The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-11-17

Article TX of the State Constitution, re-
ferring to amendments, which. contains
this clause
"And If the people. at a special election
to be held for that purpose only, shall3
approve and ratify such amendments, OF
any OF them. by majority OF the electors
qualified to vote for members OF the
Legislature voting thereon, such amend,
ment or amendments so approved ana
ratified shall become part OF the constr
tution," etc.
Mr.. McDermott then quoted from the
returns of the State Board of Canvassers
showing that at the special election lzl,-
672 ballots were cast, majority OF
which would be 1885, while the amend
ment in question only received 40 44o votes.
While this was a majority of the votes
actually counted, MIR. McDermott held
that it fell 1894 short of the majority re-
quired by the section Of the Constitution
quoted above. He argued that those
much qualified voters" within the mean
ing of the section as those whose ballots
had been counted.
Attorney General Grey, in opposing the
applicat tion, argued that the issuing OF the
Governors proclamation declaring the
amendment a part of the Constitution
closed the matter and that it was not
within the power of the court to go be-
yond this in questioning the outcome OF
the election.
eral apparently aroused the displeasure
of the court, the members not taking
kindly toeany implied limitation of their
powers.
Justice Dixon asked the Attorney Gen
eral what he thought would be the pow
ers of the court in case the Governors
proclamation had been issued contrary TO
the result of the election as shown by the
returns of the State Board of CanvaSserS.
The Attorney General replied that this
was not the question at issue, continuing
that no personal rights had been Violated
by the issuing of the proclamation, ana as
a consequence no individual had rlght
to obtain a recount He said that the
prosecutors were, therefore, not properly
before the court, and their application Tor
a mandamuS should not be considered.
The Attorney General also called atten-
ton TO the fact that the ballots cast. at
the special election had been taken from
the ballot boxes, which were used at the
general election, and that it would be an
easy matter for 'unscrupulous persons
in ''unscrupulous localities" to have tam
pered with the ballots, thereby rendering
a fair recount impossible.
Ex-senator Edwards replied that this
would not have been such an easy matter
as intimated and that it would necessitate
corruption on the part of large number
of persons. In one of the contested pre-
cincts, he said, there We're twenty-four
rejected ballots and in another fifteen. In
all the rest there were less than ten and
IN most Oh pEeln Only one, Two OF Three
The Court then took the papers and re-
served decision.
Ex-senator Edwards and Mr.. MoDer-
mott are confident that while they have
a long, bitter and expensive fight on their
hands, they have a strong case and will
ultimately win. The constitutional point
raised by them was regarded by most of
the lawyers seen yesterday as strong
one, and it leaves the opponents of the
amendment something to fall back on
even if the mandamus is not granted. In
fact, should the court decide with the
prosecutors that a majority of the actual
vote cast is necessary for the adoption of
a constitutional amendment it will not be
necessary to have recount. An order
would then have to be secured compelling
the Board of Canvassers to alter their
declaration as to the adoption of the
amendment.
\ recount would compel vast amount
of work and would necessitate the meet
ing again of 300 election boards, for which,
of course, the members would receive adj
ditional recompense.
With the amendment off the constitu-
ton. the way would be open for future
race track legislation, and it is supposed
that this is the ultimate aim of those who
are at the back of the contest.