Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-11-17
LEAVES CITY
MINUS POWER TO
CLEAR SIDEWALKS
General Superintendent Says His
Hands Are Tied by Drastic
Ordinance.

General Superintendent of works
Shipman admitted today that so far
as enforcing the ordinance relative to
the obstruction of sidewalks Is con-
o,rned, he is absolutely 2owerless.
Complaints from all sections of the
city have been piling VI in his office
for weeks drawing attention to the
violations that are in evidence to the
most casual observer; but in every in
stance Mr.. Shipm~n has been obliged
to admit that his hands are tied, ant
he frankly acknowledges that he will
take no further action against the
violators until he is provided with an
ordinance that he can enforce without
incuring legal complications.
There have within the past year w o
ordinances introduced in the Board OF
Works regulating sidewalk obstruc-
tions, but the first was ruled against
by Judge MacLear, in the case OF
Sternberg VS.. the City of Newark. and
the second one, while passed on second
and third reading by the board, was
discovered at the last minute to be too
drastic and sweeping, and was referred
back to the law department for re-
vision.
Enforcement Brought Storm of Criticism
At the time the first ordinance went
into effect Mr.. Shipman began an
active campaign to clean up the city
streets, and brought down upon his
department the severest kind of criti-
cism from the firms and individuals
who were affected by the raids con-
ucted by the superintendent men.
T,,z~,. zefN~t t-na rpndA 20 cAa.,ra a
modification of the ordinance, out Mr..
Shipman insisted upon its enforcement
to the letter, with the result that street
stands and other distractions that had
been permitted to exist for years with
out molestation were either removed
by the owners or taken away by the
city. The work Of the department
went on with scarcely any check, until
the city seized some showcases belong
ing to Sternberg & Co., in Market
street. The firm brought suit against
the city in the First District Court for
damages and the court ruled in favor
of the plaintiff.
After this the city moved more eau
tiously, as the law department had ad-
vised Mr.. Shipman that the ordinance
was weak, according to the ruling of
Judge MacLear. Subsequent seizures
of the Sternberg showcases resulted in
suits against the city which have not
yet been decided, but the likelihood Is
that the result will be the same as in
the first case, as the seizures were
made under the same ordinance.
1t was at this point that the Board
of Works, at the request of Mr.. Ship
man, had a new ordinance drafted
that was intended to strengthen the
hands of the general superintendent
and enable him to ollow out his work
without legal interference. This new
ordinance was presented to the board
on Tune II and reads as follows:
The Second Ordinance.
An Ordinance: To prohibit the OBJ
struction of the public sidewalks of the
city Of Newark.
Be it ordained by the Board of Street
and Water Commissioners of the city
of Newark as follows:
Section THAT it shall be unlawful
for any person, firm or corporation to
place or cause, suffer or permit to be
placed upon a sidewalk Of any public
street or public ~thoroughfare of the
city of Newark any showcase or other
construction or device for the display
Of merchandise, or any boy, barrel, can,
package or thing whatsoever or any
sign or advertising device of any kind
within a height OF eight feet above the
sidewalk. or to display or cause, permit
or suffer TO be displayed upon or over
the sidewalk or upon. over, in or on any
areaway, railing or steps on any public
street or public ~thoroughfare any mer-
chandise for sale or as an advertisement;
VT L. A-IN
not be construed to prevent the rea-
sonable use of the sidewalk by the &C.
cupant of the building or part thereof,
for loading or unloading merchandise,
nor prevent any receptacle for garbage
and ashes being placed upon the side
walk when so used or placed, in accord
ance with the provisions of the city or
dinances. Any person, firm or corpora-
ton violating any of the provisions of
this ordinance shall, upon conviction,
forfeit and pay a penalty of twenty-five
dollars.
This ordinance appeared at first
glance to cover the ground fully, and
1t was rushed through the first two
readings without any misgivings. Be-
fore the measure came up for final pas
sage at the next meeting the board
iCdli1Ou TIA the OTulildHce was per-
haps too sweeping, and instead of be-
ing an Improvement upon the old ordi-
nance was in reality a much weaker
measur SO far as the ability of the
city to enforce 1t was concerned.
Useless 10 Try to Enforce Ordinance.
Since that time no substitute
Measure has been introduced n the
operations of the general superin-
tendent's office have been at a stand
still. The Board of Works. the legal
department and Mr.. Shipnan all agree
that it would be useless to try and
clean up the city's streets under the
existing ordinance. and Mr.. Shipman
says that he will not take any further
action because he would be liable to
suits brought against him personally.
and he doubts If the city would stand
back Of him In the event of such ac-
1 tfAn