Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1897-12-09
POINTS TO DECIDE.

Mr.. Stockton said 1T was necessary Tor the
court to decide the following points,
First. Whether majority of the votes re-
turned as cast for and against the amend
ment which excludes 961 ballots as rel ected
ballots is majority of the qualified cleo
tors voting, to wit, 14l ,672, as shown by the
return.
Second. Whether if the 961 ballots were
properly rejected for or against the amend
ment it could affect the question of the
number of qualified electors that voted on
the amendment or relative thereto.
Third. Whether every ballot cast was rot
necessarily q vote of qualified elector on
the question submitted from the form and
manner directed in the act of submission.
Fourth Whether every ballot cast by a
qualified elector whose name was on the
poll list was not vote on the question sub
mitted whether counted afirmatiyely or
negatively, undecipherable, untelligible, or
blank.
Fifth. Whether the. Legislature or the
Board of Canvassers has power to substitute
for the constitutional requirement of ma
iority of the qualified electors voting there
on, the modified requirement of a majority
of electors voting for or against said amend
ment.
Sixth. Whether the determination of the
Board Of State CanYassers that the lottery
and gambling amendment was adopted is
justified by the return purporting as it
does to state the whole number of votes
cast for and against the proposed amend
ment The classification of these votes
and the refusal to count them being based
upon the arbitrary will of the judges. no
reason being given therefor in the return.
LOST ON FACE ON RETURNS.
Seventh. Whether if ballots were ex-
cluded by reason of defect in form OF failure
to comply with general election laws, or
inability of the judges to determine the
intention of the elector they are not still to
be counted in determining the number of
| qualified electors participating in the cleo
ton in determining their number
Eighth. Whether the burden of proof is
not on those claiming its adoption to sub
staintiate it from the returns; and whether
the failure to return the Cause of the rejec-
ton of each rejected vote, thereby depriv-
ing the Board of State Canvassers of the
Information necessary to determine the
Justice of the rejection; and whether the
character of the vote rejected affected the
the amendment, does not require the Board
of Canvassers to declare that on the face of
the returns the proposed amendment was
rejected.
Ninth. Whether as the returns show that
141 ,672 qualified voters, participated in said
election by voting a ballot, the amendment
can be declared adopted by less than ma
iority of that number. to wit, 20, 1877 ballots,
and whether as the affirmative ballots only
numbered 20, 443 the amendment was not
lost on the face of the returns
MR. GREY's ARGUMENT.
Z. Attorney General Grey in opposition to
the application said that the Board of State
CanYassers acted only in a ministerial
capacity and their having acted and de-
clared the result of that action adiudicate6
absolutely nothing. The action of the State
Board of CanVassers could not be reviewed
by certiorari, and be said further that all
the decisions in this State sustained his
contention.
Justice Dixon pointed out that the cam
vassers declared the amendment carried,
and asked if this was not judicial act.
Mr.. Grey said he thought not. He argued
quite extensively on the point that the
action of the State Board of Canyassers
could not be reviewed.
Justice Dixon asked if the Attorney
General would take this view if the de-
elared result was deplorable error.
Mr.. Grey said that any arithmetical cal
culation that was erroneous could be cor
rected. This is just the point said JUS
tice Dixon. Attorney General Stockton's
contention is that the result as declared by
the State Board of Canvassers is not in ac-
cordance with the figures before them.n
Mr.. Grey answered this that those per-
sons whose vote had been rejected had not
voted thereon" They may, for all the
court knows, he continued, have voted
blank pieces Of paper, and it was for the
other side to establish prima facially that
those whose votes had been rejected had
voted thereon"
The Attorney General argued further
that if the Prosecutors had any standing in
the court, they had lost it by laches. The
Prosecutors, he said, had not been prompt
in getting the matter before the court, but
dilatory. The question effected the public
at large. and the court should not interfere
without it was perfectly satisfied that there
was prima facie case.
No decision was announced.