The Sunday morning news. [volume] (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1886-1891, 1890-08-31
SHALL VIE AMEND?
Another Batch of Views on
the Constitutional
Question.
JUSTICE BEASLEYS IDEAS.
One Of His Decisions Against Special
Legislation APPLY Cited
by a Lawyer

today third batch of local interviews on
the special legislation question. The vote
on the proposed Constitutional amend
ments will not be taken until the end OF
the month. Voters will find this series
of articles very useful in making up their
minds.
JAMES FLEMMINGis OPINION.
Il am opposed TO doing away with the
constitutional amendment prohibiting
special legislation for cities" said Mr..
James FIemming II do not think a
ent state of affairs The whole trouble in
this matter grew out of the constant
tinkering with the city charters. This
grew to be such an evil that remedy was
demanded. A commission was appointed
which outlined a general law for
municipal corporations the same
as private corporations, but it was never
adopted. It was to do away with this
tinkering of the charter of each and every
city that TIE amendment was adopted. /
am opposed te abolishing the amendment
prohibiting special legislation, but | want
amendment which will abolish this
fraudulent system of passing a special
law under the guise of a general law, as
is largely the practice now. A general
law for municipalities with local modifi-
cations should be adopted.
at is an exceedingly difficult matter
now, for instance, to ascertain what the
tax system is in each city without going
to that city and asceTtalning from some
official there. A general law of this ma
ture which in its main features would
apply to all the cities of the state alike
would have a tendency to bring the Gov
eminent into the hands of the people and
not into the hands of ringsters and fell
lows who boost themselves into power
WHAT CHIEF JUSTICE BEASELEY SAYS.
A prominent lawyer of the city whose
modesty will not permit the use of his
name, even in a question of this imDor-
lance, said that he was opposed to re-
turning to special legislation, and that
his reasons for that opposition are best
expressed in the opinion of Chief Justice
Bearsley in deciding the first case
which came up under the amendment.
The case was that of Jacob J. Van Ripper
and others against Charles H. Parson
and others. and was fight for the pos
session of the Fire Board. In rendering
his decision the Chief Justice said:--
"The evils that had been inflicted under
the guise of laws operative only within
certain areas had been of long standing,
aud were of the most serious character;
and | think it is not too much TO say that
they constituted one of the principle
causes that led to the project recently
carried into effect of amending the CON
stitution of the State. Experience had
conclusively shown that the system itself
was vicious, that permitted city. or
other political district, to be gov
erned by laws applicable to it
alone, such laws being enacted
by persons having no particular
interest in such locality and having no
constituency living within its bonds to
whom they We're accountable for the
measures to which they gave their sane
ton. This, in truth, was but one remove
a nj "a
strangers. The result was such as might
have been anticipated. Laws were to be
had for the asking by scheming persons
that were subversive of the rights of
property and tended to the most reckless
expenditure of the public moneys. so that
the debts of some of these public bodies
accumulated to such degree as to
threaten them with insolvency.
Besides these grievances there were
others of lesser magnitude. but which
were, nevertheless, the source of much
vexation and Inconvenience Among
these minor mischiefs was the practice Of
amending and supplementing municipal
charters with profusion that knew no
bonds, the consequence being that the
law of this department was kept in a
state of constant iux and transition, so
as TO make the consideration of it into O
system by judicial decision an impossi-
bilitY. 1t is obvious that these mischiefs
hourished in their rankest and most lux
urialt form IN those local governments
in which the wealth of the population
was the greatest
VIEWS OF JACOB wEART
MIR. Jacob Weart, the lawyer who was
one time internalrevenue collector of this
district, said
Just prior to the adoptions of thsse
amendments to the constitution became
much in favor of the rule of the Legisla-
ture that nothing but general laws should
be passed, and that the passage of
private laws and laws affecting munich
should be abandoned. So far as Jersey
City was concerned, l had taken
deep interest in public affairs
here and had a general information of
what was going on in relation to the
amendments to the city charter. Every
year the Common Council had an amend
ment committee. The citizens had an
amendment committee generally. Mem
bers of the Legislature from the city
wanted TO put in some amendments on
their own account; individuals would
come forward with amendments, and
in political turmoil from the opening of
the Legislature until it's close, and suffi-
Gent time had elapsed for the City Clerk
to get the amendments. which finally be-
came laws.
Il notice that in 1871. before the amend
liSAe W OA6 COHSJltullDu. bnttb OlO laws
were passed and in 1872, COB were passed,
while in 1881, after the adoption of the
amendment, $50 were passed. When
the Legislature was obliged to pass
general laws applicable to all cities
alike difficulty aross in adjusting that
legislation SO as to suit Jersey City and
Newark. What Jersey City wanted
Newark would reject and vice versa. So
the struggle went on to obtain such
legislation as would meet the require
ments or the two cities. A great deal
of time has been devoted by
the Supreme Court and the Court
OF Appeals in constituting the amendment
and the acts under it. And it has finally
reached this point when laws applicable to
both cities can be passed and either city
can adopt them by submitting the law TO a
vote of the people. That provision must.
OF course. be in the act itself. In this way
each city can get any special legislation
which is absolutely necessary and desir-
able. This is safe and sound provision
for the protection of the people. Nothing
affecting their rights can be passed with
out being submitted to their vote.
If we repeal this provision of the con-
st1tution the charter thinkers will come
forward in swarms. We have six mem
bers of the Legislature from Jersey City.
and each member would want
to pass about two supple
ments before he would be satisfied.
Each of the Boards would want one or