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


ever had any application to the repaving OF
streets ''already paved" l am of the opinion
that such application ceased on the passage
of the act of 1891. That act seems to vest
the doing of such work in the discretion OF
the commissioners, and while they might
of that discretion, they are not charged
Herewith.
/ am unable to approve of your third con-
clusion ''as 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 80, 1898.
Amount assessed as per
registers 1886, 1856 SO
Amount collected with
penalty and interest 276,6S0 02
Balance uncollected... SOS, 200 81
Amount charged for
measured water. $315, ,34S 80
Amount collected for
- 80, ,S34 go
Total arrears as above. $102, Sal "A
The arrearage or deficit shown is that ap-
pearing April 30, 1893.
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 nave
been paid for easily during the last eighteen
months; the charge of negligence as to col
lecting the water rents is well made. The
labor and extensions and the interest on the
water debt to be provided to keep
it running. The water is in inn
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 collections
have not been properly or energetically
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 ''as 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 so, 1898. l 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 afirmatively proved. 1t
should appear that the deficit was improper
and the result of mismanagement and negli-
gence.
With reference to charges Of this nature,
preferred against municipal officers, Judge
Dillon, in his work on Municipal Corpora
tions, Section 255, says-.sIf 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 unfavorable inference that
might be drawn from the mere submission
Cornelius j. Haley, pages 107- to -11S, eyi=
dence of William r. Cook, pages 100 to 1877,
and evidence of William D. Edwards, pages
329, ETC., of the printed book.
On the ground that charge No. 4 was not
sustained by proof, cannot approve of your
conclusion thereon.
LACK OF CARE AND DELIBERATIoN.
have thus disposed of all the conclusions
submitted to me- am surprised, in view of
disclosures made upon the hearing, that the
proceedings against these respondents were
not attended with more care and delibera
tion 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
tion of the charges you found less than a
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 T. WERTS,
Governor.