The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1904-03-19

ton upon the right of the people to ac-
cept the benefits conferred by the act;
that this right could not be destroyed by
, the conduct of the local officers in refus-
ing or neglecting to perform the duties
imposed upon them at the time fixed by
the statute, but would continue until such
duties were actually performed.
These facts brought the Court to the
conclusion that, by the true construction
| of the act in question of accepting or re-
jecting its benefits was to be submitted
to the. people of those counties which
were then in, the class, the passage of the
act; and to the people of those counties
which should ensue next after the hap
pening of that event.
s'The principle underlying the dispos-
ition in the Park Commission case, as it
seems to us, is that, in ascertaining the
scope of an act of the Legislature regu-
lating the internal affairs of a municipal
ity, the fact that the steps provided for
carrying into effect the legislative scheme
are directed to be taken 'sat the next
election" is not of itself decisive of the
| legislative talent that the provisions of
the act should only be applicable to such.
N. Municipalities as should be in the class
at the election held next after the pass
age of the act; and that, when consid-
GRAFTON of the whole of the act, except
the provisions which designate the meth
cd of putting it into operation, leads to
| the conclusion that the statute was not
intended to be so limited, such provisions
do not justify different conclusion.
81 the present case however, the body
of the supplement, exclusive of sections
4 and does not justify the conclusion
that the great purpose of the act was to
provide change in the methods of sell
I CCb4nS iACulUclO Va tAC CtIS-CL anu w dtcI
Commissioners both in cities then in the
! first class, and in cities which should
thereafter come into that class. On the
contrary the fine object which appears in
| those portions of the statute, which pre-
! cede sections 4 and in the immediate
/ ousting from office of the various mem
bers of the Board of Street and Water
Commissioners in those cities. which
were in the class specified at the time
Of the passage of the act, namely Jersey
City and Newark, and to fill those offices
with other incumbents.
Section 4, instead of plainly enlarging
this subject on its face has the same linn
tied scope. Although containing words
similar to those continued in the Park
Commissioners case It provides a means
for carrying into effect statutory provis-
ions which are not general but limited in
their scope. No reason, therefore, APP
pears for giving those words in censfruc-
i tion different form, or more broad than,
the ordinary meaning And even if the
true meaning of the provision contained
in that section, when considered in con-
nection with what precedes it, is left in
doubt reference to the language used
in section 5 clears up that doubt In
that section the election referred to is
expressly declared to be that to be held
III the year 1885, and the ballots to be
cast at that particular election are the
only ones which by their form are adopt
ed to the filling out of the whole Board
with members having varying terms of
Office.
s'The provisions of the supplement Of
1894 being limited to those cities which
were in the first class at the time of the
passage of the act, and not being applic-
i able to those cities which might thereaf-
ter come into the class. must be declared
to be unconstitutional under the rule laid
down by the Court of Errors in the case
Of DE Hart vs.. Atlantic City.
I'VE have not overlooked the conten-
tion that the statute Of 1891. and the
supplement- Of 1894, are, in contemplation
of law, but one enactment and that, as