The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-09-25

was made for erasures. and if a voter
made any mark on the ballot it could be
construed as marked ballot. He claim
ed that the act was defective inasuch as
it made no provision for erasures.
DEFECTIVE ELECTION SCHEME.
The Congressman then took a hand in
the proceedings at this point and in
formed the court that if the single
headed Commissioner act was valid it
would probably result in many Republi-
cans losing their votes. He stated that
the general election law of 1892 directed
the County Clerk to have $50 ballots
printed for each 100 votes at last general
election. If two sets of ballots were
printed-one containing the word For
and another the word Against st'-there
would not be sufficient ballots to go
around, as no more than 250 ballots could
be printed for each 100 voters. Two
kinds of tickets would necessarily have
TO be printed if the new act was held to
be constitutional, as the act made no
provision for marked ballots.
Mr.. McDermott stated that in nearly
all propositions submitted to the people
not more than per cent. of the vote
was ever polled on any proposition. In
closing he declared that the act was un-
constitutional because it was special
legislation. 1t was only applicable to
cities of the first class now existing but
made no provision for cities that may
hereafter enter the list of first class cities
having over 100000 population.
RECORDS WEAK ARGUMENT.
When Mr.. McDermott concluded his
argument Mr.. Record took up the
cudgels for the Pagan crowd by con-
tending that the act was undoubtedly
constitutional and that he could see no
good reason why an application should
be made for writ. The act, he said,
provided for a single-headed commits
sioner to take the place and perform all
the duties now performed by the pres
ent Democratic Board and that was all
there was to it. It's provisions were not
confined exclusively to the existing cities
of the first class, but all other cities that
may enter into that class. All first class
cities could take advantage of the act.
Regarding the constitutionality of the
act, Mr.. Record said there was nothing
in the constitution which stated how a
measure should be voted for by the peo-
ple 1t was under the general election
law of 1892 that such measures were
submitted to the people. If such law
provided how a ballot could be marked
it was legal and could not be construed
as a marked ballot Under the existing
law. he contended, no voter could go
astray when voting on any proposition.
1t was the right of the voter to vote
.sfor'' or against any proposition sub
mitted to the people.
SUGGESTS -FOUR PROPOSITIONS.
Mr.. Record then explained to the
Court the various ways the County Clerk
could print the ballots and at the same
time comply with the law. He said
that he had four propositions to suggest
to the County Clerk for printing the
ballots.
Justice Collins cut off Mr.. Records
argument at IulS pOllil ny SldtihS thoe
there was undoubtedly debatable ques-
tions involved in the act for the Su-
preme Court to pass upon. For that rea-
son he said he would grant writ re-
turnable at Trenton tomorrow without
stay.
with proper expedition" said the
Court, argument on the writ can be
heard by the branch court, and a deci-
sion reached at an early date
1t was here that Mr.. McDermott an
nounced that he was willing to pro-
ceed with the argument tomorrow, but
Mr.. Record pleaded that he was not pre-
pared to urge his side until next week.
In closing, Mr. McDermott said that
single-headed Commissioner could not be
held responsible criminally for exceeding
appropriations, and that after November,
if the act was approved by the people.
he would have exclusive control of sew
en- million dollar water contract. He
termed the act as being vicious legislation
and declared that during the approaching
campaign he would advise the people not
to mark their ballots under any circum-
stances.
her HUSBAND SENT TO JAIL.