The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-03-28
KNOCKED OUT,
Judge Depue Refuses the
Republicans a Writ
of Certiorari.
THE SPECIAL MEETING ILLEGAL.
A Rule to Show Cause Granted
on That Point is to Be
Heard on Friday.
The Aldermen Will Correct the Err
ror at Special Meeting
Monday.

Judge Depue in the Court House at
Newark this morning granted rule to
show cause why writ of certiorari should
net be granted to remove to review
in the Supreme Court the
proceedings. Of the Aldermen which
changed the AIdermanic lines Of this city.
The writ is returnable ON Friday before
the branch of the Supreme Court at
Trenton and grants no stay.
The rule was granted on the ground
that the special meeting which passed
the resolution was not properly con-
vened. The Judge was desirous of taking
the course which would create the least
confu sio and gave Mr. W. ID. Edwards
until Tuesday to decide whether he
would consent to stay or take the risk
of having the election proceed under the
redistricting and having IL upset by the
Supreme Court This, OF course. means
tnat the Aldermen will hold special
meeting on Monday according to law and
will pass the redistricting resolution over
again.
THE PROCEEDINGS.
Ex-MayOr Coiius and ex-Judge Sey-
mour appeared for the prosecutors of the
writ, and Mr.. William ID. Edwards and
Citv Attorney Hudspeth represented the
ma ter TO the Court, Judge Depue evinced
an unmistakable fepugnance TO hear the
case. He asked when Judge KNAPP was
ming back aud when the election
would take place. When told he again
as xed IL Judge Knapp would not be back
in lime to hear the matter. Mr.. Collins
replied that he would not, and urged his
ii nor 10 hear the application.
81 will have TO, though | dislike to do
so" replied the Judge, settling back In
III. ot..sfr rtxyffh n ffrh
Mr.. Collins said that the prosecutors
of the writ were Max Salinger. Simeon
IL Smith and Horace ScnermerhorD. The
matter, he declared, was no trihing one,
as it made radical cnange in the lines Of
the Aldermanic districts. He illustrated
some of the "monstrous things" as he
called them, which the redistrlcting did
by showing the changes made in the Fifth
district.
rne act. he said, was unconstitutional,
and special ingsmuch as IL was limited TO
cities OF the first class. If the act author
ized any such action as the Aldermen
have taken, it was restrictive act. and
directed the Board to observe the law of
1871, which provided that the districts
should be changed but once In five years,
End then by ordinance only.
The law under which tue redistricting
was made, Mr.. Collins argued, was un-
constitutional, because IL was limi ted to
two cities. There was a general law
XniCl provided I0dJ J0e CuduSlnR Ol llutS .
should be made by ordinance, and he
maintained that there WAS no reason why
these two could do by resolution wit a
bare majority what all the Others W ere
,mpelled to do by ordinances with a
three-tourths vote.
Judge Depue here asked some ques-
tions about the number of Aldermen in
the Board and then Mr.. Collins pro
ceeded He claimed that under the con-
struction placed upon the law by the
Board four men could change the lines.
THE SPECIAL MEETING.
Mr.. Collins next point was that the
special meeting which changed the lines
was not a legal one. He read the law OF 1871
which provided the manner in which tue
meetings OF the Board should be held and
stated that when special meeting was
called notice should be given to
every member of the Board at least
twenty-four hours before the time fixed
for the meeting by leaving the same at
his usual place of abode. Mr.. Collins
then read the affidavit of Mr.. Smith TO
show that he did not receive his notice
until twelve hours after the meeting and
Alderman Salingcr 0id not receive the
official notice at all. He argued that nc
harm could be done if the writ was
granted aud the election stopped. Under
the Ballot Reform law the Aldermen
should have appointed election officers
for the spring election some time ago,
but they waited until the new lines were
fixed before they appointed them.
THE cITY's CASE
In eplying to Mr.. Collins, Mr.. Ed wards
said that the redistricting was very Inn
portant one tor the people of Jersey City.
Since 1871 the city had been acting under
the lines established then. the city had
changed since then great deal Factor
les and warehouses had driven out large
portion # the residents in the lower part
of the city, and some of the districts con-
tanned but half of the population of
others Repeated efforts had been mad c
TO change this inequality, but had failed,
That WIS the condition which confron ted
the Legislature of 1891 which saw the
centre of population shifting aud the ont
living districts constantly growing. Tue
Legislature in its wisdom thought that
the lines should be changed and that The
people of Jersey City should be represent
ed fairly
In replying TO Mr. Collins argument
that The bill was unconstitutional Mr.. Ed
wards declared that it was perfectly
legitimate classification for legislative
purposes and supported his argument
with numerous cases He ridiculed Mr..
Coinus' assertion that the new act gave
the Aldermen only the power 10 resolve 10
pass an ordinance and declared that that
was strained Interpretation OF the act;
He said that the reason Mr.. Smith did
not get notice was that he requested
City Marshal Tim Long TO mail all notices
to his place of business. which MIR. Long
did IN time. As to Alderman Salinger
he had requested his notices TO be sent tc
his law Office and on the morning of the
day of the special meeting WAS held he
WAS in the City Clerks office, and was
! there told thar the meeting would be he Id
THE WEAK SPOT
Judge Depue interrupted Mr.. Edwards
to say that the only difficulty was thar
there was long array OF cases which said
that notice to every member is requ ired
in the case OF special meeting. Continu.
ing Mr. Edwards, quoting from the
minutes of the next regular meeting, Mr..
Smith consented TO the aLproka OF the
minutes of the special meeting while Al
derman Salinger objected TO them
The Judge asked Mr.. Edwards whether
If the election WAS held under the new
lines and the Supreme Court should de
eide tnat the law was unconstitutional II
would not create confusion.
Mr. Edwards replied not as much as II
would 10 stay the election as the nomina-
tons had been made and City Clerk Scott
8 had made all preparations for the cleo
Liou under the new lines Mr.. Elwar rds
also conLended that the prosecutors had