The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-10-02
KENNY STILL OBJECTS
Thinks the Park Bond In
terest is Unconsti-
tuti0nal.
AND MAY BE DIVERTED.
President Edelstein Says There Is
No lurry, and. Director
Bruggemann Wants
the $55,O0O Paid.

It is difficult to say positively what the
City's Financiers propose to do with ref
ence to the confirmation of the Tax Com
missioners' books which levy upon the
taxpayers of the city this year its share of
the $55.000 interest on park bonds. The
Corporation Counsel was instructed some
time ago to oppose as far as possible the
insertion of the item in the county bud
get. 1t is safe, therefore. to pred let that
the Financiers will maintain the stand
already taken.
President Edelstein, OF the Finance
Board, when asked for information upon
the subject yesterday afternoon, simply
said that it was not necessary for the
Financiers to take up the matter next
Tuesday night. The books were not con-
tirmed last year until October 49, and
need not be this year until the latter part
of this month. BY that time, MIR. Edel-
stein thought, the matter might be
Strengthened out. just how, he could not
as vet state. One thing. however, he was
sure Of, and that WAS that the Financiers
must either concur or non-concur. They
could not take from or add to the figures
presented for confirmation by the Tax
Commissioners.
Commissioner Peterson said the matter
was scarcely broached at the last meet
ing of the Finance Board. The matter
had been left some time ago in the hands
Of Commissioner Kenney.
MIR. KENNY'S POSITION.
Mr.. Kenny, when interviewed, said;-
"AS far as l am concerned l am un-
decided as to what course may pursue,
inasmuch as Mr. Edwards didn't
attend the last meeting of the Board
OF Finance. do not yet knowwhat steps
ha a L q in the m 1attpr
II believe there Is no law by which the
Board of Freeholders could levy $50, 600
for the purpose OF paying interest upon
Park bonds that have not been sold. No
man can tell when they may be sold, as
the act Is now before the Courts for the
purpose Of testing the constitutionallty,
II don't think that 1t would be just to
the people OF the county of Hudson to
tax them for this $4,000 under che cir
cunstances. Should the courts declare
the acts unconstitutional, what disposi-
tion could the Freeholders make OF the
money! There would be danger of the
Freeholders transferring it bodily to the
general account and using 1t for general
purposes. / consider that the tax levy
Of Hudson county for the present year Is
more than necessary for all legitimate
s'The County Collector very likely
would make stubborn fight to have it
70 into the sinking fund. II Is not needed
here. as believe that the sinking funds
,f Hudson county now amount to at
least million and quarter of dollars.
For these and other reasons unnecessary
terests of the people that it should not
be included in the tax levy for this year.
''If the Courts should declare the acts
constitutional, in few months
from now the Legislature will be
in session and can pass q law enabling
Board of Finance of Jersey City to raise
that $55. 900 on temperory loans and have
it inserted in the next tax levy"
DIRECTOR BUGGEMANN's VIEWS.
Director-at-Large Bruggemann said last
night, when asked him what he thought
of the matter:-
II think the money should be prov ided
by the city, even if it is not used. The
city has been directed TO pay into the
county q certain sum of money, and do
not know of any right the city may have
to refuse. The Park matter is now in the
Courts and will soon be settled and II the
Courts should sustain the Parks and the
city did not provide the money the city
would be In serious difficulty. On the
other hand ii 1.-The: money Is paid to the
county and the Courts decide against the
parks, the city would have that m uch
money less to raise next year"
JUDGE GARRETsON's OPINION.
Ex-Judge Garretson, counsel for the
Park Board, said that the question
raised by Mr.. Kenney was one
which the Courts would have
to decide. Whether the State could
collect interest on the amount of The
bonds for which the State Treasurer bid
was legal question which must be left
to the courts Bids for the Park
bonds were advert tised for and the
State Treasurer responded. He bid for a
certain sum and his bid was accepted.
When the time for the delivery of the
bonds arrived State Treasurer Gray
was on hand with the bond,
but as Director-at-Large Brugge-
mann had refused to sign the securities
the County Collector was unable to hand
them over.
Then the question arose whether the
State is not entitled TO interest on that
Dugan.