The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-10-23
GRIGGS LIES NAILED.
CONTINUED From First. Paoe.

Continued From First, Page.
that the Committee be discharged from
further consideration of the bill and thai
it be placed upon the calendar for a sec
ond reading. IL this failed and l had 10
wait for the report of the Committee l
should, on the 18th of March, have moved
that the report of the Committee be nom
concurred in and both the bills be placed
on the calendar for a second reading;
Then the substitution of Senate No. 2Oo
for Assembly No. 8 could be effected IN 9
few minutes, and / should have moved
that a committee be appointed to confer
with the House and postpone the day OF
final adjournment until some fenei
had been afforded the individual
taxpayers of New Jersey. would
have secured a hearing on my bill while
legislation was possible. | would not have
waited until the Legislature was within
three days of final adjournment before
moving that something be done forth
WITH about a bill which it would take
as many weeks to pass under the most
favorable conditions. This would have
been my course had l wanted equal tax
alton. | did NOT say that you were acting
in the double capacity of attorney OF the
corporations and Senator of the people,
because / do not know ii and the Seuate
ask you the question, IF you q been
acting as the counsel of the corporation
aud openly fighting their taxation, what
improvement could you have made on
your course with reference to Senate NO.
200?' You say that Mr.. Albeit has not
denied that he was the counsel Of the
Erie Railroad Company while he was in
the Legislatures Of 1868, 1869 and
1870. AS he was not a member of the
Legislature in 1868, he has probably not
answered to that year. AS to the others
he has frequently said that these asser-
tions of partisan mud singers are the
most miserable of ~falsehoods, and IN 1883,
Governor, they Joined in the answer.
You are entitled to the credit of dis
covering that Mr.. Albeit was a member
of the house in 1868. AT the Opera House
meeting in this city you said, as reported
in the Gdzette:-
His record has not been such us to make any
one believe he will be on the side of the people,
They will remember when Albeit was a member
of the Legislature in 1868 and attorney for FISK
and Gould.
If you will look at page II of the LEG
islative Manual" for 1889 YOU will u q
list of Assemblymen from Hudson since
1916, and the six Assemblymen from that
county In 1858 were Messrs. Clark, Taylor,
Evans, Dwyer, Van Worst and smith.
You have repeated the statement you
made here in nearly every city in the
State. When you next utter it | trust
that some of your hearers will have the
fairness to insist upon your telling the
truth.
You conclude your letter by asking
If l emasculated the Tax bill of 1894 so as to
destroy or impair its usefulness, why do you
Democrats claim any credit for Governor Albeit
for its enactment
If some one robbed you of q hundred
dollars and an officer of the law succeeded
in recovering fifty of it, would you refuse
to say thank you," simply because the
robber managed to keep the balance?
Wouldn't you say:-"Keep at it and get
the other fifiy?"
If it was a good bill, then why did the Demo;
cratic House of Assembly protest against fs
passage, and why has the Democratic press of
the State been turned loose to denounce us for
having controlled its form and passage?
If the robber mentioned in the preced-
ing answer had declared that you were
not entitled to more than the $50 received,
would you protest."
If those laws of 1884 were deficient in any vital
particular, why did the Legislature of 1889,
which was Democratic in both branches, not re-
pair the deficiency?
1 do not know. 1t should have done so,
although the Democrats were kept rather
busy defeating bills to impose a general
State tax and allow railroad corporations
to condemn the land anywhere. any time
and for any purpose. Your obedient
servant. il. MCDERMOTT.