The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1894-03-27

presidency OF the Senate does not belong to that
class of officers whose legality can be put to the
test by force OF proceeding in the nature OF quo
warranto, our conclusion is that such contention
cannot prevail
In order to expedite the determination of the
case. counsel Of these litigants agreed that, ii
| cognzanee shonld be taken by the Court of their
controversy, it should be assumed that an intOr-
nation had been filed, and that each Of the con-
tending parties had interposed his answer, stating
| the facts which appear in the evidence and which
are not in dispute, by force of which he seeks to
/ vindicate his title, and that reciprocal demur-
rers should then be put in, thus exhibiting
to the urt the ltigated points to be determined.
Upon looking into the presentation of the fact
\ thus indicated It will be at once apparent that
/ the central ground of controversy between these
rival organizations is with respect to the right Of
the Adrain Senate, or what is called the hold-over
Senate, to dominate on the occasion OF the intro
ductiOn of newly elected members into the Senate.
In the very able and carefully considered briefs
of the Attorney General and his associates, this
dominance is claimed to exist ON the ground that,
by the proper construction of the Constitution of
| the state the State Senate is a continuous body,
| that is that it has perpetual life, and that conse
Quently member elected to one OF its seats cannot
enter it until his title has been passed upon by
the ever existing body. 1t has not and cannot be
| pretended that this doctrine has its roots in the
actual expressions of the Constitution, and it,
therefore, is admittedly the creature of the Con-
Stituti0n.
1t is apparent that these recitals fully justify
| the remark first made, that the Constitution does
not attempt to define the life of the Senate, yet,
Notwithstanding such silence, the Attorney GEN
/ eral and the counsel of President Adrain, raise
| the contention that the State Senate, like the
Senate of the United States has a continuous ex-
| istence. That there can be no such things as an
| old Senate and Senate, and that there has
| been an unbroken continuity OF existence Oh TINS
body from its birth to this hour. And as corol-
larry of this doctrine it is further insisted that
this selt-sustainng body is the sole judge of the
right of newly elected Senators, when they apply
for admission TO its seats and that it can such
occasions receive or reject them at its will.
In the application of this theory to this case it
was claimed that the body presided over by Mr..
Adrain had the right to require that the creden-
tals of Senators elect should be placed before it
10 be retained and to be adjudicated upon at such
time and in such mode as itself might deem
proper.
thus asserted it to be uDdeniable that it had
the power to act it did on the occasion that has
given rise to this litigation, for by the plain Ian
image of the Constitution itself it is declared that
leach House shall be the judge of the elections,
returns and qualifications of its own members"
1t will be perceived, therefore, that the question
now to be considered and decided by this Court is,
Has the Senate of the State the perpetuity thus
claimed?
So far as I have ascertained, no person, whether
ext-wrter, jurist statesman, has ever asserted
that the clause under discussion bears the force
and meaning for the first time imputed to it..
And it would have been singular, indeed, if any
critic had ventured to express such opinion,
for the constitutional provision obviously would
refuse TO bear such treatment The expressions
tinuance of the Senate itself, but simply provide
for the succession and length of the terms of the
members of that body. think it is safe to say
that never, any occasion, has it been suggested
that the clause has any further reach than this
The Senate of the United States has been declar-
ed to be a permanent body, and when the subject
was under discussion, it was on all sides assumed
that the section in the Federal Constitution from
which, as has been stated, our own has been cop
led, gave to the Senate an aptitude for continu-
Gus existence, but it never alleged that it was
possessed of any further effect
In this respect the two bodies are placed up
on the same footing and subjected to the
same regulations. No express power to or
ganize is conferred upon either of them, but
by necessary implication II belongs similarly
to both. When the power to organize is mere
ly legal amendment, the power consists in
right to organize in the customary manner,
and it, therefore, excludes the notion OF a mi
nority ruling in the transaction. In the case
of the Assembly il is admitted that the organ
ization must be effected in accordance with
usual modes in that affair it is not pretended
that there can be any dominance of a minori-
ty. 1t does not appear, therefore, how it can
be reasonably maintained that the Senate in
exercising this important function, shall be
subjected to an abnormal condition, and that
in its use there shall be dominance of the
minority. The organizing power of the SEN
ate being derived in its totality by legal i'm
plication, it appears to be plain that the law
will not imply regulation that would be
both unusual and unjust.
In the practice of the United States Senate,
which we have stated is an ever living body,
there is no fixed day for the admission OF new
members-elect The certificates of incoming
Senators are presented from time to time or
at convenient occasions, ana are thus sever
ally passed upon.
From the regulation in question it appears
to be, if not the necessary. at least the reason
able inference that the Senate of this state is
no more continuous body than is the As
sembly.
Also in the next place, the designation of a
legislative year, that is, when such year shall
begin and when it shall end, tends in the
same direction. What for perpetual body to
do with prescribed periods of time the legis-
In Tins nhVinnGlV
with the official life of the Assembly, and 1t
appears reasonable to suppose that it was
meant to accord with Senatorial life OF
in fine, after very careful study of the
constitution of The state, my conclusion is
that its intimations are all to this effect, that
the claim advanced for the first time on this
occasion that the Senate is a permanent, con-
tinuous body, is without any valid founda-
Nor has there been found any more substan-
tial basis for the doctrine just discarded in
the past practice of the Senate in respect
to Its yearly organization.
If this body has the absolute power now as
serted for the first time, and, after lapse of
half a century, 1t certainly would be most
strange circumstance that, during this long
period, the existence of such power was never
manifested by a single word a single act.
The claim of such an imperial authority made
at this late day Is an entire novelty, and, like
most novelties in legal matters is not well
founded. 1t is likewise in this connection
important to note that during that long time
the Senatorial action was regulated by the
18TH section of the act relating TO elections,
Rev 1853, which is in the following terms
THAT the Senate and Assembly shall convene
and hold their sessions in the State House in
Trenton; and in the organization of such
House, the certified copies of the statement
of determination made under the direction OF
the sixty ninth section OF this act shall be
deemed and taken TO be prima facie evidence
of the right of persons therein mentioned to
the seats in the houses, respectively, to which
they shall have been so determined to be
elected
No one can look at this act and fail to per-
eeive that it is absolutely irreconcilable with
the theory of an ever existent Senate. This is
so entirely the case that the very astute coun
sci of President Adrain insisted that it was
void, as it attempted to prescribe to an exist
ing Senate a rule controlling its action in a
matter comm tilted to its exclusive jurisdic-
ton by the constitution.
When l accept, therefore, the understand
ing that plainly appears to have prevailed for
so long a time, feel great confidence that l
have not fallen into error The doctrine in
question stands, think, condemned both by
the intimation OF the constitution itself as
well as by long continued and practical
exposition.
The result of the inquiry before us is that
we have concluded that the Senate of New
Jersey is not a continuous body, but that IL
expires annually in the same sense that the
Assembly does.
Therefore, our conclusion is that Mr. Adrain
has title to the Office hat he ostensibly
holds, and that the appropriate Judgment
must be entered against him. With respect
to the title OF the opposite claimant Mr..
Rodgers, we hold that this title must be regard
ed as constitutional and valid.
Our resolution 10 this regard is founded en-
tirely on the power that, touching the act OF
recognizing its own body. the majority of
Senators are the absolute masters of the occa-
sion. such action is taken by body co-ordi-
nate with ourselves, and whose proceedings.
when not violate of the constitution of the
state, we have no capacity to supervise or
control.
In our opinion when a majority of the Sem
ators organized the Senate and elected Mr..
Rodgers as president, such action was and is
conclusive upon this court as well as upon all
departments of the government.
Let a Judgment be entered accordingly.
am authorized by the following OF my as
socates to say that they concur in these
views Justices Depue, Van Syckel, Dixon,
Reed Garrison and Lippincott.
The Chief Justice announced that Justice
Albeit held views OF his own regarding the
case, and would formulate and file them later.
THE LEGISLATURE.
In the House on Tuesday evening the
hill nrOhibitinp seine fshino IN Rarnavat