The Jersey City news., 1899-06-20

| in such manner that the people might
| vote for or against each amendment se-
| parately and distinctly as the Consti-
] tuition directs, and that the lottery
| amendment according to the statement
of the result of the election made by the;
! Board and brought before the Court by
| the writ Of iceEtiorarih was not approved
| and ratified by a majority of the voters
| qualified to vote for members of the
Legislature voting thereon, as hKeWlse
| the Constitution requires.
| "Sedondly., it should be observed that
neither the State Board of Canyassers
nor the Governor was exercising fune-
| tion devoived upon them by the Constitu-
tion. Each derived authority wholly from
the statute. The powers conferred upon
them might as well. if the legislature
had so wiled. have been cast upon any
other body. Thus, by the act of Congress,
under the Federal Constitution which IS
| nc more inexplicit on this topic than ours,
substantially the same functions OF deter :
minati and premulgations are to be per-
| formed by the Secretary of State
Thirdly, the present proceeding is one
of direct, not collateral review. Even II II
be conceded, that. whenever the validity
of this proposed amendment as a part OF
the Constitution was incidentally assaiied
conclusive effect would be given to the
action of these statutory authorities, 50
far as that action had not been over
turned yet it would by no means fol-
low that their action could not IN TINS
proceeding be questioned and annuiied.
The determination of every legal tribunal
ar,pearing to be within its jurisdiction, al
Though impregnable by collateral attack,
is subject to reversal by appeal
aFourthly, the subject for considera-
ton was brought by legal process before
that tribunal the Supreme Court, Wnicn
in our system lef government possesses
the judicial power, if it resides anywhera'
of reviewing and setting aside, when II
legal. the conclusions of statutory tri-
bunals.
at thus becomes manifest that there
was present in the Supreme Court and
is now present in this Court, every ele-
ment tending to maintain jurisdiction
over the subject matter, unless it be true,
as Insisted that the judicial department
of the government has not the rlgnl 10
consider whether the legislative depart
ment and its agencies have observed
constitutional injunctions in attempting
to amend the Constitution, and TO apnui
their acts in case they have not done So
.srhat such a proposition is not true
seems to be indicated by the whole MS
tory of Jurisprudence in this country
To substantiate this position. Justice
Dixon quotes from the opinion of the late
Chief Justice Beasley in the famous
rumn Senate case, in which the Chief
Justice held that 'when the inquiry is
whether the legislative or any other pody
or officer has violated the regulations OF
the Constitution, it is entirely plain that
the decision of that subject must rest
exclusively with the judicial department
of the government
''In that case" continues Justice Dix
on, "the right of the Court to determine
which body of men constitutionally com-
posed the Senate of the State was vindi-
Gated -
s.For the exercise of that authority
with regard to an attempted amendment
of the Constitution. in conformity with
express provisions of that instrument, nc
occasion has heretofore arisen in this
State. but we perceive no good reason
for excluding such q case from the gen-
eral prime pal. If legislative enactment
which may be repealed in year. or . n
executive act which affects only a single
individual cannot be allowed to stand II
If contrayenes the Constitution, a for
tiori a change in the fundamental law,
which is much more permanent and ar
fects the whole community, should not
BIZ permitted to take place in violation OF
other constitutional mandates"
Having reached the conclusion that the
subject matter of the litigation was with
in the range of judicial cegnizanee, JUS
tiee Dixon copsiders the question as TO
whether it was brought into court by
parties having such interest as to render
them legally competent to present 1t. He
finds that they are fully competent and
quotes extensively from other opinions on
the subject. a
He continues: 'The action of the board
now under review is plainly not void. The
Constitution being silent as to the mode
of ascertaining the result of the voting
and of determining whether the proposed
amendment had been adopted, it was
within the ordinary functions of the
Legislature to create a tribunal for those
purposes and to clothe it with appro-
pirate powers. The determination of that
tribunal became quasi res adjuaicata,
and until reversed in due course of law
would conclude the matter. Only by the
supervising authority of the Supreme
Court would it be subject to review.
.'It is therefore necessary to consider
merely whether the rule which holds in
case of public bodies and officers, whose
official sphere is confined to some political
division of the State, should be extended
to this board. whose official action affects
the whole State equally.
1--WE think, on principle, it showed the
interest of every citizen of the State in
upholding and protecting the Constitution
is of the same quality as the interest OF
the citizen of a municipality in upholding
and protecting the municipal charter, and
certainly is no less in degree. The same
means, therefore, should be applied by
law for its maintenance. No means ade-
ouate to the present circumstance can be
suggested other than that employed by
the prosecution
.sThe first claim of the prosecutors de-
serving attention is that according to
the statement of the result of the voting !
made by the Board of Canvassers, the |
lottery amendment was not approved
and ratified by the requisite majority OF
electors. and therefore the boards de- |
termina ton that 1t had been adopted was |
Illegal as majority of all the voters,
or at least majority of all those VINO |