The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-12-03
WHAT IS A MAJORITY
John P. Stockton's Masterly
Brief in Protection of
the State Constitutions
THE VOTE OF OCTOBER IN DISPUTE
Anti Raee-Traek Amendment
Fight Again Before Judges
of the Branch Court.
ARITHMETIC AND PRECEDENT
Ample Authority for the Nullifi-
Gallon of Governor Griggs' Too
Previous Proclamation.
Especial to ..rhe Jersey city News."l

Especial to ssThe Jersey City News."l
TRENTON, Dec 8, 1S97.-The question
as to whether the Anti-Racetrack
Amendment to the Constitution was rati-
fed by a majority vote Of the people or
not came up for argument, before the
Supreme Court Branch, today. The
presiding Judges were Van Syckel. bix-
on and Collins. Ex-Attorney General
John p Stockton, Allan L. McDermott
and William D. Edwards appeared for
the petitioners. Attorney General Samuel
Gray upheld the validity of the Cover
nsr's proclamation.
The argument was a spirited one. Mr.
Stockton read the principal brief on the
side of the petitioners. In it he aimed
to establish one single Point" which
was stated in the following words
''It does appear from the returns that
the people approved and ratified the pro-
posed amendment relating to lotteries and
ga1nbling by a majority of the electors
qualified to vote for members OF the
Legislature voting thereon; consequently
st is not adopted or required by the Con-
stitution and is no part thereof"
On this point" Mr. Stockton argues as
follows
1t must appear affirmatively that the
amendment was approved ana Taillea py
the majority of the electors quained, Vot-
ing thereon, before it can become part
Of the Constitution.
The poll list is authority and should con
troll in reference to the number or the
votes cast at the election. 1t Is the HsL
of those who voted.
The form of the ballot provided by the
act was such that no person could vote
without. voting on each amendmenl, iI1 sa y
provided as follows: For an proposll- re posi-
led with ink or pencil, and against all
which are so cancelled.
In section it provided that ballots
proposition not cancelled with ink or pen
Gil, and against each proposition SO can
celled, and return thereon should pc maoe
accordingly by the Boards or officers OF
election.
1t is manifest that no matter how the
vote was counted that every vote was
vote on each amendment.
"a majority of qualified electors may
mean that majority of the registered
voters who are qualified under Article Il,
of the Constitution shall vote. This would
be it's natural meaning and purpose.
The common law and custom would con-
ro aS and
1t matters not much, however, what
that majority is if a majority of qualified
if this is not the meaning of the section,
two votes can adopt a constitutional
amendment, only three voting, That a
majority should vote was the original
meaning of such clauses. They required
majority of all electors to vote. 1t was
found difficult. however, to ascertain the
number of qualified voters, as no provision
had yet been made for registration. The
result was that the Courts held that in
prder to make the provisions practicable
It should be assumed that the number vot-
ing at the election was the number OF
qualified voters, and that majority of
such voters was necessary to the adop-
ton of an amendment under such pro
vision.
The number of voters was sometimes de-
termined by the poll list OF voters on other
election; and the expression, majority
of qualified electors, was held in such
cases to mean the number who partici-
pated in the election; and now since the
registry laws it Is well settled that the
number of registered voters participating
as voters, whose ballots are received, is
to be taken to be the number of quail
fled voters, voting on any question at that
election and majority of that number
is necessary for the adoption of an
amendment.
expression thereon" as to leave doubt
as to whether this rule would prevail, re-
curing the number of votes polled at the
election instead of those voting on the
specific amendment, it must be remem-
bered that the plan adopted by the Legis-
lature was such, that it does not appear
afirmatively on which amendment each
voter voted, and as the act required that
they should cast ballot on each amend
ment printed, the presumption Is that
each voter complied with the law. There
can be no presumption. otherwise, because
the burthen of proof Is on the party
claiming that the amendment is adopted.
The return shows that each voter did vote
ily M a aye OF no because the the voter had
the constitutional right to vote blank,
and although an undecipherable or un-
the eiector was still exercising his con-
stitutional right, and was one of the quail
ified electors voting thereon. If the di-
rection in the act that each of said bal
lots shall be counted as vote for each
proposition thereon, not cancelled with
Ink or pencil, and against each proposition
made accordingly by the Boards and off,
GERS Of election, is construed to deprive
the voter of the right of voting blank on
any amendment 1t is unreasonable and
unconstitutional
It Is provided by section 10 that the
Boards Of Registry and election shall
tive to each Of the said proposed amend
ptents TO the Constitution, and thereupon
shall set down IN writing the whole NUM-
proposed amendments, and the whole
number Of votes given against each, and
M hsl rsf csffty m snS aS. ton OF
BY said certificate and detsrminatIon O l''clf Of
pear to have received in its favor a ma
1ority of all the votes cast in the State
for and against said proposed amend
Now, II the object of this act is to sub
stitute the majority Of the Votes cast for
a majority Of the qualified electors voting
thereon and the Court holds that the ma
jority of the votes cast on the proposed
amendment is confined to those which are
counted for or against the amendment, it
is obvious that the Legislature and the
Court alter the Constitution contrary to
Its provisions.
The act requires that list be kept of
al the votes relative to each proposed
amendment so that 1T is not clear that
the Intention Of the act was to establish
le respectfully submitted that the Court
should not hold that 1t does SO, the en-
torcement OF such rule would be the all
teration OF the Constitution by an.
smendment which has not been ratitled or