The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-04-03
NO STAY GRANTED.
But a Writ TO CertiOrari the Redis-
tricting Is Issued to Cover
Both Meetings.
Special 10 the Jersev city Ns,os.

TRENTON, April 8, 1S91.-Justices Van
Syckel and Scudder, as a branch of the
Supreme Court, listened this morning to
the argument on the return of the rule
to show cause why a writ of certiorari
should not be issued in the matter of the
redistricting Of the Aldermanic Districts
of Jer sey City. Judge Seymour opened
the matter. He was asked by the Court
If Judge Depue had not refused the writ.
Mr.. Seymour explained the proceeding
at Newark. Judge Van Syckel then said
that the whole matter resolved itself
down to the point whether stay should
be granted and said the Court would hear
arguments on that point.
Judge Seymour said that il the election
was held under the new lines, and the
Court should set them aside later, that
would vitiate the election. and one-half
of the Aldermen would have no legal
standing. If, on the other hand. the
Court should decide the redistricting legal
there would be no muddle.
Judge Van SyckeI then said that Judge
Depue seemed to be in doubt only as to
the regularity of the special meeting, and
as it appeared that that flaw had been
remedied at another special meeting, why
should the Court put the city In muddle
by granting stay, the presumptions be-
ing that the proceedings were regular.
Judge Seymour declared that the mud
ole woald not be worse than it would be
il the re districting was later declared
illegal. After some further talk the
Court allowed Judge Seymour to argue
that the act permitting the re-districting
was unconstitutional. The argument
was on the same line pursued at Newark
before Judge Depne.
THE cITY's SIDE OF IT.
Mr.. Edwards, for the city, disposed of
int fu RI Inv 1rr.
line Of authorities to show that the popu-
lation classification was good He related
the circumstances under which Aid dermen
Smith and Salinger were served with
notice. He showed that Alderman Smith
voted to approve the minutes of the
special meeting at the next regular meet
ing, and he read authorities TO how that
that was equivalent to a ratifi cation OF
the proceedings of the special m Meeting.
He claimed that if stay was gra nted the
charter election could not be held
on time according to- law.
Mr.. Edwards showed the large amount of
work which had to be done before one
election could be had, and the large ex-
pense which it involved all of which be
said had been done.
ANOTHER WRIT ASKED.
The Court asked Mr.. Seymour to tell
them how in view Of Mr.. Edwards argu
ment an election could be held under the
old lines il ne was granted stay. Mr..
Seymour quoted section of the Ballot
Reform Law, which he claimed provided
for just such an emergency as a stay
woul1 produce. He put new phrase on
tine matter by further applying for a writ
to certiorari the special meeting last
night. Judge Seymour referred to the in
congruity OF locating three Aldermen in
the Third district.
The Court held brief consultation aud
decided that the law was constitutional.
The Judges therefore felt that they ought
not grant stay. They allowed the writ
TO certiorari both meetings to be return
able at the next term of the Court, but
would grant no stay.