The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-10-06

and substance rendered local and specia
/ by the provision limiting the power o1
counties to accept-sit as above set forth
In support of this contention the de-
cisions in De Hart VS.. Atlantic City, 34
Vroom 223; Christie VS.. Bayonne, 81
Vroom 1911, and Ross vs.. Passaic City,
35 yroom 4SS, are cited. In these de-
cisions, as well as In several others
| pearson vs.. O'Connor, 25 yroom 80
| Stahl VS.. Trenton, % Vroom All Ben.
nett VS.. Trenton, 26 Vroom 72;) the
statutes were: condemned because the
| classification attempted by the Legisla.
| ture was defeated by limitation in time
| that excluded from the operation of the
laws individuals which possessed or in
the natural course of events would pos
| sess, all the substantial elements Of a
constitutional classification.
In reply to this contention the defend
ants urge that no such ground of invalid
| ity can be found in the present statute,
because all existing Counties have the
same right of acceptance, and the court
cannot assume that any other County
will ever be created; and hence all Coun-
ties that now do, or within judicial con
temptation ever will, exist, are placed On
the same footing. To this discriminating
argument is added a reference TO the
case, In re Cleveland, % Vroom 1SS,
where the court expressly held that the
limiting clause did not invalidate the
statute, and also to the cases,
Essex Freeholders VS.. Essex Park
Commission, 33 Vroom 376, and
Rimbach VS.. Essex Park Commission,
S3 Vroom 494, where statutes containing
a limiting clause were sustained without
noticing the limitation.
The statutes under consideration in
the cases thus referred to have features
clearly Distinguishing them from that
now in hand. In Cleyeland's case the
statute {G. S. p. 729 Sec. 28) expressly
declared that if, for any reason, any sec
ton or provision of the act should be
held unconstitutional or invalid, the
same should not effect any other section
or provision, and the court, finding the
limitation in distinct clause, laid stress
on this saving enactment to sustain the
main purposes of the law. In the Park
Commission cases fhe statutes. (P. I4
| 1895. n. 169 See 20. p r, 1899. r. i'd
Sec. p required the proper officers. Of
every County containing population of
more than two hundred thousand, to sub
NIT the question Of accepting or reject
I ing the act to the legal voters of the
+ County, and the only limitation appear
i ing was that the submission should take
place at .the next election. In @constru-
ing these acts with aidue regard to the
purpose of the Legislature, courts would
not be likely to hold that the failure of
the County officers to submit the
question at the next election could
deprive the peopie. right
q accept tne dement's of the law,
ana henee Would pfopabiy deem the pro-
vision Ior SUBMISSION &C the next elec-
non directory only, designed to secure
prompt. SUBMISSION, nut not TO limit the
lignt q iag acceptance. APpiylng the same
noeraiitys OF construction ~ tfegcase OF
counties not then, possessing, but after
Wards acquiring the necessary population,
tne courts, rather than defeat the act
Tor want o1 due classification, would hold
that those counties also were entitled to
the right ct acceptance, and that it was
tne duty OF the offlclals to submit the
matter 70 the voters at the next cleo
tion after such counties had entered
the -deslgnated class.
we must therefore see whether the
terms of the present act will admit of
the construction that the limitation is not
SO inseparable from the other provisions,
as to lead to the conclusion that the eff
cheney of these provisions was intended
by the Legislature to depend upon COM
pliance with the limitation.
On this question the language Of the
act seems to compel negative answer.
1t is, ION and after the first Monday in
December. nineteen hundred, Boards Of
Chosen Freeholders shall consist of nine
| members and the act is to 'remain in
operative in any county unless and until
it has been submitted to the voters
thereof by the Board of Chosen Freehol-
ders of such county and shall have been
| accepted by such voters: the manner Of
such submission shall be as follows. The
Board Of Chosen Freeholders in any
county may ON or before the twantv.
eighth day Of March. nineteen hundred