The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-04-24

and even if it had been 'the award of the
mandamus does not purport to adjudge
or decide any right" Layton v. State,
4 Dutch, 53D (Ct Err. & ApA. The judg-
ment of the Supreme Court in this pres
ent case was rendered for purpose of re-
view the side branch of the Supreme
Court having at some inconvenience met
specially; the issue is in narrow compass,
and on our part we are prepared to sub
nit it in any mode the Court may prefer
-on briefs if necessary-in the hope that
a decision on or before the first Monday
of May, when the terms change, will re-
leve the city from a serious situation
arising out of matters for which the Of
ficers and the people of Jersey City are
in no wise responsible.
Hardened as we have become to the in
validation of unimportant municipal leg
islation, it still shocks the moral sense
that statute on which such important
action must be taken touching the local
government of one-fourth of the citizens
of the State, is left in such a situation
that the officers and citizens concerned
cannot possibly tell what the law requires
them to do. Such a situation should be
corrected at the earliest opportunity by
the authority provided by law for that
purpose.
The counsel for the city consider that a
high public duty made it incumbent on
them both as officers of the city and of
this Court to place this issue in the hands
of this Court as fully and as soon as
they were able to do so.
Dated April "a, 1897.
JOHN A. BLAIR,
Counsel for City.
CORBIN & CORBIN, of Counsel.
Mr.. Blair said, before the Court opened,
he did his sole duty would be to urge
upon the Court the necessity of secur-
ing a speedy determination of the con-
stitutionality of the Extension Act, so
that the municipal officers might know
what their duty is in the premises.
The Court convened at 10:45, the only
absentee being Justices Dixon and Gum
mere. After administering the oath of
office to Judges Kruger and Adams, the
Court retired for consultation. Justice
Garrison, as he put it, disqualified him
self, and came out into the court room
and chatted wittily with the lawyers.
These included Messrs. Charles and Will
liam H. Corbin and ex-Judge Blair, for
the city, and Mr.. Charles D. Thompson
of Dickinson, Thompson 6 McMaster,
for the defendant in error. There was no
one present TO look after the interests of
Mr.. Hoos or the Republicans or Demo-
Gratis of Newark, These gentlemen, with
the Court attaches and the newspaper
men, constituted the whole audience
After a private session of less than
twenty minutes the Judges took their
seats, Chancellor McGill raped for order
and delivered the following as the de-
cision of the Court
In the matter of the request of the
Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City
against the Evening Journal Associa-
ton, for the advancement of the case, the
Court has determined to deny the appli-
cation. 1t does this as although a con-
stitutional question is involved, it is
bringing up of an issue which has not
yet matured. 1t is urged the title to
office is involved. In form this is an
action of debt and the parties entitled
to be heard on the other side of the
question of title are not before the Court
We deem that it would be improper of
the Court to hear only one side. 1t is
better to wait until the issue is directly
raised and the title to office is before
the Court Therefore the Court denies
the motion.
AS there was no public dissent by any
member of the Court it was presumed
by those present that the decision was
unanimous.
Republicans profess to find in the re-
mark of Chancellor McGill that sit is
better to wait until the issue is directly
raised and the title to office is before the
Court" an invitation to hold on to the
flesh pots and compel the Democrats to
institute mandamus proceedings.