The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-01-07
new MARTIN ACT TEST
Ex-senator Francis Institu-
tes a Number of Suits
Passed on Newark
Tax Sales.
FORMER JUDGMENTS UNSATISFACTORY
constituiionality of the Act Of
1886 in Or slion = Can
Cities Collect Taxes.
FORMER JUDGMENTS UNSATISFACTORY

| According to the Newark Call, there
| is to be new attack upon the Martin
| Act In Sundays issue it was stated that
| ex-senator William Fl. Francis, who has
| recently returned to this State from Da-
| kota. where he served sas Territorial
| Judge. has instituted number of suits
| in the courts which will bring up for
! review and final determination the con-
| stitutionality of the law of 1886, and the
| effect of the decisions in these cases will
| determine the validity of the deeds which
| are now being issued by the city to pur-
| chasers under this law.
| The question of the constitutionality of
| the Martin act is a very important one.
| Thousands of dollars have been paid un-
| der the provisions of this act Tor me
settlement of past due assessments and
| taxes, and the title of many pieces OF
! property rests on the validity OF the pro-
| ceedings taken under the act. The act
| was passed for the purpose OF clearing
| up the claim of the city against many
| pieces of property for unpaid taxes and
| assessments Senator Francis has nstl,
| tuted a number of different suits, and all
| of them raise the question OF the con-
| stitutionality of the act in different ways,
| so that the act will be tested on num-
| Der of different points.
| One suit is that of Stephen Fountain
| vs. the city, and is now in the Court OF
| Chancery. The suit is on an assessment
| South Orange avenue, in 1873. The orig
| inal assessment was made by the CITY
| Surveyor or arbitrarily, on the frontage,
without regard to depth of abutting prop
erty and whether there was special Denent
or not. The property was sold ana lne
| city took title for a term OF fifty years
under the law of 1857, but a decree oI ne
| Court of Chancery ordered that the as
| sessment, sale and all proceedings were
nugatory and void, and the act under
which the assessment was made was un-
al hi vyac n
| assessment was made, but the city pro-
ceeded to readjust the assessment ana
| took title to the property under the Mar
| tin act. 1t is claimed that this could nol
| be legally done; that the city should
have made a new assessment and pro-
| ceeded to collect it. 1t is claimed that the
Martin act, in it's title, makes no pro
| vision for such readjustment, and that 1t
| is defective in this respect.
The title of the act is also questioned
bv a number of suits instituted on some
property held by Charles Bierman, to
which title has been taken under the
Martin act. The city originally took title
Of 1857, and then proceeded to sell the
property under the provisions OF the Mar
tin act Such action is believed to be
null and void.
known as the charter of 1857, subject to
such amendments as have been since
passed, is today in force rms act dlvla-
ed the mode of making assessment INTO
two classes. Those for the opening OF
streets and building of sewers were made
by Commissioners appointed py tne Cons
mon Council and those for the paving OF
streets laying of sidewalks ana lot Hi
ings were made by the City surveyor.
IN 1874 the Court of Errors and Appeals
rendered it's famous decision in the Broad
street wood pavement case, declaring the
law under which those assessments We're
levied unconstitutional The way IN wnlch
the City Surveyor made this and all simi-
lar assessments which the law authorized
him to make, was by taking the total
number Of front feet on the street where re
on the Improvement was made ana dl-
viding the total amount of the costs,
damages and expenses thereby
The decision of the Court was that an
ture was void because the assessments
were arbitrary and made without refer
ence to the peculiar or special beneht
derived by reason of the Improvement;
and that the law of the State of New
Jersey required that the assessments
shouu be limited to the aotn amount dervaa or tne
and that any further or other sum
should be paid for by the. city at large. :,
The law was immediately changed and 5a
assessments were authorized to be made.
by Commissioners appointed by the elT,
cult Court. In, many instances lhe old
assessments, with, the arrears Oh lntefes. et,,.
and COSTS were larger in amount than
the value of the property and IN these
cases the. property owners alloWed ,tne
lien to stand, in fact, abandoned thelr
nronerties and no longer PAID the annual
ffaxes which were levied on them. In
Consequence the city became the nominal
owner Of a mass of tax and assessment
liens for which no purchaser could De
found and which every year served
70 ra,,5er the taxes assessed on the prop
epties ep ssis Of the owners of real estate who
paid their taxes heavier for the e. reason ssn =,
| that they were compelled to make up IN
their next tax levy the deficit created by
the tfle'l non-payment oas of the taxes levied on
these lands, which had been abandoned
by their owners and on which n the f1,,, city y
HIS state Of affairs, the Legislature
passed the law known as the Martin
| act :"