New-York tribune., 1895-05-24
A DEMOCRATIC PLOT FAILS.
JUDGE PARKER CHECKS THE ATTACK oN
THE NEW CONSTITUTION.

TION THAT WOULD PREVENT THE AL
BANY COUNTY REAPPoRTIoNMENT.
Kingston ~ V. May 23.-Judge Alton b. Parker
/ to-day handed down his decision in the case OF
Charles f. Herman against Darius Rundell ana
others. Supervisors OF Albany county IL
follows
suit brought by a private citizen against the
Board Of Supervisors Of the county OF Albany to
obtain an adjudication that such portion or the re-
vlsed Constitution as provides for leglsauvvp A. az
poriionmen is Unconstitutional ana 20 res, " into
four Assembly districts: The complaint alleges mo no
of Shs the right san9 Or ,sae that the he Citizen
State OF New-York' He complains then. not that
his private interests been invaded or that some
organization OF poc, division for the ;,hn purposes ss
pain s therefor con sonfrenea va wih since aee
steadily adhered to, with the single exception Gre
ated by statute to which Ne osd @ to De
to be the champion OF the communG n a,ns, aris ""s
In It's behalf challenge IN me coufIs h 's ncers Their
wrongful acts. whether done or threatened can o's
or BY some Oieer having authority to act in be s
half Of the public Dootle agt SupefSS,s's ,Sn sautv
sse Of the Court by residents and eehoders 70
have the action OF the Board Of supervisors rsd OF
nu!l and void and to restrain proceedings for It's
organzat Judgment went in favor Of inc O. plr an
erai Term. and the Court Of Appeals in affirming
ne decision s G @ n s4 a 1% es"s
conclusion that wrongs agair, the pubic w"e'r,,r 'r
sS% by redr@ssed or preven,ei in instituted
by the state IN 's political eharacIr o such m behalf
This case does not seem TO have been quesione.d,
on the contrary. II has been cited many times vii" as
jgporss, ast WIckhsm s New-York 80; 0ser
hondt agt Rignay. rs New-york. 222. The oster-
payers act Chapter Isl Laws 1872; an enacment,
indicating that the Lessature iny of ths stat
for by It resident and taxpayer was aHthori.sn , y,
To- prevent waste or injury TO any property. 'unus %
estate OF any county town or ,nH rn.aaH' - bring
himself within that statute and 1t il only reierfsn %
/ to ~ indicating 4 legislative recosh''o" VI "
doctrine of the cases cited. - %
! II is true that, in proceedings by manIamus go. 10
compel the performance by public officers OF lniy
been held that any citizen may be rea,or sey nnI M
yoke the AID Of the G. nrt.reopis snnep s New
York 2ie: People rel. Rice. -. New YORK W.;
n nu' IN me peone c% rel iislsey which distinctly ap-
| proved Of the decision in the Dooltte case Inv
"inasmuch az the people themselves are tns
plaintiffs In a procceiing b, inandausS ~ M 40 y ,onp
vital Importance who the relator should ue 30 'oh
az he does oihcousIy niermediie ~ ma ME- ay
with which he has no concern ,ra,y;uai acls a.
rcator or representative OF the people 10 rsl'' "a
sought 10 nscompish The same result by an ndi,
| vidual in action brought IN MS o"" ''"''' "
Whether ine distinction made should obtain r.
TO discussion a. IT nas pee" TX psa,oei
counsel for plaintiff calls attention To the
OF other siate, In which cHsms nay 10 orssecI,e
actions OF similar Character 10 INN '.rrrorr
asain,i Jynis'"i Jyn,s ro'orni" iig. Wea againsi
Han. - Prnnsy.vaniA state ~, I"ih-i ,s o,.s
sfatr ~ Indiana l7s In Millcrs ca'r I'd" au.n W.,
lion nn.t..r tnr plaintiff wa entitled 10 manialn
The ar,l.n wns presented 10 the court bni y ", ~
nc,l, refused to pass upon w. on ne sfo'np ''"s my
! m. c,nirov.rsy was OF such lmpofian.e 20 tn'
Sta'c a. t. r'ouir. a de.,n"" ti, ut'' ,,''ybf lN
II,.fmore against Walt" ""r r'', p."nsmi ., h
/ t.xrs,.r ar1 citizen OF the state - frS,IAn 'n'
defendant 40 Secfriafy oi ri',@ LII 81 rro.
step looking 20 submission 10 ''' ~ w - t't'f,in
,.e. .onrtliuiOnpl amendment. am ih" l''u.,, H.,
IA, recof oi ,no cas, disc oses ~ poni
not mad. nat a.. .'"t w.. 49, r" no, I,srus..I ny
,o. rouri In vols against ihn the 'ohti dli nov nov
hold that the suit ~as mA,s',aci. , ,aion f. batter.
ssn against Harlow 40 PcnnsyNanls stat ~ ="
the same Court speaking through me same JUNK
We doubt the nsh, OF The paln,in, to sa'I ,Gf
| uhilh fh.V a. private citizens. 'an mo" IT, h
Injurious to their own rights. ana u !, NOR "' ,o,
pngn the law In ~ public aspects anI ASK US !"
restrain 80 execution on pubic kfV.'st, ~, ,. ,o,t
| Neither los reasoning nor huth"hO hln 'h' ""i'
IN Wells agnns, Bain attempt to SHOW tn.t ~ YIN
orror or ,r' II had The PATTERSON before and
! consl1ered H. but The only distinction suggested
| was asked to STRIKE down the only LEGAL system
OF election and thereby to disfrsnchi,c an lis olii.
| TO STRIKE down but to protect legal - 'trh ana
| a. n,cv.nt Intrusion by Illegal authority. Ger
! ,olniv this Court would not be jusuncd IN regard
ing the decision In kain's cas-" OF ru,h controiIhy
weight and authority as 70 Justify IT In refusing
10 follow what seems to be the trend oi authority
IN this state -,
| Parker against the state VAS suit broughi by ~"
STATE on The relation OF Powell and the Court SAID,
"%or IL II claimed that this suit u not properly
| hrnuehi on the relation Of Powell"
! The conclusion being reached ihnt IN" pnlhtln ~
nnf entitled fo the relief which he seeks on this
notion II his contention AZ 10 IN" illesahty
! OF the appor onmcnt provision OF ne new 'onsu-
/ lion b.. re founded. Il II unnecessary TO consider
Inc merits OF the controversy which he would pro
woke The motion FOR an injunction. pcndcnie lite.
! should be denied. with COSTS