The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-06-17
WEDNESDAY. June II. 1901.
r1nss paper g democratic In principles
and = t~ndcpeadent On tts rietus on all
local questions.
Concurrence In the Dark-The FL
nance Boards Rights.

Concurrence In , Dork-Tne k1-
nance Boards Rights.
There Is no telling what discoveries
the Corporation Counsel may make
when he examines into the law regu-
lating the relations between the Fl
nance Board and the Street and
Water Board In the hands Of a law
yer the law is a queer thing. and not
always in tune with common sense.
In the present ase common sense
appears to support ,he position taken
by the iinanciers, whether the law
does or not The law requires the
consent or concurrence Of the Finance
Board in certain resolutions original
ing with the Street and Water Board
1t requires the approval Of the
Finance Board tefore bills con-
tracted by the Street and Water
Board can be paid Assuredly
then, sense il not law re-
quired that the Board Of Finance
should be put in possession of ali the
data necessary for the formation OF
mature and intelligent judgments. In
other words, the FinAnciers should be
provided with just the same facts as
the Street and Water Board before it
conld reasonably be called on to con-
cur IN any contract or other resolution
or approve the payment of any claim.
Yet this is the position, as taken by
the Board of Finance, which the
Street and Water Board denounces as
-"impertinent,n we believe was Mr..
Duean's word. The Street and Water
Board distinctly resists and resents
the Financiers' request for informa-
ton II attempts to reduce the func-
tions Of concurrence and approval to
mere matter of form. 1t assume q
practical independence of action for
itself, and requires the coordinate
Board TO blindly. on mere faith and
trust, endorse whatever it may choose
to do T
This certainly is not a nor
good public policy. We doubt II 1t
is good law. In the statute which
creates the PRESENT Street and Water
Board, there is a clause expressly
asserting the rights and powers of the
Board of Finance in this very matter
Of concurrence and approval The
history OF the measure in the Legis-
1ature shows that the intent of this
clause was to preserve I'm the Finance
Board, not a mere ~perfunctory,
pro forma privilege, but to main
tain In this city an active.
aggressive, useful prerogative of
revision of, the Street and Water
Boards money spending operations.
AS originally drafted, the bill con-
tanned no such provision, and this
was one of the strongest points urged
against 1t by the citizens and officials
Of Jersey City. : If our recollection is
not very far astray, Mayor Cleveland
was clamorous for the retention Of the
Finance Boards revisionary power.
II we are not mistaken Mr. William
D.. Edwards. too, made this a staple
feature of the arguments against
the bill which he conducted
as Corporation Counsel of JERSEY City.
We are a little curious to see whether
these same gentlemen will nov dis
cover that, under the laws as they are
written, the function for which they
strove with ell their might is a mere
sham. a kind of Pickwickian power
which Is granted in words and with
held in fact.
The section of the statutes, quoted
in our news columns is broad enough
In its way; but it seems to us to be
rather beside the real question, which.
to our mind, eiphers itself down to
this:-Does the law, in creating aduty
and a responsibility convey the power
necessary TO perform the one and to
make the other reasonable?
We regret for party as well as pub
lie reasons that the Street and Water
Board should take so invidious q
position 1t is the only branch Of the
city government which is wholly
Democratic, and any ill-judged action
on its part may give the enemies of
the party a loophole for attack.