The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-09-21
upon no principle or terms of expedienoy

upon no principle OF l6TIuS Ol SAPSeA~ASJ
declared by the legislature"
The Justice used quotations from
Dowling v. The Lancashire Insurance
Company, 92 Wis. 6S to IA, and Field v.
Clark, 143 W. S. 692, in support of his
opinion, after adding 'The Legislature
established under the constitution has ex-
elusive power to enact the law
While there is room for difference of
opinion as to the effect of the enactment
which gave rise to the controversy in
the case, there is no departure from the
principle announced in the cases before
referred to, if we accept the construction
of the act of Congress adopted by the
Federal Court.
Cases in our own courts are hostile to
such legislation:-In re Ridgefield Park,
SUPRA Mundy VS.. Railway, IA W. 33S /;
Township of Bernards VS.. Allen, 3a W.
22S; Dexheimer VS.. Orange, 81, w. Ill.
No support for like legislation can be
found in Paul VS.. Gloucester, w. $50.
That decision rested upon two grounds
which are not present to support the act
now challenged.
First-That from the earliest times the
sale of intoxicating liquors has been dealt
with by legislation in an exceptional way,
not different in substance and effect from
that provided in that local option law.
Second-The right of the Legislature to
delegate the powers of local government
to the political subdivision of the State.
The act of 1901 is in own judg-
ment an attempt to delegate to the Gov
ernor the powers which by the mandate
of the Constitution must be exercised by
itself.
The enactment is also subject to other
objections which render it unconstitu-
tional:-
First-It is inimical to that provision
of the fundamental law which inhibits
private, local or special legislation.
The act by its title purports to apply
to all the cities of the State, but no city
can, by electing to do so, demand as
right the benefit of its provisions. All
that any city can do is to file a petition,
signed by one hundred voters. 1t is LETT
, wholly in the discretion of the Governor
whether the petition shall be favored. 1t
requires no argument to demonstrate that
while the Legislature itself could not con-
fer upon one city, to the exclusion OF
others the power to rearrange its wards,
this act, if validated, will provide ready
method by which the constitutional pro-
vision may be set at naught.
Second-This act is a return to the
regulation of municipal affairs by COM
missions, which called forth unusual con-
demnation throughout the State, and led
to the provision of the present Consti-
tuition prohibiting it.
If the Governor can legally exercise the
power committed to him in this case, then
the Legislature, while impotent to act
directly, may authorize the Governor, or
the Secretary of State, or A. B., at its
pleasure, to exercise his discretion,
whether he will appoint for any city, or
other municipality, commission to assess
and collect taxes or to determine what
local improvements shall be granted, or
what ordinances passed; in fact, by this
scheme the entire field of local govern
ment could be occupied by commission,
to the exclusion of it's self-government,
and the barrier which the people believed
they had securely erected against such
pernicious legislation would be swept
away.
The act of 1901 is unconstitutional and
void in our judgment, and the proceeding
taken under it shall be set aside, with
costs.