The Sunday morning news. [volume] (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1886-1891, 1890-08-24
SPECIAL LEGISLATION.
Ex-Judge John A. Blair
Against the Proposed
Constitutional
Changes.
ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES.
But the Present System Meets All
Legitimate Necessities.

The series of interviews on the subject
Of the proposed amendments to the State
Constitution which was begun in last
weeks SUNDAY MORNING News is con
tinued today. The gentleman whose
views are presented this morning is
opposed TO the amendments. He is how
ever man who has an intimate acquaint.
ance with public affairs and his views are
worthy of careful consideration.
Ex-JUDGE JOHN A, BLAIR's VIEWS.
f" A good deal can be said on both sides
of the proposition to strike out from the
present constitution the amendment OF
1915, said Ex-Judge JOHN A. Blair.
THAT amendment, among other things,
prohibited special legislation regulating
the internal affairs OF towns and counties,
and this is the point of the present attack
There Is no brand OF legislation more inn
portant than that relating to municipal
ties, and none where legislative action
should be more guarded. The amend
lnent of 1875 has undoubtedly been seri-
Gus barrier to great deal of much needed
Legislative relief in certain cities. IL has
resulted in many cases in no legislation
at all; because the proposed legislation
did not suit other cities who were differ
entity situated; and because the legisla-
ton had, under this constitutional pro-
hibition, has resulted in much uncertain
legislation and delay.
while these difficulties are practical
and serious, as great many municfpali-
ties have reason to know, | think they
would be outweighed by the evils arising
from the RECESSION of the amendment re-
ferred to. 10 remove this constitutional
restriction, to open wide the gates to all
kinds OF legislation, to give every man,
and company, and town and city and
municipality the right to get all manner
of acts passed to suit his or their re-
spcctive wants or caprices would be con-
fuSing and dangerous TO the last degree.
1t would lead TO q great mass of unneces-
sary legislation, and be a return to the
condition of things that we saw before
the amendment of 1875. as, for instance,
in 1871, when the published laws made a
volume of about 900 pages, wilhelm 1877,
after the passage of The amendment cut
ting off special legislation the laws com
posed volumesof about 300 pages.
WORSE THAN yOLUMINoUsNEss.
But what is worse than the volume of
the laws which would result from rescind-
ing the amendment is the character of
the legislation that would follow. It
would be loose, ill-considered and dan
gerous. The great part of the legislation
would be merely local or individual IN its
application, affecting only the particular
town city, persons or corporations seek
the state or its citizens would be entirely
unaffected and disinterested. Naturally
enough the representatives from such
parts of the state as were unaffected
would pay little or no attention and let
the bills pass by default. 1t can readily
be seen what the number and quality OF
the laws would be enacted under such
circumstances.
AS the constitution now stands every
bill introduced affecting these subjects
must be general, so that bill affecting a
township in Sussex county would affect
equally every other townshipin the State.
and every member In the Legislature
would have his eye on it, because his peo-
PIES interests would be concerned, and
thus every bill would be closely watched,
and the evils and defects of law passed
under such an Interested scrutiny would
be likely to be reduced to the minimum.
Too little legislation Is better than too
much. am quite sure that the second
sober thought of the people of the State
will uphold the amendment of 1915 as it
now stands, thinking "'tis better to bear
the ills they have, than fly to others that
they know not off,"