The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1904-12-02

Sewerage Commissioners, not being a
.political division, . the power Of taxa
ton is unlawfully delegated to it.
II was not decided by the court that
the Legislature has no authority to COM
pei Paterson against its consent to incur
the cost of the sewer or that the act inn
pairs the obligation of contract and is,
therefore, invalid; that the court did not
hold thar the Legislature has no consti- !
tutional right to declare that the Pas
sale River and its tributaries are pollut-
ed, or that Paterson maintained sew
erage nuisance. And finally, that the
court did not decide that the. act # car
ried out, will deprive the plaintiffs OF
their property without due legal process
and will take their property for public
use without just compensation contrary
to the constitution of the United States.
Former Governor Griggs opened the
case, making an eloquent argument
against the constitutionality of the act
which he declared to be defective in va
rious particulars, an improper usurpation
of the powers of the Legislature and an
infringement of the vested rights of the
City of Paterson. He gave forceful ar
guments to substantiate each one of the
assignments of error.
Messrs. Riker and Lindabury followed
with arguments in favor of the law.
They first took up the question wheth-
er or not the act of April %, 1908, reg
ulates the internal affairs of towns.
They claimed that while the act affects
these municipalities in the sense that it
controls them in the disposition Of their
sewage and imposes taxes upon them or
their inhabitants for effecting the objects
of the act that this is not a regulation
of their internal affairs.
AS to the claim that the act is local or
special they claimed that the law is not
local or special in the sense in which that
term is used in the constitution. In sup
port of this contention they cited great
number ofscases.
As to whether or not the expense of
the Improvement can be imposed upon
the localities benefited, or must be borne
by the state at large, they held that there
were grave doubts. The ground for this
contention was that the act does not pre-
sent a scheme for the improvement of
private property, but for the restoration
and preservation of the public healh.
Concerning the claim whether or not
the legislature has the authority to com
pei the city of Paterson to incur against
its consent or without its consent the
cost of the trunk sewer and the mainte-
nance of the disposal works, or any part
thereof, provided for in the act, they
argued:
This authority is challenged by the
fifteenth assignment of error. There can
be no doubt that the subject dealt with
by the Legislature in this act is one that
concerns the State, the safeguarding of
the health of any community as one of
the highest duties of government, and no
Legislature can permit its local agents in
such community to decide for themselves,
and finally, whether they will perform
this duty or not, or to refuse, or to per-
nit their people to refuse to contribute
taxes for that purpose"
The other assignments of error We're
taken up specifically and each discussed
fully by the lawyers.
Mr.. Gourley made the last speech for
the plaintiffs, and closed the argument in
the case. He covered practically the
same ground as former Governor Griggs.
The court took the case under advise
ment and it will be considered at a CON
ference of the Justices to be held next
week. The decision will be announced
later.