The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-07-20
BOARD OF

Continual
OF your city within recent n19ntE5 thitt
We regret tnat this particular iisstd.n.sa-t
si'ouia nor have had Our attorney Up
prevail, but, rs you Will lsndefSfstiltt, NE
cannot under the circumstances tike the
bonds.
II seems TO US tha- Your ciIy should, rs
Juugs Dnlon lave tbs lnatsr
dennltely settled BY TIE courts ana Ne
ieSi sa5lsiiea that you vii ~ataodpte2ls
tdAe ms eoeIst.
= wy !, 1 s. rNrc q cove
p s-plss.a rat,,,a = ~ 49, l3i4-
1ans ! !. - = 5as4sn
af5ica
Nau VII. r,,ra On 7eee
p. RI Rouins s. So,s csra az Durseonab
q Tenn;son ; yyal1 streat Nav york;
Dear sirsgTn yieyu "A tbe recent de-
eision IL fine s,snrerna Cart az New
Tarsev IN the easa af rbe Stare OK rel.
LowthorD VS.. Trenton 40 Atlantic Rep.
page 442. decided Nav q. 1898, holding TO
be special and local an act authorizing
all cities of the ~second-class to appro-
pirate not exceeding $3.50 600 for the pur-
chase Of lands and the construction and
repair Of buildings for nigh school pur-
poses IN such cities. ana authorizing the
issue Of long time bonds to pay the IN
E~debtedness thus Incurred; and p%articu-
larry having in view the reasoning or
winch the conotlsion OF the 1onfi =.
that case was based. DO not 'feel AZ
liberty to give. you an opinion approvlns
81 ~, - s1ao noo 4 ner eenf n,,hlic
SseE SltN q sleo;uou : pef csit. 1pr avld
s srarah ~ goi lea- ur rrtis ,,enen ! csse i,1st eif-
Marcn =, lSS.. ms peeeah cas5 anss tb !
so purts the matter IN sueh 9 snape Iii
i = lor ne lntpless y Z u ~ tha
as lne investor lh eae ponusf Y me- n.y. issiie
defermlned py the Gourls before sn5
BONDS are put out ! nave ilot chdhseu
my oninion that by q souhc auu tfuS coh-
struction Of the act Of 1871, ap9ivahs
IN all GlfteEA 0fMi0e nTSIA ctdSS,Z anu IilH-
ting the expenditure for the purpose to
$500. COO. it should be held to be general
decision Of the Supreme Court in the case
| cited. makes it advisable that this dues-
| f;an should be determined by the Court
| If Errors ana Appeals. i received a let
~, 49,. ht1an T afoDarrootf ESQ Cor
na,.tt4cr Co,1nseI If Jersey CITY. under
aeta'1stt ouissooei 1909 md rad nrevjo1Is1v
Nd an in,arview With him on the subject
81 these ponas; ! hdNe nad 80 80 ~ ~
suggestions whlch ne mace ano hase ~
amined the AUTHORITIES e whlen ne re-
ferred. This late Trenton case mas tnroWn
the matter. into such confusion mat l
cannot. as / have said, advise you to take
the bonds until the question is judicially
Very truly yours.
JOHN F. DILLON.
Eollowinp Is. the communication of the
eoip Tersev Citvs July I. 1898.
NJ ryonov,hia The BOARD of FL
8 NY 1919. G;+,
rance. q Jefs Ky III - - n Pollins &,
xehflenne1naMoclan y 20 ~ lcboaI bonds
oohs LOT 9iVo.oyv = Lp 9oaeon .Enrrha
was MADE VIII ailtS ~ undarsfanding
thal We are 70 h Ienslye nr ~, "a :, tak}ng III
pfoVat q Inc Ioiids pi,oA ftor ~ honds
and paylhg lol 4n5 Z No Maesrs Rollins.
lau oeeu q WaaHs s. ~ &c ,1nder which fhey.
lles as'a5 - aT.I1dee Tnhn r. Dillon.
Mw5n bss fIrnisbed Hem with he follow
No onininn.G
iis i lev of tba recent decision of the
: ~ co,1r+ ~ Nav Jersey in the case
p PT,bbn stafa az ref Iowthrop VS.. Tren-
" IA n n4ian+in Pan naee 442 decided
NJ b. 1eoe ho1ding ta he special and
s secand { class to ~appropriate not exceeding
siSo.00o for the purchase Of lands and the
cnnstr1cfion and repair Of buildings fer
Hiah- SehonI n1Irnoses in such cities. and
af the he iss,e Of long time bonds
- nav = ne ~indebfedness thus incurred;
and narticulariv having in view the
reasoning on which the Conclusion of the
Court in that case was based, I do not
feel at liberty to give you an opinion
apnroviug fine proposed issue by the
CITY of Jersey City of 800. 000 4 per
act approved March 81. 1881. This re-
cent case lust cited puts the matter in
such a shape that it is for the Interest of
the city as well as the investor in the
bonds to have the question of the le-
gality of this issue determined by the
courts before the bonds are Pat out. l
have not changed my opinion that by a
sound and true construction of me act OF
1887 applying to ali cities ef the FIRST class
and limiting the expenditusa for the par
pose to $500 600. it should lie held TO he
general and not special or local: but the
recent decision of the Supreme Court in
the case cited makes it advisable that this
question should be determined by he
Court of Errors and Appeals.
I received a letter from Allan L. Nc
Dermott. Esq, Corporation Counsel of
Jersey City. under date of ,Tursa %, 1898,
and had previously had an interview with
him on the subject of these bonds. I
have considered the suggestions which he
| made and have examined the authorities
to which he referred. This late Trenton
case has thrown the mater mo such con-
fusion that I cannot. as / haze said. cd
wise you to take the BONDS anti tie ques-
ton is judicially settled
Very truly yours,
JOHN r. DILLON.
throp VS.. Trenton. referred to by Judge
Dillon, does not. in my opinion, cover the