The sun., 1897-12-04
,rrarr Axft.aAMnrlxe rorr.
Rssmer Attorney-eepsrni stscktsa AraSes
Asn,pst Atiewing the Ar,endnent 70 stand.

Agntnst AtleVytnG the Amendment 20 stnnd.
TRrNToy, N. j., Dec. y - Former Attorney
General John p. Stockton argued before su.
premc Court Justices Van slckol, Dixon and
Collins to-day against allowing the antieam-
bling amendment to remain in the Constitution
on the ground that 1t had not been adopted by n
constitutional majority OF those voting thereon.
The same Justices two weeks ago refused n
rnandamus compelling q recount Of votes for the
reason that the applicants had no standing in
court, az none of their personal rights were in
volved, and public policy required that the
mandamus be refused.
To-day's proceedings were brought on an ap-
plication for q writ of certiorari, directed
against the state Board Of Canvassers who
canvassod the amendment vote, and ngainst
Secretary Of State George Wurts carrying up
for rcview by the Supreme Court the doclara-
tion that the amendment was adopted. Allan
l. McDermott and ex-senator Edwards ap.
peared with Gen. Stockton, and Attorney.Ien.
eral Grey represented the State. The certiorari
is brought in the name Of Charles Bott Of Hud-
son county, and ex-senator Edwards presented
nffidavits from Hudson county taxpayers that
they voted against the amendment; that 1t had
not been adopted by the required vote, and that
they suffered great injury by its being placed
In the Constitution.
Gen. Stockton made partial argument and
submitted n printed brief. Ho sold he would not
allow himself to appear before the court in the
case IL he had not been satisfied, after careful
Investigation of the facts. that great injury
had been done. The Board OF Canvassers made
q great mistake which ought TO be considered
by tho court. Tho question whether the amend
ment is good thing ought not to be considered.
It should not be forced on the Constitution
unless adopted in the manner prescribed
by the Constitution. He contended that
it does not appear from the returns
that tho proposed amendment was ratified
by n majority of tho electors qualified to vote
thereon. Tho form of BALLOT. too. compellcd
every voter to vote on all the amendnents. The
rejected ballots. the 70,tl3 votes cast for the
amendment is q constitutional ma jority OF the
1il,672 qualified electors shown to have voted.
Tho burden of proof is on those claiming the
from the returns. He contendcd that TO,s37
ballot were required to ado the amendment,
and on the face of the returns IL had been lost.
Attorney.General Grey, in reply. held that tho
Constitution requires, tor the adoption Of an
amendment. its ratification by a majority of
whose ballots were rejected were not qualified
voters within the meaning OF tho Constitution.
Only those whose ballots influenced tho result
qualified as voters. 1t was not necessary that
an amendment receive majority of both the re.
iected and counted ballots but only of tho latter.
The State Board OF Canvassers acted in a nero
ministerial capacity, simply computing fgures
and making a statement. This 1t had done. and
1t is not within the power Of the court to review
its acts. 1t is necessary to show prma facie
this has not been done. He hold that the time
has gone by when the result Of tho election can
be contested. Any move to do SO should have
been made before the vote was canyassed.
Tho Justices took the papers In the case, and
an early decision Is looked for.