The Monitor-register., 1897-11-19

AOAs IL "dy 10 th0b Ii pooo
months have not all been filled with sun.
shine, but the shadows that have come
across u pathway serve to more fully
bring out the bright spots.
A good deal of advice is being volun-
teered for the benefit of the Legislature,
when it shall assemble in January next,
and it is quite timely. If the majority
want to serve both the State and their
party we'll they will carefully restrict
legislation, and that only to law that
are absolutely essential for the well-being
of the State. Important interests hang
on the election of next year, and the
result will be largely influenced by the
work of the next Legislature.
Lawyer ella renee T. Atkinson, whom
many of our readers will remember as
among the speakers in Woodstown
during the campaign of 1896. has raised
a veritable tempest in a teapot among
the Democrats of New Jersey by his
fiery pronunciamento upon the financial
question and its bearing upon the
Gubsrnatorial contest 10 this Stat next
fall. Mr.. Atkinson expresses the hope
that the Democratic party is united, as
currently reported, but he demands to
know "whether it is united on the princi-
Piles as declared in the National platform
IF tho no nv ~ chatham - 10 ,,ntHaI fNr
spoils aud the personal advancement of
certain men, regardless of the dominant
question whether party success will
benefit the people in general. This
question will have to be answered before
1885," says Mr.. Atkinson. Proceeding,
he declares that the next candidate for
Governor on the Democratic ticket "will
have to prove that he was loyal in 1896
or there will be 20, 900 votes in the State
he cannot GET" "Just as sure as the
sun %rises,ss' he continues, dropping into
prophecy, "if the leaders undertake to
carry out their present programme of
ignoring the question of principles and
seek to name a neutral and nondescript
OF 1896 the party will fall asunder." This
looks a little like an effort to hedge on
the prospects of the Hon. William DAILY.
With two such candidates for Governor
in the field, the situation will really
become bewildering.
The race track men, through their
counsel, ex Senator W. d. Edwards and
Allan L. McDermott, made a formal
move this week to upset the result of
the special election on the anti-gambling
amendment to the Constitution, but they
got worsted. They appeared before a
branch of the Supreme Court and asked
for a mandamus to compel a recount of
the ballots in the several election districts.
Mr.. McDermott, in his argument,
pointed out that the anti gambling
amendment was only carried by a
majority of 801 of the votes counted,
while there were 961 ballots rejected.
He held that at most not more thar
seven ballots should have been thrown
out, and these because they were double.
Thirty more, he said, were marked in a
manner to indicate the probable iuten-
ton of the voter to vote against the
amendment, while in the case of the
reminder it was the obvious intent SO to
vote. All these, he commended, should
have been counted, irrespective of the
character of the marks used in c~aneela-
ton, as the special election did not come
within the scope of the general election
law pertaining to marked ballots" and
there was no provision against marked
tallots" in the special election law. Mr..
McDermott further commended that no
matter whether the recount takes place
or not the anti gambling amendment will
not properly stand as a part of the Con
stitution, because it did not receive a
majority of the votes actually cast at the
special election. He showed that the
total vote as contained in the report OF
the State Board of Canvassers was
al, 672. A majority of this would be
O,037, while there were only 70, 44a
votes for the adoption of the amend
ment or 80 short of a majority. Article
8 of the Constitution, providing for
amending the Constitution, contains this
clause: "And if the people at a special
election to be held for that purpose only
shall approve and ratify such amendment
OF amendments, or any of them, by a
majority of the electors qualified to vote
for members of the Legislature voting
thereon such amendment or amendments
so approved and ratified shall become
part of the Constitution" etc. While the
anti-gambling amendment had a majority
of the votes actually counted, Mr..
McDermott held that this does o meet
the constitutional requirement of Article
O., which refers to votes cast by qualified
voters. Attorney General Grey, ir
opposing the application, held that the
Governors proclamation making thu
having been passed, the Courts wert
powerless to go behind this, or in any
way to Interfere with the result of thu
election. He further held that no person
al rights had been invaded by the issuing
of the proclamation, and that as 8
consequence no individual could obtain a
recount. AS another obstacle in the way
of a recount be pointed out that th,
special election ballots had been removed
from the boxes, which were used at tn,
regular election, and that it would bt
very easy for '~'unscrupulous persons" il
"-unscrupulous localities" to have tam
pered with the ballots. The Court, aftel
q brief c~onsu,tati "a, denied the writ o.
mandamus, the opinion being given BY
Justice Vansyokel. The opinion does
not meet any of the points raised by the
contestants through their counsel, but
as intimated in the deliverance the
Court takes the position that it would be
against public policy to go behind the
proclamation of the Governor or to ALLOW
q contest of such magnitude to be insti
tu.ed. The Court intimates that the pro
ceedings have begun too late and sustain
that fear with the statement that thu
Court has no power to set aside thu
proclamation of the Governor, whict
fixes the amendments in the Constitu
tion. 1t also expresses doubt about The
integrity of the ballots, expressing tht
fear that since they had to be removec
from the ballot boxes 80 that the boxet
could be used in the general election they
NAV havo haan tomparad with TT is