view raw text
ATTACK ON THE HART AGNEW LAW Further Details of the Suits Brought to Test Ques ¬ tion of Constitutionality New York November 1C The action recently brought to set aside the HartAgnew autiraciiig acts iu the courts on the ground of an unconstitu ¬ tional apportionment is brought by the following persons whose status is isF F Granville Munson of 508 West 143rd street Borough of Manhattan An ahliahitaut of the state for more than one year and less than two preceding the election of Tuesday November S who has never been since 11KM5 qualified to vote and has never voted at any election in this state stateGodfrey Godfrey Lippc resident of Nyack Rockland County Vho became twentyone years old during the year preceding the last Tuesday election antl has never qualified to vote at any election held prior to that of November 8 8Daniel Daniel Hogau M3 Tenth street Borough of Brook ¬ lyn Who became qualified to vote within the year preceding the election of last Tuesday TuesdayBache Bache McE Whitloek 535 Park avenue Borough of Manhattan Who became twentyone during the year preceding the election This petitioner is a member of the wellknown bankers of the same name William S Reynolds 348 West Fortyeighth street Borough of Manhattan Who by virtue oi the changes made in the Assembly district in which he resides feels in common withrpther citizens thus affected aggrieved V v vIn In summarized form the petition joined in by the parties enumerated holds thatthere areTortyeight instances where blocks in Manhattan and Brooklyn located in one Senate district and attaining an ¬ other Senate district hav r a smaller citizen impu ¬ tation that the excess population of the district in which such blocks are 1 situated over the popula ¬ tion of such adjoining Senate district districtAttached Attached to the petition is a certificate of the secretary of state ceitifying tfr thb population of these blocks as ascertained by the census iii 1903 The Senate districts referred to ure the Sixteenth Twentieth Fourteenth Twelfth and Seventeenth in Manhattan and the Seventh and Ninth in Brook ¬ lyn The petition also claims tliatthe apportionment act of 1907 possessed in even greater degree the vices which led the Court of Appeals to condemn the apportionment act of 190U 190UThe The Court of Appeals held that the Thirteenth Senate District In the Borough of Manhattan s sj created by the act of 190 wa not in asr compact loriii as practicable but on the contrary possessed all the evidences of being a gerrymander The petition asserts that the apportionment iiet of 1907 created Senate districts which were even more ir ¬ regular and extraordinary in point rot form and the petition points particularly to the Seventeenth Sen ¬ ate District which is alleged to have fortyone sides and fortytwo angles to the Ninth Senate Dis ¬ trict in the Borough of Brooklyn whichhas thirty four sides and thirtyfive anglestorhe Fortieth Sen ¬ ate District iu the City of Buffalo which has thirtythree sides and angles and to certain other Senate districts equally lacking in compactness The districts referred to are pictured on maps at ¬ tached to the petition petitionThe The petition also alleges that the apportionment act of 1907 did not apportion the assemblymen in the manner provided by the Constitution and claims that Queens should have received five assemblymen Westchester five assemblymen and Albany four instead of the smaller number which are awarded to each of these counties in the present apportion ¬ ment William S Reynolds one of the petitioners iu this action when interviewed said saidWhen When the illegalities of the present apportion ¬ ment of the state into Senate arid Assembly districts came to my knowledge I instructed my attorney to commence the proper action to have the court pass upon the apportionment Formerly iny own Senate district included the territory in this county from Fortythird street to Eightyninth street and from Eighth avenue to the Hudson River It was gerrymandered by the present apportionment to in ¬ clude the territory from Thirtiethstreet to Sixty seventh street thereby adding in two strong Tam ¬ many districts and taking out two strong1 Republican districts districtsAttorney Attorney Johnston who represents Mr Reynolds is quoted thusly thuslyIf If the party which happens to he in power does not fulfill all requirements of the Constitution in making an apportionment any citizen may move the court to review It With this ehdin view Mr Reyn ¬ olds intends to have the present apportionment reviewed by the Supreme Court and consequently has instructed ine to begin this action actionThe The state Constitution makes special provision for a speedy consideration of apportionment cases so that it is quite possible a decision will be handed down within two months An evidence of how swiftly these cases reeeivec6usideratl6n may be found in the Hearst mayoralty case when a decision on a mandamus action for a recount was ordered within two weeks after the mandamus was granted grantedThis This new action is not the first to be brought to upset the HartAgnew bills On July 20 1908 a mandamus action was brought against John S Whalen secretary of state by Alex T Porter an aggrieved citizen Porter raised the point of the reapportiomnent act being passed unconstitutionally at an extraordinary session and the issue of ille ¬ gality because Richmond and Jlocklaud Counties were decided joined in the saine Senate district Justice George II Fitts decided against Porter on both counts An appeal was being prepared to the Court of Appeals but as Governor Hughes was run ¬ ning for reelection at that time the action was temporarily stopped It was certain that were Porter to knock out tho HartAgnew bills Governor Hughes would have had the next Legislature pass substitute measures Governor Hughes was re nominated and reclecled and the next step was the codification of the laws on March 12 1909 1909In In September 1909 thirtynine bookmakers and several directors of the Coney Island and Brooklyn Jockey Clubs were indicted In an attack made on the HartAgnew bills iu those cases the same questions Involving unconstitutional reapportionment and the consequent unconstitutionally of the racing laws were raised by John B Stanchtteld and his associate counsel District Attorney Clarke of Kings County set up In the opposition the demurrer that the antiracing laws were repassed by the Legislature on March 12 1909 in codified form formOn On June 14 1910 Justice Espinall sitting in the Supreme Court in Brooklyn denied the motion for the dismissal of the indictments and dismissed the demurrer interposed by the twoxjoekey clubs that the HartAgnew bills were unconstitutional
