The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-11-19
YESTlBULE HEARING
Suit to Recover Penalty from
the Consolidated Argued
III a Newark Court.
coULT RIDIcULEs THE ACT
Constitutional Objections Held in
Reserye-Decision TO Be
Rendered Tuesday.
C0ULT RIDICULES THE ACT
Especial to ..The Jersey city News."1

the Board OF Police commissioners
against the Consolidated Traction Com
pany was tried before Judge McCarter in
the First District Court yesterday morn
ing. The Police Commissioners were rep
resented by City Attorney Johnson and
Assistant City Attorney Boggs, while Jo-
seph Coult appeared as counsel for the
defendant company.
Mr.. Boggs amended the declaration by
consent, so as to include specifically the
title of the act under which the action was
brought. Then Mr.. Coult stated that to
get at the merits of the case quickly he
would agree that the facts presented,
which would be necessary to determine
the question, should become facts on rec
ord.
A statement of facts, drawn up by Mr..
Boggs, was submitted, and Mr.. Coult
agreed that the Consolidated Traction
Company was a corporation organized
under the Traction act of 1898; that it re-
ceived the consent of the municipal au-
thorities to operate trolley roads, and that
at the time and place named in the bill
the company did not operate a car that
was not constructed with an enclosed or
vestibuled platform.
Mr.. Boggs suggested that the defendant
admit that it was operating cars on
Broad street.
Lawfully operating" put in Mr.. Coult.
Were not intruders.
Mr.. Johnson hesitated about putting in
the word lawfully and only agreed al
ter he explained that the word should not
affect the city's contentious about the NE
gality of running cars without vestlbules-
II don't ask the other side to admit
their case away" returned Mr.. Coult,
laughing.
When the preliminaries had been agreed
upon Mr.. Coult said he considered It
wholly unnecessary to max a lengthy ar
gument, but he proposed to call the
Courts attention to the fact that me aee
purposes for which it was passed. he
went on to say that the courts mad ae-
cided that in placing a construction on a
statute the intention OF the Leglsialute
must be taken into consideration, ana that
the intent must be sought for IN every
legitimate way.
from authorities on statutory construc-
ton and added that the law held tnat the
legal intent of every act must be derived
solely from the language USED IN tne az
and that it was not lawful to go OUTSIDE
of the act itself to find what the LeglS-
lature had in mind.
MT. GOulIS O11tCI1Q0Q lud LAX q -
operative because it did not put in what
was intended. There was nothing in the
title of the law hat would indicate what
it's purpose was except the very e
statement that it was for the better
regulation of he operation OF street rali-
roads, 1t did not say how the better
regulation should be effected. !.
The lawyer then took up that phase Oh
the law which provides that it shall be
effective between ..the first day of Novem-
Der and the first day of April IN any
year.
Mr.. Coult argued that the supposed viola
ton did not consist of running a car NOT
yestibuled after November |. he asked
what was the excluded period when non
vestihuled cars could be run, and proceed
ed to answer the question by saying tnat
as "any year. could not cover perlods OF
two years the legislative intent as ex-
pressed in the act was to enforce the use
of vestibules between April l and Novem-
Der |.
went on Mr.. Coult, Nand why should yes
tibules be demanded during the not
weather? Would ii be for the purpose Of
keeping out the dust and flies? Prob
ably the intention was to make it a little
warmer for the notormen."
1t would do violence to the language OF
the act, Mr.. Coul contended, to construe
the first section to mean thai cars should
be vestibuled after November l.
Taking up the second section, the law
yer claimed that the penalty of $2o per day
prescribed for operating ANY such car
was directly contrary to the first section,
and he argued that the only construction
that the section was capable of made it
impossible for the company to operate any
of its cars without being subject to a
fine. The section made no reference to
inhibited time, said Mr.. Coult, but read,
sfor any day or part of q day.
If the statute had been drawn so that it
mentioned the particular months intended,
added Mr.. Coult, or read from November
i to April / following, and then fixed a
penalty for violation within the time pre-
scribed. then the act would be under,
s~tandable, readable and sensible, and could
be complied with.
The company had been advised, counsel
went on, that the law was ineffective and
imperative. If the Legislature intended
during the winter months, such intention
had not been expressed in the act.
In conclusion Mr.. Coult said the ques-
ton of the constitutionality of the law
had not been raised, and ne added that he
did not propose to raise it then, as he I'M
derstood the case would probably be APP
pealed.
In replying, Mr.. Johnson said that the
contention that it was the intention of
the Legislature out of its merciful consid.
Grafton for motormen to force the use OF
vestibules in summer and take away the
protection in winter, was absurd.
The words lin any year did not neces-
might be considered simply a division of
time. There was nothing in the act to
make it appear that a calendar year was
intended, but. on the other hand, the very
words of the statute, "On and after the
first day of November, one thousand eight
hundred and ninety-seven,' specifically
fixed the time when in the intent of the
act the years were to begin.
Mr.. johnson declared that the construc-
ton placed upon the act by Mr.. Coult was
against the plain language of the act.
Respecting the second section, Mr.. john
sons contention was that it would nave
to be construed in connection with the
first section. The later was clearly a pro-
hibitive section and, therefore. the words
ANY such cars must be taken to mean
the cars prohibited by section one.
Counsel for the Plaintiff went TO say
that the courts had held that an act could
be altered by putting in missing wcrds
when the intention OF the act wa3 Clear.
The intention of this act was clear, as
serted Mr.. Johnson, and the language was
NOT inappropriate. He further said the act
could mot be defeated without straining
its language.
ments by saying that he could readily un-
derstand how the counse in the case
could reconstruct the statute so that it
would be operative, but that was not with
in their province. There was nothing in
the act itself, he reiterated, that would in
dictate it's meaning. No intent to protect
the motormen from the inclemency of the
weather was expressed in the title of the
act. and Mr.. Coult expressed the opinion
that If the title did specify such a pur-
pose it would render the act unconstitu-
tiona1.
ssThe Legislature might as well say"
added the lawyer, q that the Consolidated
Traction Company or other corporations
would nave to supply their office en-
ployes with winter overcoats.
al repeat" continued Mr.. Coult. moth