The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-04-11
HERALD MBNDACITY.
Judge Lippincott Refutes a
Base S1ander OH Allan
MCDermott and
the Court.

| To the Editor of the Jersey City Ne,rs:-
Ihave noticed that in some two or three
issues of the New York Herald a state
ment has been made that Judge McDer-
mott, in matters before this Court in the
autumn of 1891, for the revision and con.
struction of registry for that year, had
raised the point before this Court that no
inhabitant Of q house or place could be
subpenaed to show that person alleged
to be illegally registered from such house
or place did not reside there and was not
legal voter, or that witnesses could not
be subpoenaed before this Court for that
purpose.
Judge McDermott did not raise any
such point before this Court. He raised
the point that the notices served for the
purpose of bringing the matter to the at
tention of the Court were not signed by
anyone and therefore the Court had no
jurisdiction to proceed with SUCH investi-
cations. The Court held this point well
taken and dismissed the applications
upon this ground alone. He raised no
other objection, and the Court decided
the cases upon that objection alone.
THE COURTS VIEWS.
The Court, perceiving that there seemed
to be much confusion upon the subject,
proceeded to give its views of the necessary
requirements to give the Court jurisdic-
ton ouer the subject.
The decision of the cases was a verbal
views of the Court as matterof informa-
tion were in writing. and have copy in
my possession made at the time.
In order that the public may have a
clear understanding of the eighteenth
section of this law, the Court may be per-
mitted to say that there seems TO have
arisen some misunderstanding as to the
decision of the Court last autumn in re-
lation to the manner in which proof
could be brought before this Court as to
the illegal registration. and it is proper
that the Court should be clearly under
stood about this matter.
THE DECISION AS 1T REALLY WAS.
The Court did not decide that an inhab-
liant of a house or place could not be
subpRnaed to prove that a person had
illegally registered from that house or
place, or that such person did not reside
at the house or place from which it was
charged he had illegally registered. but
what the Court did decide was that the
Court had no inherent power, and no
power under the statute without notice
under the statute, and a proper applica-
tion to the Court to send for or subpoena
witnesses, that the notice directed by the
statute must be served as directed in
the statute. and then an applca-
ton made, before the Court could
acquire jurisdiction to erase the Illegal
maine from the Register that
jurisdiction must first be Obtained. After
Jurisdiction of the question was obtained
then subp@nas for witnesses whoever
they might be. or wherever within the jur-
isdiction of the Court they might be, could
be issued at the request of the parties and
the attendance of such witnesses to testi-
fly compelled without delay. But juris-
diction must properly be obtained before
this could be done.
The Court in the cases last autumn de-
cided that no proper notice had been
served as directed by the eighteenth sec
tion of the statute, and therefore the
Court had no power or jurisdiction to
enter into an investigation at all, or exer-
else any power whatever, either to issue
subpoenas or do anything else.
This is only SAID that the position of
the Court may not be misunderstood.