The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-11-17
uANDANUS
DENIED
Supreme Court Branch Re-
fuses to Order an Hon.
est Count of Votes
Cast.
ANTI-RACE TRACK AMENDMENT
Allan L. MeDermott Shows Con-
elusively That 1t Was
Not Constitutionally
Adopted.
BUT THE COURT WON'T INTERFERE
Opposed to Public Policy, The
Judges Say, Because Private
Rights Are Not In
vOlVed.
BUT The COURT WON'T INTERFERE
Especial to ."The Jersey City News."I

Especial to THE Jersey City News.
TRENTON, Nov II, 1ss7.-Justice Van
Syckel of the Supreme Court this morn
ing fled a decision in the application for
a recount of the vote on the anti-gambling
amendment denying the application.
The Court holds that if they had the
power to order the mandamus applied for
it would require a very clear case to IN
duce the Court to intervene for the pur-
pose of reopening the count and subject
ing to litigation subject of such para
mount importance.
The opinion rendered by Judge Van
Syckel is as follows:-
l. Whether after the Governor of this
State in execution of the duty imposed
upon him by an act of the Legislature,
has issued his proclamation that the pro-
posed Constitutional amendment, has re-
ceived majority of the votes OF the
people and has become part of the State
Constitution, this Court can order re-
count of the popular vote, is a question
upon which no opinion is expressed.
2 The election at which the Constr
tutional amendment was submitted to the
vote of the people did not affect any in
dividuaI or private right: it concerned
the government alone; public policy there
fore is to be primarily regarded in con-
sidering the application for recount OF
the vote.
g. The Legislature, by the act under
which the amendment was submitted 10
the popular vote, having declared now
the vote should be canvassed, made 1t the
duty of the Governor, after determining
that the amendment had received ma
iority vote to issue a proclamation 1ortn-
with declaring that it had been adopted
by the people. This was declaration py
the Legislature as far as the government
was concerned; public policy required that
the question should be at rest when the
Chief Executive had performed the duty
imposed upon him by the statute.
The power inherent in this Court to or
der mandamus applied for would require
a very clear case to induce the Court to
intervene for the purpose of reopening
the count The mandamus applied for is
refused.
The preliminary skirmish, yesterday,
was very lively one. The element which
for it's champions ex-senator William D.
Edwards and Allan McDermott of Jersey
City, while Attorney General Samuel H.
Grey. on behalf of the State, appeared In
support of the Constitution as it now
exists on the statute books Associated
with the Attorney General were Frank
~ M
M. Lanning Of this city.
Mr.. McDermott yesterday renewed be-
fore Justices Dixon Van Syckel and Col
lins. the application made on Monday for
a rule to show cause why mandamus
should not issue compelling the election
officers of over 800 election districts to
count 961 ballots rejected at the special
election. After extended arguments on
both sides the Court took the papers and
reserved decision.
Mr. McDermott's first contention was
with respect to the rejected ballots. He
held that at the most not more than seven
of the 961 rejected should have been
thrown out, there being this number of
double ballots. There were thirty more,
he said. which were so marked as to indi-
cate the probable intention of the voter
to vote against the amendment, but in
which the marks of cancellation only ap-
peared on the margin or extended part
way across the body of the ballot. These,
however, he said, ought to have been
counted, and certainly all the rest of the
961 ballots, where the intent was indis-
putaole should have been counted. He
then referred to some of the reasons
which had led to the rejection of other
ballots and which were given in ex-Sena-
tor Edwards argument, on Monday.
Mr. McDermott based his entire argu-
ment in this respect on the theory that
the special election was governed by the
special election law, and that the general
election act concerning marked ballots did
not apply.
This. however, was more or less pre-
lininary to the big surprise which Mr..
NcDermott had in store for his audience.
He startled the entire court room when
he made the statement that, whether a
recount was granted or not the anti
gambling amendment is not properly a
part of the State Constitution, as, even
admitting that the as1 ballots were prop
erly rejected, the amendment did not re-
ceive the number of votes necessary for
its adoption
In support Of shis claim he quoted from