Beverly banner. [volume] (Beverly, N.J.) 1877-1964, 1885-10-03
TO BE ODDLY WE MUST BE
CLEAN: TO BE CLEAN WE
MUST HAVE WATER.

Mr.. Flanders In a letter written 10
member of the Common Council of the
City of Beverly dated Sept. %, 1855.
"Was it crime i'll me for refusing
to sanction the obtaining an order,
that had it been followed out, would
have thrown doubt upon the regularity
of your water election, and disproved
the return to the writ of certiorari made
by the common council. " We will not
answer his question in the negative.
1t certainly was not virtue and had
all the pernicious consequences of
vice. The scieRter of an act is the
motive, the intent that prompts it, and
as we do not assume to be the Searcher
of hearts, we must judge the gravamen
Of the act by all the surrounding cir
cumstances, under the influence of
which the deed was done and from
the light of this lamp, we cannot, in
moral aspect, see that he would be too
severely selfaccusatory by giving to
his question an affirmative answer.
There is a writ of certiorari pending
which is a super sedeas to our proceed
ings to erect water works by his fault
a rule to set it aside was discharged,
and that fault consists in his having
refused to ask the witnesses, where
and when they posted the notices of
the election. The city must therefore
have it argued on the merits; which
means, as Judge Parker said, in his
opinion in setting aside the election Of
the City of Gloucester for the erection
of water works, "that we must satisfy
the court, not only that an election has
been held, but that it was legally
noticed and conducted, before we can
invoke the aid of the act of 1876. Us
Vroom 1879
Mr.. Flanders refused, though re-
quested to do so, to prove that the
election was legally noticed, and when
it is next argued, we must have evil
dence to satisfy the court of this fact.
This evidence cannot be taken without
an order granted by the court for
which order the counsel of record, Mr..
Flanders, alone is allowed by the prac-
tice of the court to apply. The presi
dent of council requested Mr.. Flanders
to ask for this order, and no order
having been applied for, after the
elapse of two weeks he requested Mr..
Hugg, the assistant attorney in the
case, to do so. The order was applied
for in the name of Mr.. Flanders, for
the reason that he was the attorney Of
record which was allowed by Judge
Parker Of which fact, Mr.. Hugg in
formed Flanders, who attempted to
express in words and manner, the same
indignant rebuke toward Mr.. Hugg,
for using his name as the assistant at
torney at the request of the President
Of council, that Judge Parker had so
justly done towards him, for signing
the Judges name to similar order
in the case Of the city, without his con-
sent or authority, an act unparalleled
at the bar Of New jersey Hence Mr..
Hugg did not use the order. We can
not proceed without this order. All
the testimony taken by Flanders is
worthless, because it was taken under
that bogus order; an order to which
Flanders signed the Judges name,
without his knowledge or consent and
because it does not prove that the cleo
ton was legally noticed, which he
should and could have proven by
Britton, Vankirk and L. w. Perkins,
and without which evidence, when the
case is argued next November, the
court will set aside the election.
The order can only be asked for in his
name. He will not, and refuses to
allow Mr.. Hugg to use his name for
that purpose. This suspends the case
Of the city, like Maohmet's coffin, be-
tween Heaven and Earth and while
thus suspended, he says in his question,
81 refused to sanction the order obtain
ed by Mr.. Hngg, because the taking
of testimony would throw doubt upon
the regularity ofour water election and
disprove the return to the writ of GER
tiorari." The return to the writ is
certified copy of the minute book of
council, and shows as he admits, the
regularity Of our water election, but
the court says this is not enough, you
must prove it. Flanders was conscious
Of this necessity and took evidence to
prove it that he did not, was his fault.
The want of evidence, and not the
presence Of it, has thus thrown doubt
upon the legality of our election, and
this doubt we must remove by proving
what he omitted to prove, that the
notices of the election were posted at
least six days, and in at least twenty
public places, in the City Of Beverly,
before the election, which evidence will
fully prove, instead of disproving the
statements in the return to the writ.
Flanders, having taken testimony to
prove our full compliance with the re-
quirements of the statute, to which
testimony he had the return IMPROVE
IDENTIFY printed, which the city is again
to have taken at a repeated
expense, because of his indefensible
omission and bogus order, proves the
falsity of the reasons in his questions,
why he refused to allow an order to
take testimony to be applied for and
that that falsity is beneath the con
tempt of refutation. Thus suspended
without any testimony, what would
Mr.. Flanders say to the court next
November when the case will be called |
for argument =? He would doubtless
repeat, we suppose, his former Mastery
that Beverly was beauti-
full city, and that he was once the
Mayor of it, and that some of its in
labitants wanted water, where upon
The court would repeat its former
opinion, that the city had not proved
hat the notices of the election had
oeen posted in strict accordance with
he statute, and therefore the election
vas invalid and set it aside. This would
II NJ l 1 -