The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1908-06-16
THE SEWER
JUDGMENT
IcoNT1NUED FROM FIRST PAGE.

mould the act as TO give relief in every
case and adapt it 10 the wants OF every
political district OF The class, SO that
il will in fact and 10 effect be geu-
eraI law The same reasoning is
applicable to incorporated towns.
The well known density of popula-
fion In this state naturally suggests
that an effective act for the sewerage
OF Incorporated towns Of which all
NAV avail themselves. you'd be so
drawn as to authorize sewers or dis
nosal works outside OF the municl-
Dality. The case is not distinguished
by the fact that it may be necessary
that sewers have an outlet on tide
water, while there is no such neces-
sity that sewage disposal works be
erected outside the municipality. The
necessity may be as great in Que case
as in he OF her. Even il there is not
a strict necessity that disposal works
should be located outside the munici-
pality, it is so maDifesrly desirable
that such works should be located
away from the densely populated
centres that the title of the act would
naturally suggest the possibility.
The argument that the act at
Tempts to vest in Morrlstown iegisla-
rive or police powers TO he exercised
within the political limits OF Hanover
township ignores the fact that the
police power is vested III the stale
and not 10 the municipalities, which
are but subordinate agents OF the
state, and subject TO its coutrol. 10
the exercise OF the police power OF
the state, the legislature may au-
fborize one municipality TO invade
the territory OF another for the pur-
pose OF constructing sewers for SAM
t0ry purposes. and the state does not
thereby surTenderits right to protect
the public health by subsequent
enactment, regulating and controll-
ing the mode OF construction and
manner of nse. sMIlIburn v. South
Orange, 20 Vroomt 254, at page 262.
In Chicago Packing Co. v. Chicago.
98 Illinois, 221, the court SUSTAINED
the right oil Chicago 10 exercise the
police power to control works in the
Township OF Lake. which were in
curious 10 residents Of Chicago. The
case OF Van Cleye v. Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners, ~ Vroom,
514, contains nojsintimation 10 the
contrary. The Court OF Errors and
Appeals in that case expressly sus-
tanned the authority OF the Legislature
TO create a sewerage district out OF
parts ofseveral municipalities. Wnen
II is added that a different question
would be presented If the statute
concerned itself with the internal
sewerage of any OF the municipalities
and substituted an alien commission
to carry IT'S requirements into effect,
ii did not mean hat the territoria,
bounds Of Il municipality constituted
a linsit to lis management and dis
posal OF lis own sewage. Such con-
struction would work havoc with
some, and doubtless with many of the
MUNICIPAL sewerage systems of the
state. la Bloomfield v. Glen Ridge,
10 Dick. 500, the court OF Errors and
Appeals held that the entire sewer
system was the property of Bloom
field although part OF it was within
the territory of Glen Ridge, and that
the right 10 control, regulate and
maintain the sewers was vested ex-
clusively in Bloomfield, and that All
ordinance OF Glen Ridge asserting
a right to control and regulate the
sewers within its territory, and per
nits bv Glen Ridge to make connec-
fions, were subject TO be set aside on
ertiorarl. One of the reasons which
moved Inc court 10 that result was
that the sewer system was an entirety
and could not be advantageouSly
controlled and devoted TO its intend
ed use unless under one management.
The same reason is applicable to a
disposal works which Is necessary for
The proper and efficient management
OF system of sewerage. What gov.
eTDmental control the Township OF
Hanover may still retain over the
territory 10 be occupied by the dis
posal works, is a question not now
before US
Passing from the question of the
validity OF the statute TO its effect,
the most serions objection urged
against the present proceedings is
that the consent OF the Township OF
Hanover to the erection OF the dis
posal plant has never been obtained.
That objection is open in the present
case as we'll as III the pending suit by
the Township of Hanover as pros
ecutor, since the present prosecutors
ARE taxpayers and entitled to chal-
lenge the expenditure of public
money in building disposal works, II
the works can not legally avail the
Town of Morristown.
1t is not suggested that the consent
of Hanover is made necessary by the
ac: OF 1909. The argument is that II
is required by prior or subsequent
legislation, evincing legislative
policy. -Four acts are relied npon: ~
al act OF April 8, 1899. (P. l.. 1892,
$50; (2) an act OF .Juue 10, 1895, Up. l..
1895. S22); (3) section SO OF the general
township acC OF 1899, Up. l. $780, 1917;
a. an act OF October 80, 1907 Up. l..
1907, 707).
An acl OF 1892 is entitled IAN act to.
allow towns. villages or other muucl-
pal corporations to acquire and use
lands or real estate in an adjoining
township or othermunicipal corpora
aion for use for The construction of a
sewage receptacle or sewage disposal
works" An attempt was made to re-
peal this act by an act concerning
townships (Revslon OF 1899) p l..
1899, 372 1t may be doubtful wheth-
er AN act which both by its title and
ITS provisions applies TO towns, vii
lages, and other municipal corpora
lions can under the constitutional
provisions be repealed by an act
whicli by IT'S title relates only to
townships, but 1t Is unnecessary to
dwell upon this question for q reason
presently stated.
Tue act Of 1895 IS entitled IAN act
TO regulate the location Ct pest houses,
crelnatories and other obiectional
structures Its scope is limited by
this title. In one sense = sewage dis
posal works may be called a structure,
although the use OF the word to IN
clnde disposal plant seems little
strained, but another consideration