The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-12-27
THE DIVISION OF Wards
Important Decision Rendered by
Judge Dixon of the
Supreme Court.
Special to the Jersey City Nears.

TRENTON, Dec. %, 1S93.-Justice Dixon
yesterday filed a decision with the Clerk of
the Supreme Court, in the case of Richard
Wood, as prosecutor for the State, VS.. At
lantie City, concerning the constitutionality
of dividing certain wards of a city into two
smaller wards having equalrepresentation.
The Justice held, first, that under a title
concerning the division of wards in cities, a
statute may contain provisions for the repre-
sentation of the new wards in the municipal
government.
Secondly, a statute authorizing cities al
ready divided in wards to sub-divide the
wards when they reach a certain size. Held,
that it was not confined to cities already
divided in wards before the statutes pass
age.
Lastly, cities may b. constitutionally
classified on the basis of population for the
purpose of prescribing a limit to the size of
wards.
The certiorari which brought the case be-
fore the consideration of the Supreme Court
brings up with it two ordinances of At
lantic City passed in January, 1891, dividing
the First and Second wards, each of At
lantic City, into two wards.
The counsel for the prosecution contends
that there are two objects in the statute, the
last of which, relating to representation, is
not sufficiently expressed in the title.
In his decision Justice Dixon declares that
he ibid not think there was a basis for con-
tentlon. The end sought by the creation of
wards in cities is the securing of local repre-
sentatives in the municipal government in
the various wards, and therefore provision
for such representation are of their very
essence in any scheme for.the formation of
wards. The object of the bill is expressed in
the title, and the other features are eognate
with it and SO are properly included.
s'The objection that the act is special is
more deserving of attention. 1t rests upon
the first section of the statute which enacts
that in any city of not more than So 900 in
habitants already divided into wards, there
shall have been polled in such wards, at the
last Presidential election, or any subsequent
election, more than one thousand legal
votes. = = The Common Council or other
legislative body of such city shall have
power i x to divide any such ward into
two wards = y = provided the provisions
of this section shall not now or hereafter ap-
ply to any city in this State, wherein the
boundary lines of the wards are required to
conform to the Assembly district in any
such city,
REVISION AFFIRMED.
1.-THE proviso of this section must, we
think, be deemed inefficient. The only
statute hitherto passed requiring ward lines
to correspond with Assembly district lines is
JltQp vi E1P1ll 10, 1905, Which, was ddluuQ6u
imperative, and as according to a decision
of the court there can exist no Assembly dis
tricts other than counties, nc statute OF such
a nature can hereafter become a law, and
hence no city has been or can be excluded
from the reach of the statute by force of the
proviso.
s'The reason assigned in questioning the
validity of these ordinances is that the act
approved May 10, 1889, under which the
authority to enact these ordinances is
claimed, is unconstitutional because its object
is not sufficiently expressed in the title and
because it is a special act regulating the inter
nal affairs of cities.
THE STATUTE PROVISION.
s'The statute in question provides that in
the cities to which it applies common council
may divide any ward into two wards, each of
which shall be entitled to the same repre-
sentation in the municipal government as the
ward from which they were formed.
1.-THE cities to which the statute applies
are those of not more than fifty thousand in
habitants and are divided into wards. The
question is, do these constitute a class by
themselves?
SIT is plain that cities not divided into
wards do not naturally come under the
legislative purpose, and their exclusion does
not make it special.
"We find no reason for denying the con-
s~titutionality of this statute. The case laid
before us does not show that in the wards
divided by these ordinances a thousand
votes had been cast at a preceding election,
but we understand this fact to be conceded.
"The proceedings under revision must be
affirmed"
VIM c.. Cole appeared for the prosecution
and VIM. Endicott for the defense.