The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-12-29
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Supreme Court at Last
Decides the Park
Controversy.
ITS PROBABLE EFFECT.
The Decision Causes Disappoint-
ment to Passaic, Which Also
Wanted Parks Under
the Act,
ITS PROBABLE EFFECT.
specfai to the Jersev Ctr N.,r..


TRENTON, Dec. 90, 1S91--The Supreme
Court yesterday filed an opinion In the
case of the Hudson County PARK Com
missioners against Director-at. Large
Bruggemann. The matter came up last
June. when the Park Commissioners of
Hudson County applied to the Supreme
Court for mandamus compelling the
Director of the Board of Chosen Free
holders of that county to sign bonds
which had been ordered to be issued and
signed by the Board of Chosen Freehold
ers. but which the Director. for reasons
which are well understood. refused to
sign. Attorney General Stockton APP
peared for the Park Commissioners. and
learned that Justice Van Syckel was
about to read an opinion by the Court adj
verse TO the constitutionality of the act.
He thereupon discontinued the man
damus proceedings. and the opinion was
never read.
Justice Van Syckel has been going
around with that opinion in his pocket
ever since. waiting for chance to read
II. All things come to him who waits and
his turn soon came The Board of Trade
of Paterson and the Board of Trade of
Passatc believed that county park be-
tween these two enterprising cities was
just what was wanted to give both cities
big boom and 10 promote the welibeing
OF the thousands Of working people who
live remote from parks. They therefore
appointed committees last summer to get
up petitions for the appointments OF
County Park Commissioners. The move
ment was very popular, and In the course
OF time, petitions were sgued by two or
three hundred taxpayers, representing
three or four millions OF property.
But some speculators who have been
investing in lands near one of the Pat
erson City parks conceived the ea tnat
the new movement would divert popul a.
tion from that neighborhood. and they
got the Paterson Board OF Aldermen to
Instruct the City Counsel, who happens
to he interested In two or three land COM
pHuies near the City Park, to contest tho
proposed appointment Of County Park
Commissioners
THE WEAK POINT OF THE ACT.
Justice Dixon. To whom the appIication
was made. knowing the particulars OF
the Hudson county case. certified the
matter up to the Supreme Court for its
advisory opinion as to the CONSTITUTIONS
ity of the act and deferred appointing
Commissioners until today. The veal
point in the act was an amendment made
in 1890 taking away from the Board Of
Chosen Freehelders the power OF passing
upon the sites selected for county parks.
This amendment was made because
1t was estimated that 1t would save
the people about a million dollars in
the purchase of parks. But 1t at once
laid the act open to the fatal objection
that the tax for county parks would then
be levied without the consent OF the peo-
ple through their popularity elected repre-
sentatives. and the principle for which
our fathers fought In the Revolution-no
taxation without representation-must
be maintained regardless # cost
EFFECT OF THE DECISION.
Somehow the Hudson County Park
Commissioners, who have been moving
along for neatly four years, got the im-
preston that the Court would render no
decision just now. but would give an OPP
portunity to get the act amended ar the
coming session of the Legislature 50 as to
remove the objections which have been
urged. They were under this impression
as late as Saturday last, and undoubtedly
had good reasons for their impression.
The decision filed today is a stunning
surprise to them, and it threatens TO undo
all that they have accomplished in
the last four years. The Passaic
County people are also surprised and dis
appointed, as they, TOO. had been expect
ing That Justice Dixon would make the
appointment and leave the constitutions
ality of he act to be determined IN later
proceedings, unless the act should mean
while be amended.
1t is understood that William Nelson,
who ppears for the Passaic County APP
plicants, will take the case up to the
C urt of Errors and Appeals for review
of the decision of the Supreme Court.
The decision is far-reaching In its con-
sequences, as a number of other import
ant acts which have stood on the statute
books for years unquestioned, are open to
the same objections as apply 10 the County
Park act