The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-01-23

for any of this work, and no contract made
for the doing thereof as an entirety.
If Sections AZ, SO and 30 OF the act of 1871
ever had any application to the repaying OF
streets ALREADY paved" am of the opinion
that such application ceased on the passage
of the act Of 1891. That act seems 70 vess
the doing of such work in the discretion OF
the commissioners, and while they might
properly be held responsible for the abuse
of that discretion, they are not charged
Herewith
1 am unable to approve of your third con-
clusion s'as a sufficient ground for their re-
moval."
FOURTH CONCLUSION.
| Conclusion No. is founded upon charge
No. 4, preferred by Frank o. Cole and
others. The charge is as follows:
'sThe said board is charged with misman-
agement, negligence and disregard OF the
public interest in the management of the
Water Department OF this city, in that the
said department, as managed, does not pay
its own expenses, and owing to the allow
ance by said board of the accumulation OF
large arrears of water rents, whereby there
is an annual deficiency shown in the said
department"
The last report of the Water Registrar
shows an arrears of water rents due the city
of $102, ,541 "a, as follows
May 1, 1892, to April 30, 1898.
Amount assessed as per
registers ........... S339, $50 80
Amount collected with
penalty and interest 276, $50 O2
Balance uncollected.. 5000 "a
| Amount charged for
| measured water. d. $315, ,343 So
| Amount collected for
measured WATER. 276,OOS AZ
- SO, ,334 30
Total arrears as above S1O2, ,54l "A
The arrearage or deficit shown is that ap-
pearing April 30, 1898.
The conclusion with reference to this
charge is as followS:-
LAS to this charge, no proof beyond the
statement submitted, was made as to the de-
| ficit in the department The interest on the
water debt, the labor and the supplies have
| been paid for easily during the last eighteen
months; the charge of negligence as to col
| lecting the water rents is well made. The
water department requires coal, supplies
labor and extensions and the interest on the
water debt to be provided to Keep
| it running. The water is in i'm
mediate consumption, and it involves
no hardship to pay promptly. The deficit in
| the water account at any time should only be
a fraction of the current year rents, and the
showing made by the statements under this
| charge convinces me that the collecnons
| have not been properly or energetlcally
pressed, and the deficit has been caused by
| inefficient and unbusinesslike management,
| and this is sufficient ground in my opinion
| for removal"
WHAT SHOULD BE PROVEN.
| 1t is stated in the beginning of this conclu-
| sion that '1as to this charge no proof beyond
the statement submitted was made as to the
| deficit in the department" The statement al
| luded to is the one above set forth showing the
| deficit on April 80, 1898. I do not think the
mere setting forth of that statement in an
unverified charge and unsupported by proof
| can be used as evidence against the respond
| ents. 1t must be affiImatively proved. 1t
| should appear that the deficit was improper
and the result of mismanagement and negll-
| gence.
With reference to charges of this nature,
| preferred against municipal officers, Judge
| Dillon, in his work on Municipal Corpora
! tions Section 255 says.-N1f the charge be
not denied, still it must, if not admitted, be
| examined and proved"
| Although as stated, no proof was made to
| sustain charge No. 4, there was testimony In
rebuttal of any unfayerable inference that
might be drawn from the mere submission
of the statement. refer to the evidence of
Cornelius J. Haley, pages lot to 1lS, evl-
dence of William R. Cook, pages 1870 to 197,
and evidence of William D. Edwards, pages
329, ETC., of the printed book
On the ground that charge No. was not
sustained by proof, l cannot approve OF your
conclusion thereon.
| LACK OF CARE AND DELIBERATION.
I have thus disposed of all the conclusions
su omitted to me- l am surprised, in view OF
disclosures made upon the hearing, that the
proceedings against these respondents were
not attended with more care and delibera-
ton. Ignoring other, and apparently
notorious acts of misconduct, several hun
dred alleged illegal payments of money,
most of which upon indictment
would be barred by the statutes
of limitation, were embodied in vague
and indefinite charges and conviction
sought, upon strained and doubtful statu-
tory construction. Upon your investiga-
ton of the charges you found less than q
dozen of the allegations supported. by any
proof whatever, and my view OF the law
constrains me to disagree with your con.
clusions as to those.
Yours respectfully,
GEORGE 7. WERTs,
| Governor.
| JANUARY 90, 1894.
THE MAYORS FINDINGS.