The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-03-22
PLANK ROAD CASE
Attorney General Yesterday
Heard Arguments on
Both Sides.

Especial to TT Jersey City News.']
TRENTON. March %, 1-Ss9.-Samuei
Kalisch and Henry Young, ON behalf of
the citizens of Essex County, and
County Counsel Joseph T.. Mum appear
ed before Acknowledgement Grey yester-
day and made application for information
in the nature of quo warranto to ascer-
tain by what right the Newark Plank
Read Company now claims to exercise
its franchise. The company was in
corporated February q, 1S49, by a special
act of the Legislature, and was to con-
tinue in existence for a period of fifty
years. It's charter, under the law, has
expired, and the company contends that
by an act of the Legislature, passed
April 8, 1889, its period of existence was
continued for a further period of fifty
years.
Mr.. Young, in his argument, commended
that the act of 1889 is unconstitutional, be-
cause the title deals with companies en-
powered only to construct horse railroads,
and has nothing whatever to do with
turnpike companies of the maintenance
of plank roads. The intention of the
Legislature, he said, was to deal only
with horse railroads..
Mr.. Kalfsch said that eve if the COM
pany charter was extended by the act of
1889, it could not stand, as the act itself
was unconstitutional. There is nothing on
the statute books, Mr.. Kalisch said,
which gives the company life or con-
tinues its charter. In the use of the
company's road hundreds of merchants,
Mr.. Kalisch said, are compelled to pay
large sums in tolls. One manufacturer
pays $100 a week, and there are others
paying s75 and $50 weekly. The continu-
ance of the charter was in restraint of
trade. The toll road, he said, is a relic
of times when sparsely settled districts
a to look out for their own roads.
Mr.. Mum said tina the county was in
terested inasmuch as il the company's
charter no longer existed, the care of the
bridges over the Hackensack and Pas
sale rivers falls upon the county. If it
is the ~county's duty to take care of the
bridges, the. officials should know it. The
matter should be tested, and he hoped the
writ. would be allowed, in order that the
question should be set at rest.
After a recess, Mr.. Griffin, attorney of
the Board Of Freeholders of Hudson
County, appeared against the application.
He said the Freeholders had built a
bridge over the Passaic connecting Hud-
son and Essex. If the quo warranto pro-
ceedings were successful, the result would
be throw all the burden on Hudson Coun-
ty and none on Essex for maintaining
this road and bridge. Hudson's share in
making this road was $40, 600.
If the charter were annulled the county,
the State or some party would have to
maintain this read, and the burden would
probably fall on the county. He claimed
that in constructing a road from Hudson
to Essex the ~Freeholders had done all
tha should be required of them. The pro-
ceedings. he continued. are brought mere
ly by persons who did not wish to pay
toll, and the State should not lend its
name to an action that is private and not
for the general welfare of the State.
James B .Vredenburgh appeared for the
Plank Road Company. He said the entire
question rested with the Attorney General
who, in this case, is the State. He held
that the action demanded by the Essex
men would certainly not be a proceeding
calculated to benefit the State. The sub
ject of tolls was a matter foreign to the
real question involved.
R. V. Lindabury also spoke for the
Plank Road Company.