The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-01-23
me likewise to disapprove of the second CON



THE THIRD CONCLUSION.
Your third conclusion is as follows:
''The work of paving to be paid ont OF the
license monies Sec 5 and g., Laws of 1891,
page 259) was carelessly and wrongfully
done While the Statute of 1891, Sec. 5,
aforesaid, gives the board a discretion as to
the paving, it seems that the board used
none. The testimony showed that one
Commissioner, the chairman of the Commit
tee on Streets, etc, acted In supreme
capacity, as regards this work, ordering 1t as
he pleased No resolutions were passed
previous to work being ordered. and no
public report of the Commissioner was made
to his committee, or of the committee In turn
to the board, was ever made as to the prlce,
or as to the progress of the paving work IN
this department In fact, the public was
left without any chance to have knowledge
or base criticism, until the minutes lndi-
Gated that the work was done and payment
ordered, when the rights of the city were
reduced to the narrowest hmts-such
methods are wrong In my opinion this
work should have been done by contract,
and the discretion given by the act covers
the questions and details preceding and
stated in the contract"
ing this work as sufficient ground for their
removal. The remaining items in this charge
were not pressed at the hearing"
WORK wRoNGFULLY DONE.
This conclusion relates entirely to s'the
work of paving to be paid out of the license
monies," which it states was sscareleSsly and
wrongfully done,'' and then. specifies the
respects in which it was carelessly and
wrongfully done, viz:-"While the Statute
of 1891, Sec. 5, aforesaid gives the board a
discretion as to the paving, it seems that the
board used none. The testimony showed
that one Commissioner, the chairman of the
Committee on Streets ETC., acted in SUI
preme capacity, as regards this work, order
ing it as he pleased. No resolutions were
passed previous to work being ordered,
and no public report of the Com
missioner was made to his committee or of
the committee in turn to the board, was ever
made as to the price, or as to the progress of
the paving work in this department. In fact,
the public was left without any chance to
have knowledge or base criticism, until the
minutes indicated that the work was done
and payment ordered, when the rights of the
city were reduced to the narrowest limits.
Such methods are wrong"
TOO BROAD AND GENERAL.
This portion OF the conclusion is SO broad
and general that have found it impossible
to apply it to the charge or the evidence.
That the conclusions must be limited to mat
tiers set out in athe charges seems to me a
proposition beyond dispute. The respond
ents cannot be arraigned on
one charge and removed on an
other, not charged. Such a course would
simply result in their reinstatement by the
courts An inspection of charge No. ION
which the third conclusion is based, will
disclose the fact that it contains no allega-
tions whatever of the acts alleged in the con-
clusion to be careless and wrongful. While
/ agree with Your Honor in your opinion of
careless and wrongful methods in the re-
spects stated, and while charge of general
incompeteney OF misconduct formulated
thereon, might Justify removal, am unable,
inasmuch as the respondents were not ar
raigned on any such charges, and therefore
not called upon to make any defence thereto,
to concur in their removal therefor.
DISTINCTION.
During the period of time covered by
charge number one, there was land probably
still isl a manifest distinction in the laws
governing New Jersey, between the course to
be pursued in the original paving of a street
and its repaying or repairing, as will appear
by the following citations:- -
Under the title, BOARD of Public Works, y
Laws of 1871, page /, liz and seq. sections A,
So and 55 direct, ''that streets shall be tagged
curbed, guttered and paved in the following
manner, and then detail the manner, by as
sessment, etc." Section So also provides,
land the repairing, cleaning and clearing
said board, by such persons at such times
and in such manner and on such terms as
said board shall fix upon and the expense
thereof shall be borne by the city at large,
and be paid by general tax"
Different methods are thus provided for
doing paving and repairing work. By sub
seauent legislation, repaving and repairing
are treated as one and the same thing, to be
| done and paid for in the same way
Section of Chapter 1874, laws of 1891,
cited in the beginning of the third conclu-
sion, provides E'that the Board of Street and
| Water Commissioners shall have power, in
| their discretion, to repave, repair OF inn
prove, at public expense any part OF any
street, lane alley, avenue or public place
already paved or that has been paved, to be
paid for out of the funds raised by The issue
of licenses for the sale of spirituous or malt
| liquors." etc.
| Section of the act last mentioned, as
amended by Section l of Chapter 50, Laws
| of 1898, provides that it shall be lawful to
| set apart one-half of the license monies ''for
the repaving, repairing and improving of
paved streets and public places in such city,
| whenever in the Judgment of such board
there shall not be sufficient funds otherwise
provided for that purpose, and said monies.
when so set apart, shall be dlsbursed, ap-
piled and expended for such purposes by said
Board of Street and Water Commissioners
exclusive of any other board or authority
| whatever and for no other purpose"
| Section of the act last mentioned, pro-
yides that 'sthe Board of Street and Water
| Commissioners, may, by unanimous vote,
| at any time, out of said funds when SO set
aside, cause any part OF main thoroughfare
| in said city to be improved or paved, or both,
| although the same may not heretofore have
been paved
| An examination of charge No 1, discloses
eleven payments aggregating 81, $50. Is, 'sfor
pavingn Seven of these payments were
made in the months of September, October
and December, 1891; the four others were
made 'Apl 2l' and sApl 2T'. the year not
appearing, but being presumably 1892
There also appear in charge one, fifty-one
payments aggregating S22,973.15 ''for re
paving . of these payments forty were made
in the months of September and December
1891 and eleven on ssApl 21,n the year moi
stated, but presumably being 1892
Your conclusion relates to 'sthe work ol
paving to be paid for out of the license
monies" pursuant to Sections 5 and of the
act of 1891. Reference thereto, disclose
that those Sections relate exclusively to the
repaving, repairing or improving of any
street, lane, alley, avenue or public plac,
already paved 1t was not until the passage
! of the act of 1898, that the Commissioner
were authorized to use the license monies tx
scause any part of main thoroughfare tt
be paved or improved or both, although ths
same may not heretofore have been paved.
i FOR REPAv1NG AND REPAIR.
I assume, therefore, that your conclusion
refers to such work as is contemplated and
authorized by the act of 1891, namely, repay
ing, repairing and improving streets already
paved. My reading of the evidence ant
charge one, convinces me that none OF tht
eleven items charged for paving" were, il
fact for original paving, but were for re