The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-06-10


The Aldermen and the Street Board.
The question whether the Board Of
Works law a be invalidated on the
ground that it is local and special leg
islation is hardly worth considering.
II it can be thrown out on that
ground, about half of all the legisla-
ton relating to cities, enacted in the
last twenty years, must fall to the
ground with it. But the point on
which the Aldermanic Commit
tee dwells is exceedingly interest
ing. 1t is not by any means
new to the readers of THE JERSEY
CITY NEWS. We drew attention to
it at the time of the passage of the
bill, not indeed as a feature tending
to in~validate it, but as creating a
strangely undemocratic state Of
things.
The law under which the present
Street and Water Board is operating
and to which the Board of Aldermen
has decided to offer a passive resist
ance, vests the Board with the power
to pass ordinances. in other words to
enact local laws to govern the city.
We protested when the bill was be-
fore the Legislature against the plac-
ing Of any such power in the hands
of appointive officials. Nothing can
be clearer than that true Democratic
principle requires that laws shall
be made for the people only by the
chosen representatives of the people.
Why the statute should have conferred
such an abnormal power on the Street
and Water Board we cannot see, and
if that clause should operate to over
throw the entire act, the event would
be in the nature of retributive JUS
tice.
This law was passed to right a
wrong in Newark. Through the sur
vival of an old system, the admins
tration of that Democratic city was
vested in republicans. 1t was right
and proper that the Legislature should
pass a law correcting that evil. But it
was wholly unnecessary that, in doing
so, the Street and Water Board
should be endowed with legislative
powers, just as unnecessary as it was
improper, and only the constituencies
grasping after power which character
ICES certain Newark bosses will ac-
account for the act. However, Mr..
s'Jimn Smith and Colonel Price and
the other worthless who run the poll
tics Of the virtuous Essex insisted ON
having it that way, and they carried
their point-in the Legislature.
1t would be rash to conclude that
this portion of the act is unconstitu-
tional, however. Semi-legislative
functions are allotted to many APP
pointive boards in this and other
cities 1t is true they are limited to
specific matters, such as the raising
OF money and its appropria-
ton; the regulation of health
matters, or the provision for
public safety in respect to fire. But
it may be replied hat in the present
case the legislative power is limited to
matters affecting the public high
ways. If the possible range of x g
else of the Boards power is wider
than in the case Of other boards, it is
only because the interests placed un-
der its charge are more varied. The
powers are limited. even though their
extent be considerable.
On the whole, We incline to the be-
lief that the law will stand good in
the courts. We do not think a
strong enough argument can be
made against it II overthrow
its provisions. 1t may be doubted.
however, whether some of the most
obnoxious clauses of the law will
stand the test of another session of
the Legislature.