New-York tribune., 1907-11-20
3HE RECOUNT ACT DECISION.

The unanimous decision of the Court of AP-
peais that the recount act is unconstitutional
will cause no general surprise, least OF all. we
imagine. will il surprise the aStute lawyers OF
Nj Hearst, who are said to have prepared IT.
The court indicates the uncOnstitutionality of
the act in 'onC or two respects where 1t IL So
clear as to render il unquestionaby invalid
and there seems To be- an intimatiOn here that
if the court had 2 mind tG it could point out
several other respects. perhaps not so important,
in which the act violates the Fundamental law
Nothing seems 10 have been neglected to make
il sure that no court could overlook the laws
defects in the belief that public policy demanded
a SilencnG of the complaint and an end of the
coutrovers!.
We have already expressed our opinion Of the
law and have sympathy with the position
of some of It's supporters. 1t is said to have
been passed as it was because It suited Mr..
Hearst and that if, as many of its supporters
expected. it proved unconstitutional he could
not blame the Legislature for denying him JUS
tice But the complainant in this case is rot
so easily silenced. He may now make his out
cry against the courts. This decision will doubt
less be used in appeals to ignorance and preju-
dice against the judiciary. The martyrs role is
unaffected The great act of injustice remains
unrighted. and, indeed, by passing a special law
for his relief the state has virtually said that
there is some substance in Mr. Hearst's claim
that he has suffered substantial wrong for
which there is no fitting remedy.
AS the Court of Appeals points out. however,
Mr. Hearst has proper remedy in the quo
IcarrGnto proceeding. If he had fit to use
that writ the whole question could have been
settled long ago His first employment of it,
made when Mr.. Mayer was Attorney General,
was defective. and there is reason to believe
from the dilatory nature of all the subsequent
proceedings TO determine the contest that there
was no intention To make out a primG fGcie case
for relief by that means. The law passed last
winter to suit the complainant's lawyers seems
To have been prepared in the same spirit. for it
was full of defects that the court could not
take time 10 point them out. OF the quo Jcdr-
rdHt0 proceeding the court says that. it should
determine the title to the Mayors office AZ
quickly as any action possible under the
count act 1t has been moving very slowly.
The reason for this delay clearly knows.
Perhaps it is in part due to a natural desire to
test the recount act before going under the
quo tCdIrdHt0. Some Of the delay is due to
dilatOry technical objections on the part of the
Mayors lawyers. Some of it may be due to Il
determination of the complainant 10 enjoy to
! the fullest all of the advertising to be had at
! the hands Of the Legislature and the Attorney
| General There is no general expectation
! that any reconsideration of the result of the
! 1909 election will be reached before the end of
! the present Mayors term. We believe how
ever. that practically all the people satisfied
/ with the result of the canvass as officially de
| clared. and doubt If the complainant is
really dissatisfied with il. If he is he should
! expedite the quo drdrrdnto proceeding. for with
| the recount act out of the way there is now no
! longer any excuse for delay.