The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-03-18
ABIG QUERY
Court Of Appeals Face to
Face With the Lentz-
Woolley Election
Law.
Mr.. KEEKER'S SWELLED HEAD
Kalisch of Newark Makes a
Strong Plea for Home Rule
Principles = Judges
Questions.
Mr.. KEEKER'S SWELLED HEAD

Especial to 1.-THE Jersey City News.'1
TRENTON, March Is, 1901.-There was
an array of leading lawyers in the Cham
Der of the Court of Errors and Appeals
this morning when the Court took up the
appeal from the decision of the. Supreme
Court sustaining the anti-spring election
bill. Samuel Kalisch of Newark, Edward
Nugent of Elizabeth and Henry B. Sny-
der of Camden, all except Mr.. Kalisch
city attorneys, were on hand to attack
the law, while Senator McCarter appeared
to uphold the measure. The spectators
seats were filled by men prominent in the
affairs of the State. Assemblyman Meek
er, who is prouder of his connection with
the bill than the old hen that Matched
out two duck eggs, was as near the bench
as the etiquette of the Court will allow.
In the back row were Senator Cross of
Elizabeth, who sat behind Alvah A. Clark
the recent Democratic nominee for United
States Senator. Major Carl Lentz who
claims the honorr of having forced the
bill through, was very much in evidence,
and Senator McCarter's wife, who had
journeyed to Trenton to hear her hus-
bands speech, took a peep interest in the
proceedings Every once in a while the
Kaiser would go over and whisper to
young Mr.. McCarter. Senator Reed came
in before Court opened and sat beside his
father-in-law, Mr.. Clark
The train which brought the judges to
Trenton was late, and when the judges
finally arrived they held a long confer
ence, so that it was 11.25 o'clock before
the court opened. All the members of the
court were present except Mr.. Kruger,
who is in Europe. The court spent an
other half hour in rendering decisions
and voting upon them. The great anti
spring election case was then called. 1t
was agreed that the decision should de-
pend upon the suit brought in Newark
and that only Mr.. Kalisch and Senator
McCarter would be heard.
Mr. Kalisch opened the case. He cited
the act and declared that it was uncon-
st:tutional.
l. Because it was a special law regulat-
ing the internal affairs of cities.
That the title of the act does not
express therein the true object of the act.
3. The act embraces more than one OBJ
5ect having no proper relation to each
other.
4. That it embraces provisions of a spec
ial and local character.
5. The act is also in controversion of
Article H.. par. l, of the amended con
stitution in that it deprives the voter in
cities of the right to vote for officers who
are elective by the people.
Proceeding Mr.. Kalisch said: ut cannot
be successfully denied that the law is one
regulating the internal affairs of cities in
this State. The case of Van Ripper v. Pat
erson decides that towns in the consti-
tuition embraces cities. This is the settled
construction adopted by the courts of the
State. The case of Hoos V. O'Donnell, in
volved the constitutionality of an act sim
liar in its provisions to the one under dis
cusson with the exception that it applied
only to cities of the first class. In that
case the court said: Being of opinion this
act is an act regulating the internal af-
fairs of cities based upon an insufficient
classification, and therefore in violation
of the constitutional prescription -
Mr.. Kalisch then read list of the pop
ulation of some of the so-called cities
which come under the provisions of the
act and the large townships which were
excluded. He said that Lavalette City
with q inhabitants and Brigantine with
81, were included while such townships
as West Hoboken and Rutherform with
many thousands, were excluded. From
this he argued that the classification was
insufficient and unconstitutional.
ut is conceded that the act in ques-
ton" Mr.. Kalisch went on arguing, that
the act violated the clause of the Con-
stitution providing the Legislature shall
not pass private, local or special laws . :
regulating the internal affairs of towns
and counties, applied to al cities in the
State. 1t is alco conceded that classi-
fication in statutes relating to the internal
affairs of cities or counties based upon
population, and where such classification
bears a reasonable relation to the sub
ject matter of the legislation does not
come within the constitutional prohibit
tion. s
''The contention g the part of the
plaintiff in error is that the classification
adopted by the act in controversy is
arbitrary and illusory. Testing the
validity Of the act on the basis whether
the classification Is arbitrary and illusary
by decision of the Supreme Court and
Court of Errors and Appeals on statutes
akin to the one now in controversy we
find an unbroken link of decision con-
demning such classification as illusory.
1T must be admitted that the principle
annunciated in Hoos VS.. O'Donnell and
Wanser VS.. Hoos, (the cases that grew
out of the Macarthur act) applies with
equal force to the act impugned in this
case 1t canont make the slightest diff
ference whether the act embraced two
len or twenty-five cities in this State. the
single fact remains that it does not en-
brace all the municipalities of the State
il excludes from its operation all towns
villages and boroughs and it includes In
the classification many cities which con-
tain less population than some of the
towns and villages excluded from the
operation Of the act. No apparent good
reason appears as can be given for max
ing this demarcation between cities and
towns and villages"
"Can the Legislature divide towns as a
class into a smaller class and pass legis-
Iation regulating elections that will apply
10 one class and not to another2" asked
Justice oummere.
Il contend it cannot, replied Mr.. Kal-
tsch when 1t becomes necessary anf
when Il is provided in their charter Tht
s1eeisiatufe may pass q general law tha'
ri<,s, III