The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-06-21
TUESDAY, JUNE II, 1898.
This paper is Democratic in principles
and is sndepeadent in its vie,os on all local
questions.


On Saturday, 1.-The News took some
pains to make a cool and temperate re-
view of the action of the Supreme Court
Branch upon the so-called Race Track
Amendment. We showed that 1t stultiiied
the previous rulings of the Court upon
analogous questions. We Shove that u
was a legal and logical absurdity mount
ing to revolution if carried to its ineyita-
bic final differences. We believe the line
of reasoning which we pursued cannot pc
successfully assailed. We believe the
Judgment of the Court was monstrous as
it was ridiculous, dangerous as it was
narrow and cowardly.
1t suits, however. that brutally narrow
and ignorant element of the community
which has been clamoring for the incor-
poration of a police regulation in the or
ganic law, and of which the green-sicK
SUNDAY @ Calf of Newark is the de-
testable mouthpiece. This hypocritical
sheet. which is published in defiance OF
It's own moral standard, opens an ar
ticle. In its latest issue. with these words:
The unanimous decision of the Supreme
Court declaring that the t-Galaoa
adopted as a part of the ConstltuIon
marks the end and defeat of a biuf1ng
game. quite in accord with the character
of the gamblers who objected
What there was that can be called a
.sbiufing game about a lawsuit which
was fought to a decision by three of the
leading lawyers of the State, we do not
exactly see. But this is a small matter.
The important point is that the "Caif
assumes the blunder of the three Judges
to be the end and defeat of the fight in
behalf of the Constitution. The "calf'
goes on:-
An appeal to the Court of Errors would
be of no avail. and the question may
be regarded as settled forever IN TINS
State.
This would be an unutterable disaster
to the state if it were true, but rumor
has it that it is not true, that on the
contrary, the rights Of the people viii
be asserted by an appeal to the Court of
Errors, and it is hoped that in that body
a sufficient absence of personal bigotry
win be found to insure the vindication
OF the Constitution. Of the suffrage inc
of the courts as the conservators OF the
republican form of government.
The Call" in its green-sick prejudice
and ignorance, says
that while they regarded the proceedings
as perfectly regular, they could not n
any case review the proceedings, Whicn
the law had distinctly PROVIDED shouia
Board and Governor alone. The result
of the contest was sure to pc as JUST
decided. After all. this is a government
of the people, and the fact that me
Anti-Gambling Amendment was the con-
sequence of a great popular movement
could not be gainsaid-
In answer. we can do no better than re-
peat some expressions from our comments
OF last Saturday, in which this branch of
the subject was discussed. We said
1t (the Decision) is a most lamentable
document-lamentable in its unreason,
lamentable in its subserviency to popular
clamor. lamentable above all in its logical
sequenc Out of the narrowest and
most trivial considerations of public policy
and through arguments which are simply
fatuous, the judgment rendered strikes a
blow at the very structure of the State
government.
The position assumed is based upon an
absolute absurdity. 1t was first suggested
by Judge Van Syckel, and no doubt he IS
responsible for it, as he is for other
travesties Of law which are to be found
in the Supreme Cour reports. Judge
Depue has apparently taken up the idea
of his colleague, as affording him a means
of gratifying his ~puritanicai instincts,
wen at the sacrifice Of his intellectual
promptings.
Such reasoning as the opinion is stuffed
out with makes all constitutional pro-
visions valueless and makes our gov
ernment absolutely arbitrary The propo-
sition is, that because the constitu-
ton provides for its amendment in a GER
tain way and makes the Legislature a
a part in the proceedings and the Execu-
tive a part in p~rohouncing the result
the Court has no jurisdiction to inquire
whether the proceedings were according
to the constitution or not. 1t is manifest
that II this be true, a constitution can be
forced upon the people, the adoption Of
which has never been submitted to the
qualified voters at all. If the Governor
declares it adopted, although it were a
patent fact that the election was so held
that only those who were in favor of the
amendment were permitted to vote, there
can be no redress. This is simply revo-