The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-09-22
TO CHOP OFF
OUR HEAD
Allan 1. McDermott Wants
to Test the Street and
Water Infamy.
ACT CLEARLY INVALID
Would Make Chaos OF the
Coming Election and Is
observation-disclosures
Asked to Act.
ACT CLEARLY INVALID

1t is probable that an application will
soon be made to the Supreme Court for
the review Of the resolution adopted by
the Board of Finance last week, which
was signed by Mayor Pagan, submitting
the Single Headed Street and Water
Commission act TO the voters for their
acceptance or rejection. In an opinion
which Congressman Allan L. McDermott
has submitted to the Street and Water
Board he suggests that immediate steps
should be taken to obtain judicial de-
cision on the validity of the act 1t is
expected that the Congressman will be
authorized tomorrow to make an appli-
cation for writ of certiorari.
Mr.. McDermott believes that there
should be no delay in having the matter
determined by the courts, inasmuch as
the method provided for the acceptance
OF rejection of the act by the people at
the polls would cause many thousands
of ballots to be rejected as marked bal
lots On election day.
Mr.. McDermott's supplemental opinion
TO the Commissioners reads as follows
September 20, 1902.
ro +ha Honorable the Board of Street
and Water Commissioners
tsentlemen-Some time ago, at your
request | furnished to you an opinion
concerning the validity Of an enactment
of the Legislature of 1902, entitled An
Act providing for the appointment OF an
officer to be known as Street and wa
tc- Commissioner" in cities OF the hrst
class in this State, and defining its pow
ers anu duties" Ii the matter OF It's
provisions for submission TO the vote
of the people, the legislation is SO defec-
five that an attempt to vote upon It
would lead 10 results that would prob
ably render void thousands OF baiiots 10
be cast at the next election.
The defects of the act in this regard.
together with its apparent purpose TO
place the city treasury in the power OF
single individual, whose conduct would
he almost without statutory regulation,
seemed to me sufficient to prevent any at
ten1pt TO act under its provisions, and
therefore stated to you that it was un-
necessary to consider the question OF
whether the legislation was in conflict
with our State constitution.
If the act provided that it should not
90 into effect without the voted assent OF
majority of the people voting in Jersey
City next November, it would have the
merit of submission of the question to
the will of the majority, but it is SO
amazingly drawn that the same judicial
opinion that would uphold it would neces-
sarily declare that it could be adopted II
voted upon by a dozen citizens at that
election.
AS it has been determined to proceed
under tine act, l have given its provis-
ions further consideration and confirmed
my first impression that, irrespective of
the method provided for submission to a
vote. it is in direct violation of our State
Constitution, and absolutely void.
To allow the scheme to proceed until
the court is called upon to pass upon
the validity of ballots would, in my judg-
ment. be wrong, and it appears to be
your plain duty to at once take steps to
submit the validity of the act for judi
cial dexision. If you concur in this
view, l will, next Friday, make applica-
tion for a determination of the matter by
the Supreme Court.
Respectfully,
ALLAN L. McDERM0TT.