The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-10-02
L
WAS 4 SPECIAL ACT
Justice Depue Files the
(. Opinion in the Near
thur Law Case
i CONSTITUTIONAL EVASION
The Reasoning Of The Supreme
Court Satisfactory and
Concurred In.
| CONSTITUTIONAL EVASION

Depue yesterday handed down the text
of the decision of the Court of Errors
and Appeals on the unconstitutionality
Of the Election Extension act. The sub
stance of the opinion follows
1.-THE issue presented in this case is
upon the validity of an act providing
for the holding of municipal and charter
elections and regulating the terms of
elective and appointive officers in cities
of the first class. 1t provides that all
municipal officers in cities of the first
class shall be elected in each year on
the first Tuesday after the first Monday
of November. which is the day fixed for
the annual election of State and county
officers, and upon the same official bal
lots required by law for the election of
State and county officers. It combined
the election of municipal officers with
elections for State and county officers
which Heretofore had been kept sepa-
rate. The condition was hat this act
was In violation of constitutional provi-
sions. This contention was sustained by
the Supreme Court.
paragraph II, section Z. of article 4
of the Constitution, provides that the
Legislature shall not pass any private,
local or special laws in certain emu
merated cases, among which is "Regu-
lating the internal affairs of towns and
counties
This legislative prescription is a re-
strictien on the power of the Legislature.
In language too plain and explicit to miss
! appreciation it prohibited the Legislature
from passing any local or speclai law on
that subject, and restricted such 1eglsla-
ton to general laws.
The Legislature may, without infring-
ing on this constitutional lnterdlct, re-
sort to classification for the convenience
of legislation. The act of 1852, by which
cities were divided into classes, and other
statutes by which boroughs and counties
were in like manner divided, are instances
OF such legislation. The act of 1882 ex-
pressly declares that the classification
therein made was for the purpose OF
municipal legislation in relation to cities,
and that all legislation founded upon such
classification should be construed to emf
brace all cities of the class referred to:
sit must not he inferred from the lam
guage used in the opinions of the courts
that the mere aggregation OF individuals
in a municipality is the real basis on
which a classification may legitimateiy
rest. The constitutional prescription re-
lates to the regulation of the Internal al
fairs of toWns and counties without re,
gard to population, ana 1t applies as Wen
to the lesser as to the greater munich
palities in the State. This act IS not an
act establishing a scheme OF local govern
ment treatment. as was the act IN me
Clayton case. 1t is an act regulating the
internal affairs of existing m~unlclpaitles.
MOI is it a police regulation IN which pop
ulation is essentially the basis of classin,
cation, as in Paul VS.. gloucester CITY ana
Matheson VS.. Caminade.
ssThis act stands or consideration ex-
trancous to those in the class OF cases
above cited. 1t Is apparent from the de-
| cision in the courts of our own State
and in other jurisdictions. Federal ana
state, that when a law is in terms lo-
| cally satisfactory reasons must be found
/ tn ovalli5a if fr0n the constitutional III
terdict. That the cities or m~unicipaiitfe
to which it applies have been properly
classified for general municipal purposes
does not furnish a SUFFICIENT reason TOT
sustaining such legislation.
1.-THE principle by which general laws
are distinguished from those which are
either local or special applies to all
legislation regulating the internal al
fairs of municipalities, and the discretion
that enters into the decision OF the
question whether a particular law Is
general or local. or special. is that where
the classification appears TO rest on SUD
stantial grounds and the line OF de-
markation which separates, the places
included from those excluded is a matter
of Judgment. the resolution OF the Legis-
lature will prevail unless it plainly aP-
pears that the, classification is an eva
sion of the Constitution.
at must not he assumed that acts re-
| lating to the structure or machinery OF
municipal government are freed from
those rules established to distinguish gen
/ eraI from local and special laws in other
cases. The decisions are directly to the
contrary.
affects the machinery, powers or struc-
ture of the city government, nor does it
change the mode of selecting city officers.
The constituency by which those officers
are elected remains the same. The act
simply changes the date of the election,
by the same constituency, and combines
the election OF municipal officers with the
election Of the State and county officers
upon the same official ticket. 1t applies
cnly to cities of the first class.
."rhe act changes The DAY for NUM- nun
bines the election for local officers with
the election for State and county officers.
The Issue presented en5s1 i BY Y IN this s record mas Is
ter of this legislation, cities having a
population exceeding 100, goo nave by rea-
son OF population characteristics distin-
arishing them from cities with a popuia-
ton of less than 0 .000, which would
make such legislation appropriate to the
former class of cities and Inappropriate
to cities having a less population.
'In the Supreme Court the grounds as
signed for such, a discrimination appear
briefly to have been the double expense,
and consequent negligence in the choice
of candidates and in safeguards against
election frauds. such as bribery. fraud and
corruption.
with respect to the other reasons as
signed as grounds for the discrimina-
ton cited by this act, such as the ex-
! penS6 OIL separate eiectloH, lach u N
terest in voters and election frauds;
these evils exist in a comparative degree
in all the cities OF this State; and If the
combination of municipal and State cleo
lions will cur these evils, other cities
cannot lawfully be excluded from this
curative process.
1.-The reasoning of the Justices of the
Supreme Court on these subjects is so
satisfactory that elaboration Is unneces,,
sary. indeed i may say that the counsel
who argued this case in the court for the
plaintiff in error BY his brief seems to
grounds to justify this classification by
that process of reasoning. His argument
for reversing the Judgment below rests
mainly. il not wholly, upon the conten-
ton thai this legislation relates to the
sfrliefure and machinery of local govern
nsant' an argument which. to me, seems
unfounded.
act regulating the internal affairs OF cities
based upon an insufficient classification,
: ana therefore in violation of the consti-
tutional prescription, | shall vote to affirm
the decision of the Supreme Court"
TR1NITY'S HONS GATHERING.