Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1909-02-04
THAT SNEDESBORO n
< MEADOW DEAL.
Communicated

Communicated.
The article on the Meadow Deal
appearing in the last issue of the
| SWedesboro News written by a
gentleman with no personal knowl
edge of the deal, and yet bearing
prima facie evidence of capacity be-
yond that of the Mayor or any one of
his constituent signers-purports to
explain away questions placed before
| Council at meeting held January
| Goth last.
While appearing as an explanation,
| the article really is quibbling til
rade aimed at the taxpayers who OBJ
ject to the underhand and Illegal
manner in which the Meadow Deal
had been perpetuated- dust such a
TRADE, accompanied with inconsistent
and uncalled for epiteths,to which the
same taxpayers had been subjected
| from the first when inquiring gentle
manly for information As such it is
absolutely unworthy of consideration.
There are points in it, however, which
must be threshed out.
| The questions striking directly at
! the heart of the transaction are evad
ed carefully and with spectacular
attempt at sincerity. The admission
is made that the law passed April End,
| '0S was pushed through to cover the
deal in question; also that it was de-
cided to raise the money necessary
! for the purchase by taxation one year
/ before there was any authority to use
the borough funds for such purpose
inasmuch as the Act of Legislature
legalizing the transaction had not,
then, been passed. But no explana-
tion is offered as to why that law was
not followed after it had been passed.
/ And at this juncture, for the benefit
of the writer of the article and its
| signers, it might be we'll to inform
them that the aforementioned law
/ grants purchase privileges to bor-
oughs alone, and not to sboroughs,
cities and townships as they averred.
Neither were there ever any public
charges made as to the increased tax
rate resultant upon the purchase. The
e&tractl9E ct $500 from the borough
1 treasury, however, must eventually
bring about an increase.
Relative to the publicity of the
| transaction, it is true that the full de-
rectly and indirectly included in the
tails were known to the persons di-
| deal, but those details were scrupu-
| lously kept from the mass of tax-pay-
ers. Can one person concerned deny
that he cautioned another party to
keep his mouth shut and say moth
| ing?' Why did the Borough Col
| lector, long before the deal had been
| forced to publicity, say to a taxpayer
sHow did you become acquainted
with the Meadow Deal? That WASH t
supposed to be generally known -
and that in reply to remark made
by the taxpayer in question.
The foregoing, together with many
like instances, will dispose of the
above board assertion; and we
reach Councils claim to honest
procedure.
Any action which is Illegal is irrfe-
| triveably far-removed from being
honest Did Council act legally in
appropriating money for the expense
of purchase of right without
passing an ordinance or resolution
when the law pushed through to cover
| their performance distinctly md
specifically points out that any Ror-
ough Council shall have power by
resolution or ordinance 20 proyide
money by taxation for such purposes ?
Can such illegal procedure be dee ned
honest by any but perverted mind ?
Furthermore, is it honest for the
Mayor of the Borough or Borough
Councilman to sell anything to the
Borough for its use; for members of
the Board of Education to sell coal
| from their respective yards (even
though under the name of an en-
ployee or sony for consumption in the
Borough school houses, when the laws
of the State of New Jersey emphati-
cally declare such operation to be
criminal misdemeanor punishable by
| Imprisonment or fine, or both?
Continuing in the same strain, VAS
it honest for the Council to misrepre-
sent the facts regarding the ioint-note
transaction in their article? Isn't it
true that in 1907 they requested sub
scriptions from interested parties for
the purchase of the meadow lands,
receiving many promises upon The
strength of which they borrowed, in
a sense, the amount required on a
joint-note? Again isn't it true that
the popular subscription, then, failed
them leaving the signers of the joint
note to recover their money by fair
means or foul? And the means they
chose was an appropriation from the
Borough treasury, thereby placing
each Councilman whose name appears
on the joint-note in a precarious posi-
tion
Finally on this subject, was it hon
est or honorable for Council to IL
legally refuse to allow Council. nan
sharing the same Council chamber
privileges with his associates--to in
spect the books? 1t may be true that
the Mayor and Council were advised
to that course by the Borough Soli-
citor, but, if the Solicitor tenders ad-
vice SO far contrary to the law, his
office should be declared vacant
AS to the prominence which had
better have been termed notoriety"
and the representative" degree of
those concerned in the illegal deal,
would it not have been wiser to have
left that unsaid especially by the
prominent ones themselves? Isn't
it true that In all small municipalities
It is impossible (except in seldomly-