New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-08-26
IL-NIcLpAL NrLLIFLcATION.

The renewed refusal Of Atlantic City In obey
the laws of the state might be passed by as
merely local matter. at most as one with
which only the state of New Jersey was con-
cerned were it not that it directly suggests an
issue of universal application and interest The
circumstances of the situation are familiar TO
our readers Some of the hOtelkeepers and
many of the keepers of mere drinking places
have organized themselves into a mutual benefit
fraternity for the explicit purpose of violating.
ignoring and defyng the Sunday and excise
laws, and as result liquors are openly sold
there on Sunday, and the usual concomtants of
gambling and other still more offensive vices
flourish almost unrestTained.
Naturally. the first recourse for correction of
the evils would be TO the police. But the police
will do nothing. Next, the Mayor should be
applied TO. But the Mayor declines to do any
thing, and even refuses TO accept service of a
legal writ which is addressed to him by the
state government. Well. then, surely the grand
jury, that proverbial terror of evildoe1s. should
be depended upon to indict the lawbreakers. On
the contrary, it fatty refuses TO do so, no mat
ter how clear and convincing may be the evil
dence which is presented 10 it, and when re-
minded that the law makes ii it's duty TO act it
replies, I'VE are above the law somewhat as
one John Y McKane, Of unfragrant memory,
once declared, 'Injunctions don't go here.
There is thus not perhaps a conspiracy. hut at
least complete cooperation. among the local
officials 10 nulify the law. the plea in tustifica-
ton being that the majority of people in
Atlantic City do not like the law and do not
want it to he enforced.
That is notification pure and simple, and it
raises. we have said, question of general
application and interest. If we should grant, for
the sake of aTgument-thOugh we do not by any
means concede II or believe il 10 he true-that
the majority of citizens of Atlantic City were
opposed 10 the law. or TO the enforcement of it.
would that imply that they had right to make
their will superior To that OF the whole state
which made the law? II So let us see 70 what
end that principle would logically lead us. Some
community on Barnegat Bay might not want
the fish and game laws enforced. and so would
ignore them. Guttenburg and Gloucester might
not want the laws against racetrack gambling
enforced. and would ignore them. The Borough
of Scrub Pines might disap
prove public instruction. and therefore refuse to
provide common schools Some other cCmmun-
ties might dislike the tax laws, and refuse TO
pay taxes; or might disapprOve the single vote
system. and insist upon the right of their cit-
Zens 10 cast half dozen ballots each at cleo
tons or indeed might nullify az will any pro-
vision of the statute books.
Obviously. that would he 10 destroy the eff
ficiency Of government and to make legislation
a mOckery. Obviously also. 10 say that certain
laws were to be singled out for such treatment
or that certain communities alone were 10 have
the privilege Of notification would be gross
partalty. quite repugnant 10 and intolerable
under a republican form Of government. The
issue, therefore. is really not merely whether
THE lid" shall be on off Mt one single coast
l,,. .1n.l, tall .t,nA
a precedent for the free local notification OF
general laws