The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-05-15
L X 8
{ D|TI0N.
THE ANSWER FILED.
The Old Government Makes
Its Reply to Mayor
C1eVeland's Pc
tition.
COUNTED In BY FRAUD!
COUNTED IN BY FRAUD!
That Is One of the Allegations in
Regard to the New Charter.

hegdTu t0 tne new CHdTltI.
The answer of the old Board to Mayor
Cleveland's bill in the Supreme Court has
been filed by ex-Judge Seymour with Su-
preme Court Clerk Lee in Trenton. It
bears the signatures of twenty-five city
officials under the existing government.
1t protests that the new charter act is
unconstitutional, and that the petition of
the Mayor gives the Court no jurisdiction
over the defendants. 1t alleges
that the defendants have, no
knowledge as to the alleged
dissatisfaction of the people with the ex-
listing government or the alleged agita-
ton of and demands upon different Legis-
fered is "worse than the disease" judg-
ing from the appointments made
by the petitioner. and they We're
the result of i" unjusti fable
bargaining between the petitioner and the
members of the Legislature, whereby he
Senator and three Members of the As
sembly from the city.
THE BIG FOUR ACQUITTED.
The document goes on to say that in
reference to charges of malfeasance in
office by the members of the Board
of Works, that they had been
tried and acquitted. The new
charter says one half the money received
for liquor licenses shall be expended on
streets. The fact is, the answer AYERS,
that all license fees are pledged to the
sinking fund. There was a question as
to whether the transactions as to the
sinking fund referred to in the petition
can not become operative without the
signature of the Mayor to the bonds.
Reference is made to these extrinsic
matters irrelevantly and scandalously in
troduced into the petition by the Mayor,
not because it is necessary to answer
them, but because of the self respect of
the defendants"
THE PROCLAMATION.
Further on the answer recites the bill
and admits it passed the Legislature, but
any other time. As to the Mayors alb
sence from Jersey City on the day the
proclamation was issued, the petit
tioners profess ignorance. The
bill dismisses it as immateriaI and insists
that no one but the Mayor had any power
to submit the question to the people. The
point is made also, that as the Journal
does not publish Sunday the proclama-
tion was not published in two daily"
papers as required by the act, and it is in
sisted that the first notice having been
published on the day of the approval of
Cn6 dCu, TWO lu1l udyS ulu IlOU eldpSS Ul1l
the day the vote was taken.
CHARGES OF FRAUD.
The bill also asserts that the announce
ment of the result of the special election
did not fairly represent the vote, many
anti-charter ballots being uncounted; and
they allege that in four of the Alder
manic districts taken together
the majority against the charter
was turned by fraud into a majority for
u A 1G4 = I.
vote of Is, ,226 on the charter question with
the 10000 total vote for city officials is
also made in the act.
The bill denies that the Board of Finance
under the new charter, had even organ
lied at the time of the filing of the petit
ton. The right Of Alderman O'Nefll to
act as one of the Board of Finance is also
disputed.
CAN'T BOUNCE MILLS.
Denial is made, too, that the new Police
Board is in possession i Of eth, the Pc
at the time of the fling of the
Mayors petition the new Fire Board
had organized The appointment of three
of the old Board to the new Board and Of
Guiton to an engine drivership are men
toned, and "these defendants submit
that the three Commissioners by their
neglect of duty or by assuming 70 act
under some other appointment cannot
GUST the said Mills from his office"
The bill recites Mr.. Lembeck's declina-
tion of the Mayors appointment to the
sinking fund and his acceptance of posi-
tion in the old Board of Finance, and al
leges that the other two members of the
Commission have never professed to act.
AS to the Assessors, the.answer submits
that the filed books must be ready by the
first Monday in June next, and that it will
not be possible for the work to be done
this year under the new system.
Then the derivation of the source from
which the old Board holds title is set out
specifically.
The points are also made that the
proclamation was not signed by the
City Clerk, who alone in Jersey
City can give notice of charter
election; that the advertisement
did not point out the places of election;
that the advertisement misrepresented
the act, and that in view of the require
ments Of registry of votes it could never
have been intended by the Legislature
that this act should be voted on at the
election of last April.