by the Governor and
remains in session; the so-called Rogers Senate is
recognized officially by the House of Assembly,
but 1t has been refused official recognition by the
Executive 1t has passed several laws. and with
the cooperation of the lower house has appointed
a Treasurer and Controller of the State.
The above is description of the general aspect
of the case and IL 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 Senate. for
they cannot both be genuine; but before proceeding
10 dispose Of that question, the counsel OF Mr. Rog-
erss Senate have rterposed preliminary one as to
whether this court take cognzance OF such
litigation. II is confessed that the argument on
this subject. denying the existence Of the judicial
power in question. has not been impressive. In my
Judgment II is founded in all its parts on peuiio
principi denial of legal principle so entirely
established as not to be debatabe; for it proceeds
on the assumption that the Senate 1t advocates IL
the constitutional Senate. that the judgment Of
the majority of the Senate held with to the
question whether not they have organized in
violation to the Constitution of the State is concu
sive and hnal
THE COURT SHOULD CONSTRUE THE LAW.
II will be observed that the contention of the
applicants for the wrts Is that the Rogers Sen
ate has no legal existence inasmuch as it was
ORGANIZED in a manner contrary TO the funda-
mental law and the proposition would seem self
evident that as no power is vested by the Const-
tuition in the majority Of the Senators to con-
strue such laws in It's respect the power TO con-
firm and enforce IL is lodged in the ordinary legal
tribunals Referring to the judicial prerogatve.
Mr. Cooley, in his work constitutional limita-
TONS page &c, says:
1.-The right and power of the court TO do this are
SO plain and the duty is generally, universally
conceded that should not be justified in weary
ing the patience of the reader in quoting the very
numerous authorities this subject
1t was certainly therefore. the unexpected that
happened when learned counsel in reply to the
contention that the Senatorial organization in
question inconsistent with the constitutional
prescription. assumed (. condition that this court
could not entertain jurisdiction in the case. the
Interpretation of the Constitution matter
handed in. of a purely legislative character. No
decision has been made for century past that
does not antagonize such a proposition.
1t will be understood that in this indication Of
what seems 10 be the undeniable prerogative OF
this court there is not the slightest suggestion OF
the existence Of other judicial capacity 10 control
the legislative authority when exercised within its
appropriate field. II the question here presented
had been whether this Senatorial body had been
organized in the accustomed mode. or in open
violation Of its own practices and rulings. totally
different subject of inquiry would have been before
us; and it may we'll be doubted that we have a
discretion of reviewing such matter This court
does claim the slightest legal faculty TO super
wise interfere with such transaction; all that Is
asserted is that when the inquiry is whether the
LEGISLATURE or any other body OF officers has vo-
lated the regulations of the Constitution 1t Is en-
tirey claimed that the decision of that subject
must rest exclusively with the judicial depart
mcnts Of the Government; nor can we for a mo-
ment forget that in entering upon the inquiry that
is imposed upon us as duty, we have
TO deal with subject OF great Importance and
delicacy, and that before the restraining power
OF this court be exerted TO interfere with the
action OF a coordinate branch Of the State Gov
eminent we must be as certain and dill
gence can make that the foundation upon which
place ourselves is and certain. That TIL,
has the legal right TO entertain jurisdiction
In the displayed by this record We have no
doubt. and Of the opinion that 1t is
scarcely possible conceive OF any crisis in pub
lie affairs that is imperative than the pres
ent one. imperatively calling for an intervention OF
such judicial authority.
NO DOUBT AS JURISDICTION.
With respect TO the further contention that the
president OF the Senate does not belong 10 that
class OF officers whose legality be put to the
test by proceeding in the nature OF quo
ranto. our conclusion is that such contention can
not prevail. the statute Of this State being broader
than its English prototype; the scope of this
remedy for It declares that It shall be applicable
to every case in which any person persons shall
usurp unlawfully hold execute any office
within this State" Consequently 1t does not seem
denable that all offices. well those derived
from the Legislature those derived from other
sources are comprehended by this definition and tn.
consequence must be. therefore that the statutory
provision just cited justihes the present proceeding
unless it be shown that such action would be In
consistent with the Constitution. privileges OF
Senate. as Independent part OF the Govern.
ment And. indeed. this was one OF the DO.
sitions Of counsel in the argument before VI,
but we think It is but obvious that whatever seem
ing force such an argument has Is derived from