The Jersey City news., 1899-06-20
GAMDL ING CASE
Court Of Appeals Decides
Amendment is Consti-
tutional.
TEXT OF THE OPINION
Justice Dixon Gives the Views
Supreme Court Opinion
Modified.
Ispecial to nrhe Jersey city News.,'l

| fectual quIetuS on Inc eHoFts lHdt hose
| been made to have stricken from the Con-
! stitution the anti-gambling amendment
adopted at the special election IN 1881 py
| sustaining the Supreme Court in IT'S de-
| cision that the amendment was properly
| adopted by the people. This ends the lti-
| gaticn' so far as the case is concerned IN
the State Courts. although 1T is said that
an appeal will be taken to the umtea
| States Supreme Court.
| The opinion of the Court OF Errors is
bv Justice Dixon. While It sustains the
| amendment as part of the State Con-
| stitution, it revetses the Supreme Court
| in the position taken that the Supreme
Court has no power to go behind the re-
turns of the State Canyassing Board
This view slstains Justice Garrison, who
wrote a dissenting opinion below uphold
| ing the legality of the adoption OF the
amendment, but denying that the Courts
| were powerless to interfere If satisfied
| that the finding of the State Board OF
Canvassers was wrong.
On the question raised in the argument
before the Court of Errors, that the bal
lots used at the special election were not
printed in accordance with constitutional
requirements, the Court of Errors took
the position that it was too late now to
raise this question and that il ought 10
have been raised before the election took
place.
Justice Dixon's opinion sustains the
Supreme Court in the position that the
amendment received the. votes OF
majority of those voting thereon not
withstanding that the votes in favor OF
the amendment, although exceeding the
number against were not majority OF
the number of ballots actually cast.
The syllabus of the opinion says
.sThe judicial department of the Govern
ment has the right to consider whether
the legislative department and its agen-
cies have observed constitutional in
functions in attempting to amend the
Constitution. and to annul their acts in
case they have not done so.
1.-The statute which provided for sub
mitting proposed constitutional amend
ments to the people, empowered the
Governor of the State to appoint a COM
mission to ascertain the result of the pop
ular vote. and authorized him to proclaim
that result. Held. That at the instance
of a citizen of the State, the Supreme
Court had the power to review by Ger
tiorari the determination of the commits
of the Governor.
"In determining whether proposed
constitutional amendment was approved
and ratified by a majority of the electors
oualified to vote for members of the Leg
islature voting thereon. only those elec-
tors who lawfully vote for or against the
amendment are to be considered.
"ouaere. Whether the Constitution di-
reefs that. when several proposed amend
ments are submitted to the people. they
shall be so submitted that the electors
NAV vote for or against any amendment
without voting upon any other amens-
ment? But assuming that 1t does, IS IL
too late to question the election because
of an ambiguity on THIS point in the sub
mitting statute, when the election mas
proceeded throughout the State without
objection on the part of any person, ana
every qualified elector who desired to ex-
ercise his franchise has done so without
seeking to vote on some of the amend
ments while refraining from voting on
the rest
In his opinion Justice Dixon quotes Ar
ticle TX of the State Constitution. provld-
ing for the manner of amending the CON
stifution. He recites the fact the three
amendments voted on at the spring eiec-
ton In 1897 were duly approved by the
two preceding Legislatures before beng
submitted to the people. He also quotes
the language of the act approved May
%. 1897. under which the special election
was held, and continues
s.The Board of State Canyassers pro-
v.ded for in the above act, having on
f,ctoher 10. 1897. filed in the Office of the
Secretary of State, a statement of the
result of the election, and its determina-
tion and declaration that the proposed
amendments relating to lotteries and to
appointment to office were adopted. and
sthat the proposed amendment relating to
woman suffrage was rejected. and the
Governor on october 2s. 1897. having is
sued a proclamation declaring that the
said amendments relating to lotteries and
to appointment to office had been adopted
by the people, and became part OF the
constitution Of the State. the Supreme
Court on December 3, 1887, at the instance
of Charles Bott and others. citizens and
taxpayers of the State who voted upon
said proposed amendments, allowed writ
of 4certfonari to remove into that court LOT
review the statement Of the result OF the
election, made by the State Board OF can
vassers. touching the proposed amend
ment relating to lotteries, in order that It
might be judicially decided whether on
the facts shown in that statement the
Board of Canyassers had legally deter
mined that the said amendment was
adopted.
.sUpon proper return to that writ and
due proceeding and argument, the Su-
preme Court considered the reasons
urged by the prosecutors against the le-
ga,itv Of the determination of the Board
of state Canvassers, and decided "a that
their determination was legal and ~
that the concurrence of the Board OF
State Canvassers and the Executive De-
partment of the Government, in their re-
spective official functions, placed the sub
iect matter of complaint beyond the cog
nizance of the judicial Department of
the Government; and upon each Of these
grounds adiudged that the writ should be
dismissed.
The Judgment is now before us on writ
of error.
ssThe question naturally arising first in
this case concerns the legitimate scope of
our inquiry. Have we authority to con-
slider and decide whether the determina 4
ton of the state Board of Canvassers,
that the proposed amendment had been
adopted, was lawful; or did that deter
mination, followed by the proclamation of
Il f.,5; atoJ ,ffx