The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-06-05
|ST0KESLAW Good.
That Is Unless the Court Of
Appeals Decides Other
wise.
Yesterdays PROCEEDINGS
Judgment By Consent So AS
to Get a Speedy Final
Decision.
[special 70 "The Jersey citx News. ri

j
| TRENTON, June 5, 1901.-The cases
brought by citizens of Jersey City to test
the constitutionality of the Stokes edu-
cational law and the new excise act were
heard by Branch 2 Of the Supreme Court
here yesterday afternoon, and resulted in
| the court declaring both acts constitu-
tional and in full force. This decision was
merely pro forma, however, and made
with the consent of all parties to the suits
for the purpose of having the matter go
to the Court of Errors and Appeals and
be disposed of at once The court of last
| resort meets on June is, and the counsel
in the cases hope to have the cases argued
in three weeks from today 1t will then
| remain with the court to settle the matter
finally.
The Judges who sat in the Branch Court
yesterday were Mr. Justice Gummere and
Mr.. Justice Hendrickson. Attorney Gen.
eral Grey, at the request of the State
Board of Education, was present when
the Stokes act was under consideration
and City Attorney John WahI Queen and
Walter McDermott appeared for those
VINO attacked the act. In the excise case
Mr. James B. Vredenburgh appeared to
sustain the act. He was present at coun-
sci for Samuel D. Dickinson 1t will be
remembered that the Republicans feared
that the act would not be properly de-
tended under the then existing arrange
ment and applied to Justice Collins to
have the Colonel admitted as one of the
prosecutors. Justice Collins granted the
application on condition that the case
should be brought on for hearing accord
ing to any stipulation then existing be-
tween the parties. The stipulation then
existing was that the pro forma Judgment
sheuldbe taken as was DONE
When the court was ready to take up
the cases, the Attorney General arose and
said that he was there at the request of
the State Board of Education and had
had such short notice of the matter that
ne had not had time to familiarize himself
with the cases. Mr.. Queen, he said, was
prepared and would present the matters
to the court. Mr.. Queen then took up one
of the cases to test the constitutionality
Of the Stokes act. The suit, he said, was
brought by William A. Lewis and John
III. Ward for a mandamus to compel the
Board of Education of Jersey City to ap-
point two of their number Board of
Estimate. as provided by the law There
was no opposition to the application and
the court ordered that a writ of man
damus should issue in accordance with
the prayer of the applicants. Mr. Queen
then entered a demurrer to the order
which the court promptly overruled, and
Mr.. Queen took out a writ of error which
removes the case to the Court of Errors
and Appeals.
The other attack upon the Stokes law
was brought up on a writ of certiorari
to have the court review the resolutions
of the Jersey City Board of Education
pertaining to the erection of a new build
ing for Public School No. 2S. All the reso-
lutions affected by the writ are unlawful
and void under the Stokes act and the
court was asked to set them aside for
that reason. The court declared the reso-
lutions all void and of no effect, which
makes the Stokes law constitutional. Mr.
Queen at once took the case up to the
Court of Errors and Appeals by writ
of error
The suit to have declared constitutional
the excise act was brought before the
court by writ of certiorari obtained by
Patrick McArdle to have set aside reso-
luton of the Jersey City Board of Alder
men which provides for the granting of
licenses contrary to the provisions of the
act. According to the agreed plan the
Court declared the act constitutional by
setting aside the resolution. The case was
Immediately transferred to the Court of
Errors and Appeals by a writ of error
granted on Mr.. Queens application The
writs of error act as stays until the Court
finally s-isposes of the matter.