No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.
Per Curiam.
Without finding it necessary to adopt in its entirety the reasoning of the court below upon the constitutional questions raised in this case, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the act of the legislature under consideration (Pamph L. 1908, p. 266) is not unconstitutional upon any of the grounds upon which its validity is attached. The judgment under review should be affirmed.
Garrison, J.
(concurring). In voting to affirm this judgment of the Supreme Court directing the plaintiffs in error to order special elections to be held to determine upon the retention or rejection of voting machines under the supplemental act of April 10th, 1908 (Pamph. L., p. 266), I wish to draw attention to the fact that the plaintiffs in error do not make the point that such supplemental act is unconstitutional as a delegation of the law-making power directly to the electors at the polls; hence the question whether such supplemental act is in contravention of the constitution in the respect pointed out in Paterson v. Society, 4 Zab. 385, and in the recent case of Attorney-General v. McGuinness in this court, is not passed upon or considered in affirming the present judgment upon the errors assigned.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Garrison, Reed, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
