New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-09-28
NEW-JERSEY'S MIDDLE.
NEW COURT OF 4PPE4LSo
.AIleged Plum to NulEfy the VII of
the Voters.

Trenton. Sept. % CspeciaD.-some excitable
opponents OF the constitutional amendments
which were defeated at the polls last Tuesday
aver that there is a daring plot afoot to nullify
the effect Of that adverse vote and TO declare
she principal amendment carried. regardless OF
consequences. They aIlege that this viii be
done on strictly technical Interpretation OF the
Jaw and in spite OF the palpable intention Of the
voters.
while this story is not generally credited. vet
q finds believers who point out that Il was i'm
possible FOR those desiring 20 vote against all
The amendments TO comply with the letter OF the
law as En- is now interpreted and that excuses
70 .nvaIdate thousands OF ballots may easily
b. found. They argue. and this is pretty gen
e-aIy conceded, that the contest over the
amendments was squarely one for or against all
az -hem. The lawyers who chamDioned the
amendments in their letters. circulars. etc. ad-
,se5 voters 20 stand for the lot, while the op-
position was just as positive in urging a vote
against an Of them. There was no trouble
about casting al affirmative vote, because Il
was necessary only TO deposit the ballot as
printed. TO cast hostile vote was p different
ffrG of proposition. The election officers were
Instructed that there were three amendments
g, %. voted on. and persons wishing TO oppose
,rer- had 20 write against opposite each. Per
Sons examining the ballots for themselves fig
r-e. o1t SIX amendments and they accordingly
wrote against" six times. Others again jumped
tc tra conclusion that one against" was suhi-
ctrrt to indicate their opposition to al the
amendments
Wt.. as stated the battle for and against
Tho amendments was fought out the "all or
rorfirr" principle. it was quite clear during the
controversy that the champions OF the amend
iaerts were especially anxious for the creation
or Ia new Court OF Appeals. and that the oppo-
ftior was more determinedly hostile to this
feature now tlau 70 any Of the others.
The auaeed plotters are however. according
N the doubtful story heard in various parts Of
the state. going TO save the new Court Of APP
reals section from the wreck. even il they have
10 strain the whole constitution 10 do IT, They
are represented as being innocent enough TO be-
levo that many people objected TO the proposed
changes in the Chancery Court while favorable
20 the Court of Appeals. and that votes intend
81 90 be- cast only against the former PROPOSE
ton have been counted against both. As thou
fands Of voters wrote three "againsts." and
Attorney General lIcCarter says now that there
were eight amendments. IL is apparent that
there were not enough 'sgainsts' TO go around.
But in Nev-Jersey. as in other States governed
by Jaw. t has been the custom to look 10 the
intent o. the voter rather than to the mere
clerical act Of obeyinr the laws mandates. It is
easily susceptible ~ demonstration that. with
she possible exception OF a handful OF voters all
who marked against" their ballots,
ofteuer wanted 10 indicate their disapproval
az the amendments IS whole.
what makes wei balanced persons so in
creduIous ~ the warn about a plot to override
she porSAar viii as expressed at the polls. is the
blind faulty Of such a scheme. Any attempt
of the kind would inevitably arouse storm Of
INDIGNATION that would sweep the State
p s interesting To- note the comments Of The
Paterson Press" concerning the possibility Of
such an attempt being made. The Press" la
bored hard ably and consistently TO have the
amendments adopted. Now il has this to say:
lH fact. there has been inexcusable bungling
OIL through this business. and the last reported
decision ri the Attorney General in reference TO
iLf effect az negative marks on ballots is plain
F l1 conflict Wifu the instructions TO voters
tll me construction of the ballots themselves
shnli De declared cnrrfed becnuse they had
~ thc word "nEntDst, written opposite
niteG To ihc entire sect ian. the ehcst VIII
snaHttcsuN p" fn conflict with the in-
throw Cd" whole matter into the courts
Nt.| naaa.e over aI election proposing con-
titltrral au-tTIdusei.tE was never seen in our
state N'fur'. ana f was entirely needless. as
BODY nho bad 90 DO with the presentation OF
ile question to the people
As tho Judges would be benehciaries under
Che proposed new Court Of Appeals and as the
leaers ones took part IA the agitation TO fur
ff'r The cause ~ the amendments they are Of
course unwilling 10 De asked 20 pass upon the
questions which % number Of lawyers are nov
trying Pro- raise