The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-10-01
REPUBLICANS LOSE.
Judge Lippincott Refuses to
Modify the Wards Lines
Order.
TEXT OF THE DECISION
Freeholders Will Have to Be
Elected on the Old Lines
Newark's Case Don't APP
ply Here.

ply Here.
pfasge Lippincott rendered a decision
hadplarning in the Supreme Court in
bnus bbiuos' tslsthe motion of ex-Judge Blair
Saturdaye the stay in the writ of GER
There wanted against the Republican
na ernithsQfge n figerrymander. Following is the
eye. He
the. plaH of certiorari in the case of
VIII pepr and Counsel of the City of
of SatSJohn Griffin ct al VS.. the Mayor
ment. ermen OF Jersey City with
Inc trate authorities and a private
sfsszssF 81 the City of Hoboken and pri-
vate citizens of the City of Jersey City
were allowed. for the purpose of having
a review by the Supreme Court, of the
proceedings and report of the commits
sion appointed by the Mayor to divide
the City of Jersey City into wards ac-
cording to the provision of Chapter 14J
of the Laws of 1894. entitled, IAN act
providing for the formation and estab-
lishment of wards in cities of the first
class of this State passed May 16.
IS94
The writ was allowed upon these
grounds alleged by the prosecutors. as
follows
First. The alleged wrong that the act
was invalid and unconstitutional
Second. That the commissioners had
equitably divided the wards according
to population.
Third. AS. the act in its application to
the election of Chosen Freeholders of the
County Of Hudson, from the City of Ho-
boken, according to the provisions of an
act entitled, IAN Act to reorganize the
Board of Chosen Ereeholders in counties
of the first class in this State,'' would
render the representation in the Board
of Chosen Freeholders from the City of
Jersey City an unequal and unjust one,
in that in the wards created under the
act diviaing the City of Jersey City into
wards, Jersey City would obtain an un-
just and unequal predeminance of rep
from Jersey City in the
board of Chosen Freeholders.
OPERATION OF WRITS.
The operation of these writs is to stay
an election for Chosen Freeholders in
jersey City, according to the new ward
lines, and II is upon this assumption
that the motion is now made for the
Suspension or modification of the opera
tion OF these writs, for the purpose of
having the election of Chosen Freehold
The first question above noted, that is,
whether the act is constitutional or not,
has been decided by the Supreme Court
CT this State, in relation to the sub
division under ii of the city of Newark
into wards. The act itself has been up
held and its validity judicially declared.
This was the only objection used in the
Newark case. The division of wards by
the commissioners, 3sQrfar as regards the
equality of population was concerned,
seems to havR been entirely satisfactory
In Tare e6axF fllf
the case. fle aalegations- seem to be
supported by prinsa facie proof, that
I'm the division of Jersey City into wards
the equality of population in the differ
ent wards has been disregarded to quite
a serious extent 1t may turn out other
wise when fun proof is submitted to the
y fgation must now be assumed to the
i. Htent Of warranting the allowance of
2 the writs of certiorari.
This being SOFT is questionable whether
a suspension of the operation OF the
writ Should be granted permitting an
election which may be held to have
been contrary to one of the fundamental
ideas of the Act providing for the di-
PECULIAR PROVISIONS.
But even We're this so ! still would
have but little difficulty in modifying
the operation of the writs, so as to al
low an election to be held, legal dec
laration of the results to be made, SO
that if the division of the city into wards
Holders so elected, upon such decision
Heing given, could at once enter upon
their offices, but am confronted with
some peculiar provisions of the Act
above referred to- reorganizing the
Boards of Chosen Freeholders in coun-
ties of the first class. By the seventh
and eighth sections, OF this Act, the
term of office of all the Chosen Free
holders and the term Of office OF the
Director-at-Large are by express enact
ment absolutely determined, and ended
1pvr Nf 1taGSrs VT
The term also of every officer of the
board is cut off and determined on that
day.
tirely within the power of the Legisla-
ture, but, as | view it, whether there
be an election of Chosen Freeholders
go out of office the second day of De
cember, 1884,. Now, If upon review by
the Supreme Court, these new wards
should be declared unequal, not in an
actual but in q legal sense, in popula-
tfon, and therefore the division thereof
declared invalid and void, then the cleo
ton, if held in them for Chosen Free
the result would be. that SO far as Jer-
sey City is concerned. it would be entire
~ without any representation in the
Board Of Chosen Freeholders, for anoth-
er year, or until some legislative remedy
- - PROVISIONS OF Law.
Under the law previous to this enact
ment of 1894 members of the board held
until their successors We're iulvs ted
and qualified, and were the o
that their terms ended hs' f
term on December 2, 1S l.
tinued in office upt .
under the new ~
elected and qua 81
fate at all lp-
ors tie., o. an
ay
be
ion
lain
ex-