The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-06-12
TESTING 4 ACT.
Argument in the Supreme
Court as to the New
Judiciary Bill Passed.
DEFINING LEGISLATIVE POWER
q on
Counsel Say That the Law Changes
Oficeholders-Mr. Collins
Opinion.
special TO the jersey City Meas.

TRENTON. June u. 1Ss5.-Prominent
lawyers of New Jersey argued all Gay
yesterday before Justices Van Slckei'
Reed and Lippincott in the case or Lay
Judge Herman Schalk. of Newark.
against County Clerk Wrightson, to test
the constitutionality of the VOORHEES, cleo
tive judiciary law passed last winter.
Judge Schalk brought the law to a test
by applying for a writ of mandamus
directing Wrightson onot to put the
names of candidates nominated for Coun-
ty Judges on the official ballots next iail.
Judge Schalk was represented by Coun-
sellers Collins and Corbin and ex-Judge
Stevens, County Counsel Munn and CITY
Counsel Riker, of ewark, represented
County Clerk Wrightson.
Mr.. Gilbert Collins opened the case. He
cited the law passed. stating what II
intended to accomplish, and said that
he would discuss it under the following
heads
1 Is the Court of Common Pleas one
that can be abolished by the Legislature!
2. Has the court been abolished by the
laws passed? 3. Can Judges who exer-
else the powers of the Common Pleas
Judge be chosen by any other authority
than the Governor? 4 and 5. Are the
laws valid?
sit is fairly a debatable question:" he
said, f'whether under the power TO al
ter or abolish inferior courts the Legls-
lature can abolish any other courts than
those which they create. This doubt
is strengthened by the Constitutional
amendment of 1875 and by the character
of the Court of Common Pleas. which.
from the earliest days, has been a court
exercising an important part of the judi
io;o1 -ouar Of thu nroyfnca of the state.
The Constitution gives the Judge five
years. The Legislature cannot legisiate
them out of office directly. Can they
do so indirectly by a merely nominal
abolition of the court?
SIMPLY IA REDUCTION.
eve contend that what has been done
is not to abolish the court, but merely
TO change its name and reduce the mum
Der of Judges and make one of the Judges
elective. The fifth section provides that
the Supreme Court Justices, together
the Judges Of the County Courts. The
act proceeds to provide that the pracuca
heretofore provided in all courts shai
, i question is whether by merely
changing the name OF the courts NILE
dictfon, the method of appointment OF
the Judges holding them prescribed pt
the Constitution can be e snaa n Wi s !
mere matter of Office holding. Certain
offices are to be put out and a smaller
This is practically the whole act, ex-
ceIt the change of name. It, is not the
Cours OF Common Pieas whicn mas pf zen
ssThe supTeIne Court Justices continue
Tire practice remains the same. What
has the Legislature undertaken to aboi-
-etttzF<iar that the Governor Shall dp-
point the Judges. In spite OF the new
name Of Csllty Judge, it Tequlres no
features of our ancient friend the Judge
OF Cornmo Pleas, named in the Consti-
MIR; Collins commended that the policy
amendment of 1915 is that the Judges of
other high courts Of the State shall be
appointed by the Governor. The ques-
Court of Common Pleas can be abolished
or not He commended that the con-
stitutional power of the Governor could
LEGISLATIVE POWER.
Joseph L. Mum said:-"Article 4 of the
vesling the judicial power, is in terms
closely corresponding to those employed
in other States. but is unusually explicit
to alter or abolish inferior courts as the
public good shall require. There IS no
limit to the ordaining and establishment
III COuIlS, cACGPl lu9t lit sinai &c III
ferior courts. He cited the Orphans
Court as one.
S far as I can discover went on
Mr.. Mum. sit has never been doubted
in this State. but, on the other hand,
has been constantly assumed that the
Legislature had full power to change,
TO alter ard to abolish all the courts
of this State. whether in existence be-
fore the adoption of the Constitution in
its present form, CIR since that time,
except only the courts enumerated in
the Constitution"
In concluding Mr.. Mum said:-''To
give to the Constitution of New Jersey
the construction contended for by
Judge Schalk, is to say that the courts
not named in the instrument are equally
beyond the reach of change and adop-
ton to modern views. with those whose
functions ana character were such as to
be regarded by the trainers of the Con-
stitution as worthy of being expressly
named, and thereby preserved, and is to
say to the people of the State, you must
remodel your fundamental law, if You
wish to bring about a change, even in