The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-07-16
AHEARN LAW HELD VOID.
JUDGE MADDox's DECISION BARS
HOST OF CLAIMS.


He Says That Its Scheme to Reimburse
Public OficiRls Who Have Been Tried
and Acquitted 10 At Variance with the
COMMUNICATIONS Not Dismayed.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel T. Maddox
OF Brooklyn Yesterday handed down decision
In the case OF A. La lrence Jensen holding that
the Ahearn law, which threatened to saddle on
the city suits involving S1.O00,0O0, instituted
by sx-ofllcials who have heen tried and 40
Quilted. is In violation OF the State Constitution
and therefore void. Jensen, who was chief.
clerk In the Comrtroller's office, In Brooklyn.
during Mayor Wurs.ers administration. was
Indicted for bribery and his trial q few months
ago resulted In an acquittal. Under the
Ahearn act, chapter 100 OF the laws OF 1890, he
applied to Justice Maddox for the appoint
ment OF referee to determine the amount OF
his claim against the city for ths expenses OF
his defence. Since Mr.. Jensen instituted the
proceedings similar claims by former officials,
agRregating about 100000. have been fled
In New York and Kings counties. Justice
Maddoxs decision. II upheld by the higher
courts will enfectually squeloh them. Assist
aut Corporation Counsel Luke b. Stapleton
represented the city In tho Jensen case and
Daily. Bell Crane the applicant.
Justice Maddox after recting the facts In
Visions OF the act. says:
The constitutionality OF this act having
been attacked. We are thus called upon TO de-
hrmine whether its enactment was q valid
exercise OF legislative power, or whether II Ia
violative OF some constitutional provi sion.
Every intendment 10 In its.favor. and to be held
to be In contraventlon OF the constitution 1t
must plainly be at war with the fundamental
law. People ex rel. Sinkler va. Terry 10S N.
Y. ~ The term person In the constitutional
provision for the protection OF life. liberty and
property relates 10 municipal corporations In
Their p5iy sai,c enpasiy no Am and Eng Enc
has the right, for the projection Of 1t. prop.
s sr IL Sys ,se!t 81 al The right and rene
{Iiaassr' d n, Z. S55; Wood. '. SUPERVISORS
hearing Or opportunty to Be heard aot aSs ths Is
not required or yet provided for by the act In
question: True, notice q this application has
zone under this act. but. however. what may
he done thereafter. and. consequently, q claim
his claim without giving notice 20 the city.
10 do 80 and theretpon to con- pel the issuance
Of revenue bonds for tne, payment ot such a
Of lis property without due proesss Of law e."
There 10 the constitutional Inhibition
or In aid Of an individual and also ngainat the
city mourning any inTdshtedne.s except fer city
PURPOSES !Artlcle Viii. section TO- Can 1t
claims allowed and sadiesd as sn pro ossf ios
the bonds are TO be issued In anticip patton OF
,he collection Of the taxes and the amount OF
the bonds is are included IN the tax levy.
2lo; The power to impose taxes, general or
local. which rests with the Legislature. 10
ton. and yet even this power cannot be said tn
pe aosoluto. On general principals 1t has at
to be raised must be required for some DUR,
pose that. IN some sense at least. can be said
to be public. The Legislature cannot author
As, also said in that case. so here the indi-
Claim s os shG ne
city. whore the money 10 10 be raised by tax
There IT,, so far as have been able tn find.
no judicial definition OF the phrase city pur-
noses, except as to certain specified purposes,
the mayor 4 tbe AssosSo9 . vs.
orally We think the purpose must he NECESSARY
for tho com mon good and general welfare OF
the people OF fhe municipality sanctioned by
It's citlZeps; public in character and authorized
by the Les islature; Can the purpose here to be
NECESSARY for the common good and general
y ertg 81 The taIpayeIs Of the Greater New
citizens OF this city? The only answer 10 both
questions, in my judgment, is No. and the real
nni ,p is seemingly plain and clear. to make
onicihl life and In the performance OF official
duty invited the attention OF Grand Jury OF
the vtcinaRe from time to time.
IN view OF the conclusions ! have reached.
as above EXPRESSED. the consideration OF the
other questions presented upon the argument
Is made unnecessary have Intentionally re-
Trained from considering the val idity OF tho
remainder OF the statute. that which applies
to the State. since that question was not before
me. and eXpress no Observation-Disclosures. The
court should never legislate to interpose the
barrier Of It's Judgment against the operation Of
laws which distinctly contravene constitu.
'Pey. .ex ROT Nechamons vs.. Warden. DO,
IA n. Y. 535. and sections l. 3 and 4 OF the
act In question being vio!atiye OF section o OF
the Constitution. the motion for the appoint
ment OF receiver 10 denied"
The news OF Justice Maddox's decision did
not discourage tho claimants who want rsin-
widow and daughter Of the late ex- Park Com
missioner Tappen nled claim for 81 900 for
the eXnen:es incurred by him while under In
tracts tracts without Advertising. Police INSPECTOR
Adam Gross put In claim for $7.7ti5. % for
expenses in defending himself while Cap
tain: Police CaItan George Smith wants
who were removed at consolidation and after
ward were reinttate BY the uourts ask for
about 5000 each for their expenses. The total
OF the claims filed Yesterday is S2a. 43s0l,
Acting Corporation Counsel Theodore Con
molly was In great hurry yesterday when q
reporter asked him what ch ian ce. ex- Alderman
Arthur Mc4uade had Of recovering S2s,OOO
trial az a mem her OF the Doodle Board OF 1894
The Ahearn law docs not provide for any
limit on the time Of claims.
Mfgane on has ns1 as ,n much chance Of re-
Mr.. Connols.