The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-02-23
Argues That the Anti-Gam-
bling Amendment Was
Not Properly SUBJ
mitted.
IN TRENTON TODAY
Mr. Edwards Upholds the separ-
ate Ballot Question-Attorney
General Grey's Reply,
EspecIal to ..rhe Jersey city News."l

TRENTON, Feb. %, 1S9S.-The branch
Supreme Court, consisting OF JUSTICES
Depue, Van Syckel and Garrison, To-Day
heard arguments to set aside tine anu
gambling amendment adopted at the
special election on September 2s last. Inc
matter came up on certiorarl instituted
by Charles Bott against Secretary OF
State George Wurts and the State Board
of Canyassers appointed by the Governor
to canvass the result of the special cleo
ton.
Prosecutor Bott was represented by
former Attorney General John p. Stock
ton Allan L. McDermott and ex-senator
Edwards Attorney-General Samuel h
Grey appeared for the State and the Con-
stitution as it now exists with the anti
gambling amendment.
With such distinguished array OF talent
it was a battle royal involving some OIL
the most delicate constitutional questions
upon which the courts have been called
upon to pass for many years.
The opening argument was by Mr.. Nc
Dermott and he sprang surprise upon
the lawyers by bringing up an entirely
new point in the matter. This was that
the amendments voted upon last fall had
never been properly submitted to the
peoble for their approval or disapproval,
and so had never been legally voted upon.
He did not bring up any question as to
whether or not the amendment received
a constitutional majority of the votes
cast. but confined his attention to arguing
that the ballots used were improper and
that each amendment should have been
submitted on a separate ballot. His con-
tention was that the act of 1897, providing
for the submission of the proposed amend
ments, is unconstitutional.
This contention was the more startling
from the fact that while counsel are only
seeking to have the anti-gambling amend
ment set aside. if the Court sustains Mr..
McDermott's contention. it will nullify
the entire special election.
Mr. McDermott first argued that if the
amendments were not submitted in ac-
cordance with the provisions of Article TX
of the constitution, it is not only within
the power of the Court to set aside the
action of the Board of Canvassers, but it
is a duty to be performed regardless of
consequences. 1t is, he contended, for
the protection of minorities that consti-
tutions are formed. Sometimes constitu-
tions must be interposed for the pro-
lection of majorities even against them
selves. Considering the method of their
amendment, he continued, the constitu-
tions of our States may be divided into
two classes:-1. Those whose constitution
provides that when more than one amend
ment is submitted to the people they
shall be submitted in such form that vo-
ters may vote for or against each amend
ment separately. 2, Those where the
constitution leaves the form and manner
of submission to the will of the Legisla-
ture New Jersey belongs to the first
class.
The statute providing for the election.
continued Mr.. McDermott, required that
all the amendments be printed on one
official ballot This was unconstitution-
al voter might have good reason for
not voting on one or more of the amend
ments, either through ignorance of the
subject or conscientious scruples.
The constitutional privilege is to vote
for or against each-not to vote for or
against every amendment, and the adop-
ton is ''of such amendment or amend
ments, or any of them,' by majority Of
those voting therein
Mr. McDermott was followed by ex-Sen-
ator Edwards who argued that the
amendment in question had not received
a constitutional majority of the quallfed
voters voting thereon.
Attorney General Grey, on behalf of the
State, raised virtually the same points
that he brought up in the former applica-
ton for a mandamus, which was denied.
He held first that the court had no power
to go beyond the return of the State
Board of Canvassers in declaring the
amendment adopted and the Governors
proclamation declaring it a part of the
Constitution. He argued that the allow
ance of writ of certiorari where the
public is concerned is purely discretion
ary with the court. He also contended
that the writ should have been applied
for, if it was intended to make any such
APPLICATION, before the Governors procla-
nation was made, and during the week
in which the Governor withheld that in
strument at the request of counsel for
the Prosecutor The Attorney General
was just about to make answer to the
new point raised by Mr.. McDermott when