The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-01-15
MARTIN ACT SALES
w. D. Edwards Replies to
SenatorFranCis of Essex,
Who Doubts Their
Constitutionality.
ACT UPHELD BY THE SUPR EME COURT
Assessments and Sales in Newark
10 Be Tested in the Courts
The Law in Jersey City.

Ex-senator w. H. Francis of Essex
county. took occasion recently to c~ritlclse
the Martin Act test in the city of Newark,
and said. among other things, that its
operation in New jerseys largest city
had been unsatisfactory. In fact, he
doubted the validity of the act of 1886.
Ex-senator w. D. Edwards, of this
city, had his attention drawn to the state
ments of Mr.. Francis.
Replying to the first part of the attack
that the constitutionality of the act is
to be tested by different suits now about
to be begun in Newark, Mr.. Edwards said
to a News representative
"Au these questions raised by Mr..
Francis nave been practically settled. The
act expressly provides that where the as
ssmen are set aside by the court on
technicaiities, and where the property is
really benefited, the Adjustment Commits
sioners have the right to make a new as
sessment which would then become a
| lien on the property. Fortunately, no case
| has arisen in this city, and none of our
| adjustments are open to that form of at
tack, although there may be many in the
| city of Newark.
The question" continued Mr.. Edwards,
s'raised by Mr.. Francis as to the power OF
the city to sell and act where property al
ready bought in for a term of years by
city is undoubted. The mere purchase. by
the city without entering into possession
would not Dust the Martin Act CommlS-
sioners of their right to act. Here, again,
the questions raised in Newark are not
applicable TO Jersey City because in this
| city where property has been sold to the
city there have been always subsequent
taxes not sold but adjusted. A sale where
| based upon these unpaid taxes would be
| upheld even ii a part of the consideration
was for taxes which had been sold for a
"The objections urged Mr.. Edwards,
| continuing, advanced in Newark would
under our administration of the Martin
Act, nave to be raised on the report OF
| the Commissioners of Adjustment, and il
not raised then the property owner would
be in iaches. He would not be allowed to
raise his objections after the service OF
for redemption.
Senator Francis raised as his third OBJ
lection the question of assessments. and
that the title of theAa act was questioned
because the city of Newark originally
took title for fifty years under the law OF
1857, and then proceeded to sell the prop
erty under the provisions of the Martin
act, which procedure Senator Francis
holds is null and void On this branch OF
the question Mr.. Edwards says
This question to be raised in Newark
is peculiar to the charter of hat city.
In this city all improvements were made
under the supervision of the lamented
Mr.. Fowler, upon the basis Of benefits re-
ceived and not upon frontage. This last
question was ettled for Jersey City by q
legion of decisions of the Supreme Court
upholding the assessments levied by the
city. Even If it We're not SO, the Com
mfssioners of Adjustment in fixing the
amount of the assessment against the
property for local improvements are espe-
cially required and charged with the duty
of seeing that the same are levied in pro-
portion to benefits under the constitution.
al requirements. Of course, there may be
a case where all details for making title
by service of notice have not been techni
cally followed, and those titles may be
open to criticism. These are, however
only individual cases, and can be cor
recfed by r~e-service of papers. Such q
i mishap could hardly happen in property
purchased by the city, because all notice.
are served under the careful supervision
of the N. J. Title Guarantee and Trus
Company