The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-01-23
CLAYTON REPR0EED
Justice Lippincott Says the
Freeholder Must Not
Pose as an
AuteCrat.
WHO SHALL SIGN The WLRRLHFSf
Complications Arising Out Of the
Board of Freeholders Contro-
Versy-Argument in Court.

Lawyers MCGEE and Albeit made an ap-
plication to Justice Lippincott this morn-
ing to amend the order made by the Court
at the time the writ of certiorari was
granted in the Board of Freeholderg con-
troversy. In granting the certiorari Jus
tice Lippincott declared that it would not
act as stay. Lawyers McDermott and
Collins were ON hand to oppose the appli-
cation.
Mr.. Albeit opened the argument by re-
citing the facts in the case. He said that
since Dec. 80 the Board has held meet
ings with two presiding officers. thus
causing confusion. The question is, who
shall sign the warrants? The County Col
lector is paying out money on warrants
signed by Freeholder Green. If the Courr
decides that Clayton is the legal Director,
he alone has the legal right to sign war;
rants. and all payments made on Green's
signature are illegal. By advice Of his
counsel, Clayton has endeayored to pre-
side at the meetings.
Another question at Issue Is whethez
Green was elected Director or only tenn
porary presiding officer. There is no ques-
ton, he said, that Clayton was legally
elected at the organization meeting. It is
a question whether the Board can elect
temporary presiding officer at it's please
ure.
Justice Lippincott interrupted Mr. Alb
bett to say that when the Court spoke Of
the manner in which Clayton presided at
the meetings of the Board it referred to
his autocratic methods. The Court inti-
mated that Clayton should not put him~
self up as an autocrat, put should remem-
Der that he was only servant Of the peo-
pie. The Court wished at that time ia
give warning for the future.
Mr.. Albeit said that the Board could
not change its presiding officer as often
as it pleased. There was no question what
ever of Clayton's election; but the legality
of Green's was In doubt.
THE original application for writ
said Mr.. McDermott was to remove the
obstinacy of Mr.. Clayton to the Supreme
Court for review. The writ was granted
without a stay. If the resolution which
was certioraried is legal then Clayton is
moi. the Director
Clayton, Mr.. McDermott said, has de-
clared that in view of the Court having
refused to prevent the operation of the
resolution he would resort to physical
force. He should have more respect for
the Court. The Court having granted the
writ Of certiorari the question arises
whether the Courts jurisdiction over the
matter has not ceased. The Court having
passed upon the question, it is ended so
far as Mr.. Clayton ts concerned There
is nothing for him to do but wait until
the Supreme Court gives a decision. He
stands on no ground but stubbornpess.
"It is not a matter of much consequences
to the Court said Justice Lippincotty
"who presides at the meetings. The Court
Is only desirous that the business of the
county shall not be blocked
Mr.. McDermott continuing, said that the
Board had the legal right to remove Clay
ton. Almost any parliamentary body has
the right to remove its presiding officer
at its pleasure. Eve place our reliance .
he said, ION the contention that the ma
jority of any public Board should be ale
lowed to do as they please. Clayton's per-
sonality is Of no consequence in the cons
troversy. We have acted so as to carry
out the will of the majority and the busi-
ness of the county is not tmpeded."
Ex-Mayor Collins was the next at the
bat He said he had often heard applicas
tions for rule to show cause why a writ
should not be granted, but a direct apple
cation for stay was something unusual.
The applicants. he said, should presenE
some legal reason to the Court on which
to ask for a stay after the Court had de-
cided that no stay should accompany the
writ of certiorari which the Court had
granted.
Concerning the payment of money on
warrants signed by Director Green, Mr..
Collins said that Mr.. Green presided at
the meetings at which the payments were
ordered, and 1T was, therefore, his duty
to sign the warrants. The claim made by
Clayton that he is the legal Director is
absurd. The affidavit declared that Ciay-
ton tried to preside, but, of course, said
Mr.. Collins he could not do 1t when
twenty out of the, twenty-six members re-
fused to recogniza him. Mr.. Clayton had
refused to perform his duties at the early
meetings, and had to be removed IN order
that the business of the county might be
transacted, otherwise the affairs of the
county would be in a state of chaos.
Mr.. MCGEE said there was no question:
of the power of the Court TO order q stay-
Mr.. Green, he said, is not the legal preside
ing officer, and Clayton had not been le-
gally removed. This being the cond1tts4
of affairs any money paid on warrants
signedsby Mr.. Green Is paid Illegally. The
Court, he said, under these condftionss
should grant a stay in order to preven1
Green from continuing to act Illegally
IT do not know now why should change
my order made at the time the writ was
granted" said Justice Lippincott, sbut
will give the matter careful consideras
tion."