The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-05-18
POINTS ON THE CHARTER.
SPEAKEB HUDSPETH sAYS THAT
THERE rs BUT ONE QUESTION.

Was the Proclamation LegaI:-O1d
Board Lawyers Get an incidental
Tip from the Chief Justices Dictum
in His Decision on the Mayors
Petition.
Counsel ON both sides in the charter
proceedings are arranging to agree on a
statemtnt Of facts to be presented to the
Court at the argument on the main ques-
tion next month, and no further testimony
will be taken. When this statement
shall have been formulated the case will
be ready to be heard by the Court.
new point has been injected into the
proceedings by an incidental dictum of
the Chief Justice when delivering the de-
cision, in which he refused to act upon
the Mayors petition that he designate
temporary government for the city, a few
days ago. Having declared that such
action on his part would be an arrogation
to himself of functions that belong to the
Court en- banc, he observed that he knew
of no way in which those claiming the
offices could get them, save by quo war
ranto proceedings or their equivalent.
ARE THE PROCEEDINGS REGULAR?
The pending proceedings are not in the
nature Of quo warranto, and among the
Chief Justices incidental declaration that
to be effective the proceedings must be of
that character, is Indicative of his belief
that the informal proceedings that are
now being followed will not be productive
of the results aimed at.
1t is certain that this point of jurisdic-
tion will be strongly urged by the old
Board lawyers upon the attention of the
Court; and there are some who regard it
as the most serious and important one in
the whole case. There is no doubt at all
that the proceeding is not consonant with
the usual course of procedure in cases of
| this kind. The Supreme Court is co-or-
dinate in authority with the Legislature,
and among lawyers there is much doubt
whether the Legislature has the constitu-
| tional power to prescribe form of pro-
cedure for the Court to follow in the
transaction of its business.
OF course, If the proceedings be thrown
out as informal and irregular, the charter
men will have to begin all over again.
TWO COURTS ALREADY DECIDED.
Speaker Hudspeth, one of the counsel
for the charter people, argued yesterday
when the point was mentioned to him,
that it is not SO serious q one as q good
many lawyers believe it to be.
There IS, in fact" he said, "only one
matter in the whole case that is Of the
least possible moment. The objections
that go to the validity of the. bill itself
were decided in the case of Warner v.
Hoagland, from New Brunswick, last
February. An act that had excluded
from its operations cities of the first class:
and that was not to go into effect till it
had been accepted by a vote of the people,
was sustained by the Supreme Court.
Judge Depue, speaking for the Court, up
held the act of 1882 classifying the cities
of the State for Legislative purposes; and
also declared that the local option feature
by which the vote Of the people made the
act effective, was constitutional. So that
the two constitutional points made
against the new charter are already set at
rest The only other point at issue is as
to the proclamation of Alderman O'Neill
Did he have the right to issue it? and is
the variance between the charter as pub
lished in his proclamation, and the
charter as passed by the Legislature and
signed by the Governor, of such moment
as to destroy the proclamation? The
Court, am satisfied, must decide with us
on both these points,