The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-11-18
GAMBLING DECISION.
Full Text Of Judge Van
Syckle's Opinion Deny
ing a Recount.
IGNORED THE APPLICANTS POINTS
Did Not Touch Main Question
Raised by Messrs. Edwards
and McDermott-Ap-
peal Talk.
THE APPLICANTS POINTS
Especial to .rhe Jersey city News.''I

Especial to Tine Jersey City News
TRENTON, Nov. is, 1s97.-The full text
of the Supreme Courts decision in the APP
plication for a recount of the ballots cast
for the anti-gambling amendment to the
Constitution, a synopsis of which was
published in last evenings News" fol-
lows
This is an application for a peremptory
writ of mandamus to be directed to the
Board of Registry and Elections, COM
handing said Board to and
count the ballots cast at said election for
the proposed constitutional amendments
against gambling.
Whether, after the Governors p~rocla-
nation that the said amendment became
part of the fundamental law of this State,
this court can order a recount of the
votes, is a question upon which we express
no opinion. If we have the power to grant
the application in virtue of the common
klaW jurisdiction inherent in the court to
superintend inferior tribunals in the ex-
ereise of their functions, we decline to do
SO in this case.
This election did not affect any individ-
ual or private right. 1t concerned the Gov
eminent alone, and in it the REALTORS ave
no interest other than which is common
to all citizens of the State. Public policy,
therefore, is to be primarily regarded in
the discussion of this application.
The Legislature. by the act of May Is,
1897, under which this amendment was
submitted to the popular vote, declared
how that vote should be canVassed, and
made it the duty of the Governor, after
determining that the amendment had re-
ceiyed a majority vote, to issue a procla-
nation forthwith, declaring hat it had
been adopted by the people. This was q
declaration by the Legislature that, so far
as the Government was concerned, public
policy required that the question should
be at rest when the Chief Executive of the
State had performed the duty imposed
upon him by the statute. that vertical
ton of the correctness of the result sat
isfied the State, and it should be held to
satisfy the REALTORS.
By the mandate of the Legislature, the
amendment has become Incorporated in
he Constitution of the State. 1t should,
therefore, require a very clear case to in
duce his court to intervene for the pur-
pose of reopening the count, and subject
ing to litigation q subject of such para
mount Importance.
This consideration presses itself upon
US with especial force when we recall
the fact that no safeguard has as yet
been devised by which frauds upon the
ballot can be prevented. The reasons
for which the AID of the court is invoked
in this case are far from satisfactory.
The alleged facts upon which the appli-
cation is based ave been gathered by
counsel, and their clerks and agents,
from various sources, consisting in part
OF statements made to them by election
officers in respect to ballot some weeks
aftel they had inspected such ballots
III the COuISe OF IIltklUB the count OH Ile
day of election. These statements as pre-
scented to US are mere hearsay, and cam
not justify favorable consideration.
But if the evidence submitted on the
part of he REALTORS was more satisfac-
tory, there is still cogent reason for re-
fusing to allow another count. 1t be-
came necessary to use the ballot boxes
in which these ballots were sealed. for
the purpose of the State elections held on
the I'd of November. The ballots were
therefore removed from the ballot boxes
and placed in the custody of various
officials throughout the State. To some
extent, at least, the safeguards against
tampering with these ballots were thereby
diminished, and there is now less assur-
ance that the ballots will be found to be
in the same condition in which they Were
when counted originally, than there would
be if they had not been removed from the
The REALTORS awe permitted the stu
alton to change before they mad their
application, although the Governor post
poned the issuing of his proclamation to
give any one who desired to do SO an OPP
p~ortunity to contest the adoption of this
amendment.
The application is denied.
There was much talk here last night
that Allan L. McDermott and former
Senator w. D. Edwards will appeal the
case, not willing to allow such an i'm
portant case to be settled by three Judges.
A lawyer interested said last night that
there is no precedent for these Judges
reaching the conclusion that the Court
could not go behind the Governors proc
lamation. Their refusal to give a direct
opinion that would be a legal precedent
warrants them carrying the case to a
higher court. The argument hat the
people are satisfied is an assumption, they
claim, and only a fair count of the votes
viii prove it.
AS to the tampering with the ballots,
that, they declare, is only a suspicion
and not wen founded. The ballots in
nearly all counties were removed from
the boxes under the order of the Court
and properly sealed, and the City and
County Clerks are responsible for them.
They cannot be changed because the re-
jeeted ballots must tally with the Off
cial returns now on file in the Secretary
of States office. This, the race track
lawyers said last night. did not end the
fight, by any means.