The Jersey City news., 1906-06-28
Argument On the Measure
Providing for the Election
Of Assemblymen By Dis
trict Began Yesterday
Mr.. DUFFIELD OPENS
EDWIN R. WALKER, EDWARD @.
KEASBEY AND r. WAYNE PAR
KER FOR THE DEFENDANT
CASE GOES ON TO-DAY
Especial to .erhe Jersey city News.')

Special to .srhe Jersey city News.'D
TRENTON, June 2S, 1906.-Argu-
ment was begun before the Court of Err
rors and Appeals yesterday on an appeal
from an order of the Supreme Court de-
nying an application for writ of man
damus directing County Clerk G. Harry
Baker, of Mercer County, to furnish
Harry F. Smith, of this city, with a
printed copy of an act of the Legislature
providing for the election of members of
the General Assembly by districts. ap-
proved April 10, 1906.
The issue involved was the constitu-
tionality of the act, which was a further
supplement to an act entitled an act to
regulate elections" approved April A.,
1898.
The case was begun at P. NM, but
was not completed yesterday. Two hours
this morning will be given by the court
to the argument.
1t was agreed that Mr. Duffield should
open the case for the plaintiff and shauld
be followed by Mr.. Walker and Mr..
Keasbey for the defendant. Attorney
General McCarter was assigned to close
tho ca fc,s 4bo rN1oiptiff
After stating the questions involved in
the litigation Mr.. Duffield said it was
necessary to consider the conditions
existing at the time the late Chief JUS
tice Depue wrote the supreme court de-
cis;on in the famous Wrightson case
sembly district plan for electing assem-
blymen. This decision was never
brought before the court of errors and
appeals and Mr.. Duffield argued that
the situation was therefore as though
by writ of error the higher court was
reviewing the judgment in the Wright
son case.
Continuing Mr.. Duffield said: SIN 1852
the legislature passed an act providing
for the election of assemblymep by dis
tricts instead of by general county ticket.
No suggestion as to the constitutionality
C ,,,o1 : ao,,,oo ,r,oe -, ;,o5 =, + that f;,r,a
and with complett acquiescence, not only
on the part of all departments Of govern
ment, but also by popular consent, the
course was followed in the apportion-
ment acts of 81, II, 81 and 81.
Indede, the aforementioned act, al
though bitterly fought, as an outrageous
piece of partisan legislation, was never
attacked upon the ground of constitu-
tionality, either In the press or in the
legislature at the time of it's passage
In 1894 certain Republican voters of Es-
sex county applied for a mandamus to
compel the county authorities to provide
for an election by general ticket, or, if
that was denied to provide for an cleo
tion under prior apportionment act.
The argument for the gentrl ticket was
made more or less perfunctorily, and the
conclusion which the court reached. that
IL - ~,
tutional method of an election of assem-
hlymen, came as surprise to the entire
State.
In conclusion Mr.. Duffield said the
question then before the court is one of
purely legal construction, and the adj
trict as against the general ticket act, of
course, have no consideration in this
forum
Mr.. Walker opened the attack upon
the new redistricting act. He devoted
his preliminary remarks to discussion
VI t4te fdh'cdsS ANCotohS 1ofoCo III lily
Wrightsop case relative to the character
of the action. and added that the only
point actually involved in the present
proceedings is that of the legislative
power under the constitution. This quesr
tion. he said, is not divided because its
solution is made to depend upon the lam
guag9 Of the constitution and, perhaps,
upon contemporaneous Interpretation, be-
cause, after all, these aspects of the
question are one and the same thing.
namely, a matter of argument for and
against the power of the legislature to
pass the act in question.
Mr.. Keasbey, in opening his argument
stated as a premise that inasmuch as the
only ground on which the mandamus was
refused was the unconstitutionality Of
act the sole question to be determined on
this writ Of error was whether in view of