The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-02-24
PLANK ROAD FIGHT.
Supreme Court Hearing On
Act Extending It's Cor
porate Existence.
[speelal to .orhe Jersey cIty News.''1

Especial to 1.-THE Jersey City News."1
TRENTON. Feb "a, 19OO.-The Supreme
Court yesterday heard argument on the
demurrer to the plea in the proceedings
instituted by Attorney General Grey
against the Newark Plank Road Com
pany. The purpose of the proceedings.
which were on information in the form
of a quo warranto, was to ascertain by
what right the company continues to
exercise the rights conferred oy it's char
ter and to continue to collect tolls. Henry
Young and Samuel Kalish appeared in the
place of the Attorney General, and James
b. Vredenburgh and r. v. Lindabury for
the Plank Road Company.
Mr.. Young opened the argument. He
remarked that the prosecution is pub
lie one having for its object the recovery
to the State of franchises which the de-
fendant is alleged to have usurped. Mr..
Young gave a history of the legislation
affecting the company, which was incor-
porated by an act of February "a, 1&49.
This act was to be in operation for fifty
years, or until February "a. 1893. BY two
acts of February, 1852, and March, 1856,
the company was empowered to build
bridges across the Hackensack and Pas
sale rivers on the line of its road.
By another supplement of March, 1859,
it was enacted that the then Newark
Plank Road and Ferry Company should
thereafter be known as the Newark Plank
Road Company, and should be body
polite and corporate, possessing all the
powers and subject to all liabilities of the
original company. By a supplement of
March, 1866, the company was authorized
to construct horse railroad along the
line of road. In none of these supple
ments, Mr.. Young argued, was the cor
porate existence of the company extended
nor any reference made to it.
No other legislative act, he said, at
tempts to extend the companys corporate
existence, except an act of April 9, 1889,
on which the defendants rely. The COM
p1ainants, in the demurrer filed to this
plea, contend that the act of 1889 is un-
constitutional
Mr.. Young said the title of the act was
clearly defective and it would be diff
cult to refer to any legislative act more
conspicuously indicating a purpose to
impose upon the Legislature and the
people by concealing its real object The
act is entitled 'tAn act concerning COM
panies empowered to construct horse rail-
roads,
Mr.. Young said it would never be
supposed that the act applied to any
thing but horse railroad companies, and
certainly not to those whose primary OBJ
jects are to operate plank road and col
lect tolls.
Mr.. Lindabury, for the company, said
that the fight against it had been begun
by the Board of Trade of Newark and
the Board of Freeholders of Essex
County. At present, he claimed there are
only few private individuals fighting the
company, and these are not public Off
cials.
The first count in the Information, he
urged, is destructive, because, while
charging that the company has no cor
porate existence and is usurping the
powers and privileges of franchise, it
proceeds against it as though it were a
corporation in fact and in law.
He insisted that if it had no corporate
existence the present action against it
cannot lie, while, if it has, the proceed
ings are groundless, and should be dis
missed.
He contended that the act of 1889 is
not Special Legislation" within the
constitutional prohibition.
''If the defendants franchise to oper-
ate a turnpike and a street railroad are
lost, as claimed" he said in conclusion,
''then it holds its property free of any
public burden, and may do with it what
it will.
'If its franchise to exist is also lost
then its directors, acting as trustees, may
submit to the overruling power of the
stockholders, and the Court of Chancery
do the same thing"
Mr.. vredenburgh argued for the COM
pany and Mr.. Kalisch then closed the
case. The opinion will be rendered at the
June term of court.