The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-03-15
STOCKTON SPOKE.
Former Attorney General
Argued Against the
Amendment.
GAMBLING CASE ENDED
The Decision Will Be
Made III General
Conference.

- go ~
Especial to fThe Jersey city News."l
TRENTON, March is, 1S99-The Anti
gambling Constitutional Amendment
case was concluded before the Court OF
Errors and Appeals yesterday, and in ac-
cordance with the usual custom, was then
laid over for consideration at the general
conference. Attorney General Grey con-
Guided his argument for the State. which
was begun on Monday afternoon, holding
that the amendment should remain as
a part of the Constitution.
| The Attorney General was followed by
former Attorney General John P. Stock
ton, who argued that the amendment had
not been properly adopted at the special
election held September 26, 1897. Mr..
Stockton's first contention was that the
questions submitted to the court by the
return are judicial and not political. The
inquiry is simply whether the Constitu-
ton has been amended in the manner
provided by that instrument.
Continuing, Mr.. Stockton said:A'The
people who voted for the constitution
provided for its amendment; whether
the procedure has been in accordance
with the requirements of that constitu-
t1oht WhCt1Ct al dulGtiQIlGIlG WHICH
passed two Legislatures has been sub
mitted to the people as required by the
constitution, and whether the people
adopted or rejected it. are questions as
much within the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court of the State as those
which arise When it is called upon to
decide on the eonstitutionality of an act
passed by the Legislature.
1.-THE Legislature has no power itself
to prevent a judicial examination into
the constitutionality of its enactments
or its organization, and it certainly can
lave no power to confer upon a commits
sion a power superior to hat which it
can exercise itself, and to the Constitu-
ton from which it derives all its power"
The second contention of Mr.. Stockton
was that the cases in New Jersey show
ample authority in the Supreme Court to
review the act of statutory or common
law tribunals, and to correct error and
%usurpation wherever found, whether the
tribunal pretends to act judicially or min
isterially. He cited several cases to show
that the court has power to review the
returns in the present instant.
His third point was that it does aot ap-
pear from the returns that the people
adopted and ratified the proposed amend
ment by a majority of the electors quail
fed to vote for members of the Legisla-
ture voting thereon.
From the return in the case, he held
that there are only two methods i'll which
the total number of voters participating
in the election can be ascertained. One
method is by accepting the number of
names on the poll lists, as returned by the
State Board. This is the method present.
ed in the statutes The other is by add
ing the whole number Of votes for any one
amendment, the whole number Of votes
against that amendment, and the ballots
rejected.
Mr.. Stockton observed that by the re-
turn the voter was not rejected when he
offered his ballot at the box, but the bal
lot was rejected after it had been cast.
If either of these methods be adopted,
he said, it is clear that the amendment
was lost.
The poll list of the State at the special
election was 141,672. A majority of this
would b. 70,S37, while the votes in favor
of the amendments were only 70,443, or
1894 less than a majority.
If the second method of reckoning be
adopted the result is as follows
The whole number of votes for the
amendment relating to lotteries and
gambling was 70,443. The whole number
against the amendment was 69, 642, and
the number of rejected ballots was 961.
In this case the majority of the votes
cast would be 7O,524. The amendment re-
ceived Nab votes, or 81 less than a ma
jority.
Mr.. Stockton argued at length that from
these returns it was evident that the
amendment had not received the number
of votes necessary for its adoption. In
concluding he said that the result of
the examination makes it necessary for
the court to determine the following
points, which he submitted for their con-
sideration:-
First. Whether a majority of the votes
returned as east for and against the
amendment, which excluded 961 ballots as
rejected ballots, is a majority of the quail
flied electors voting, to wit, 141, 672, as
shown by the return.
Second-Whethef, if the 961 ballots
were properly rejected for or against the
amendment, 1t could affect the question
of the number of qualified electors that
voted on amendment directed or relative
therto.
IHlTu- HetltI EVERY Udl1tt cast WdS
not necessarily a vote of a qualified
elector on the question submitted from
the form and manner directed in the
act of submission.
Fourth-Whether every ballot cast by
a qualified elector whose name was on
the poll list was not a vote on the ques-
ton submitted, whether counted affirm
atively or negatively, un~decipherab1e, un-
ineligible or blank.
Fifth-Whether the Legislature of the
Board of Canyassers has power to sub
stitute for the constitutional require
ment of a majority of the qualified cleo
tors voting thereon, the modified vot-
ing for or against said amendment.
Sixth-Whether the determination Of
the Board of State Canvassers that the
lottery and gambling amendments was
adopted, is justified by the return, pur-
porting as it does to state the whole
of votes cast for and against the
amendment. The classification
of these votes, and the refusal to count
them being based upon the arbitrary will
of the judges, no reason being given
therefor in the return.
Seventh-Whether, II ballots were ex-
cluded by reason Of defect in form or fail
ure to comply with general election laws,
or inability of the judges to determine
intention of the e~lector, they are not
still to be counted in determining tie
of qualified electors participating
in the election determining their number.
on those claiming its adoption to
substantiate it from the returns; and
whether theaf failure to return the cause of
the rejeetioneOf each rejected vote (tj1ere-
depriving the Board of State Canvas
sers OF the information necessary to de-
the justice Of the rejection), and
the character of the vote reyccfed
= f1A dTln bic n-7afhaT fnn vo4n