The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-06-16
CRIFFIN'S BRIEF
Freeholders' Contention in
the Quo Warrant Suit
Brought by Renner.
ACTOF 1900 UPHELD
Judgment of Custer Would
Leave County Without
Any Government

County Counsel John Griffin has sub
mitted his brief to the Supreme Court IN
the application for writ of quo war
ranto against Director Michael u.
Holmes and the Board of Chosen Free
holders brought by Samuel q. Renner,
of North Hudson. Mr. Renner's suit, IN
word, is to test the eonstitutionallty OIL
the act of 1900, under which the present
Board was elected. Mr.. Renner thinks
they have no business there, and ne
wants the Supreme Court to agree with
him and turn them out. The present
Board doesn't agree with Mr.. Renner,
and through their counsel, Mr.. Griffin,
they are fighting to retain their seats
Mr.. Griffin points out in the main, af-
ter an able analysis of the legal points
raised by Renner's counsel, that no good
could come, even if the act were uncon-
stitutional, of ousting the present Board:
The people of Hudson County chose
them and were satisfied with the mem
bers and the system, and to turn them
out would tend to iRjure the County GOV
ernhaent and would serve no useful pur-
nose. The County. if the writ We're al
lowed would be without a government.
.The only point said Mr.. Griffin to-
day. discussing the case with News
representative, urged against the act ot
1900. under which the present Board was
elected. is that it limits the time within
which Counties may accept its proyis-
ions. and thus may create a diversity III
The government of the various Counties;
because in some of the Counties the
Boards might not submit the question OF
its acceptance to the people before the
time limited in the act expired and thefe-
after the right was gone.
Mr.. Griffin said that there were three
points to be considered in the case. First
Is the act unconstitutional!
Second. If the act is unconstitutional
are not the defendants entitled to hold
their seats as members from the several
wards. etc., in which they reside, under
the act of 1894, each having received
The highest number of votes for the office
in his ward. etc.
Third. If the act is unconstitutional
will the court in the exercise of its dis
erection grant leave to the relator tIsen-
ner) to hle the information?
Mr.. Renner's case hinges on the case
Of De Hart vs.. Atlantic City, 81 Vr. 223.
in which a similar act as the one in
question providing for a district court,
was declared unconstitutional. Refer
ring to that case Mr.. Griffin, in his ar
eunaent says
IF the act now before the Court was
limited in its operation to counties of the
first class under the De Hart case it
would clearly be unconstitutional, be-
cause by grewth other counties might
become counties of the first class and
could not accept the provisions of this
act. for the reason that the time limited
for its acceptance had passed. In this
case. however the act applies to every
county in the State; the same privilege
is extended to every county to accept it;
no privilege was conceded to one which
was not conceded to all. The law was
thus general and not special, and the
mere fact that some counties might ac-
eept and others might not. does not
make the act special. even though it ere
ates a diversity in government
But it may be said" continued Mr..
Griffin. ..that counties hereafter coming
into being cannot avail themselves of
this law. This is true. But is there any
likelihood of there being any more coun-
ties III the State of New Jersey? Will
the court hold that an act is unconstitu-
tional based OH the possibility that the
Legislature may at sometime create an
ether county to which the act cannot ap-
ply
Had the act in the De Hart case"
said Mr.. Griffin. provided that all
cities therein being Of 10000 inhabitants
or less, and all cities thereafter coming
into that class. should have the right,
within three months either after the pas
sage of the act, as to cities in being, or
after the census showing that such other
cities had come into the class, to vote to
accept the terms of the act, the court
might not have held the act unconstitu-
tional. This act is not within the evil
sought to be corrected by the constitu-
tioBaI amendment, and / submit the De
Hart case is not strictly in point
Mr.. Griffin clinches this point in his
brief by quoting the dictum of Mr.. JUS
tice Van Syckel in the case of Cleveland.
% yr. 18S wherein the court says
Zone Of the conspicuous evils at which
this constitutional amendment was aim
ed was.iD my judgment, this That prior
to the amendment few persons could 20
before the Legislature and secure the
passage of a special law to promote their
own purposes, which might be obnoxious
to the body of citizens. In such event
tie only remedy was By an appeal to a
subsequent Legislature, and that might
be too late to wholly repair the mischief.
such enaetnents are now forestalled BY
tIie fact that they cannot be made appli-
cable without being submitted to the an
proval Of tile entire body Of voters In
this way the people Of every city are left
free 10 select the mode IN which they will
regulnte and conduct their local affairs,
and it is this which impresses such legis-
Iafion with the character of general and
;lot special legislation
sfs. Griffin next proceeds to deal with
the possibility Of the act Of 1900 being