Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-02-05

Councli or the Board OF fFeenoiuerS, VI
maybe both, at the next meeting OF
these two bodies. 1t was section 81
that broke the csmel's back, so to
speak.
1t reads: ANY municipality of this
State may adopt the provisions of this
act. by an ordinance duly adopted by
the governing body of such muni-
cipality. or by the petition and vote
of the qualified voters of such mu-
%nicipality, as hereinafter provided"
In declaring tha section unconsti-
tutional the court laid down this gen
eral proposition:
"A statute in the nature Of a supple
mental charter that il enacted to take
effect upon its adoption by the govern
ing body of a municipality Is not a con-
stitutionally enacted law"
As the annexation of Nailsburg TO
Newark was contaminated by vote oil
the Common Council, and not by the
people of Newark, it would appear that
the principle established by the court
Will have a widespread effect, and may
u serious complications. 1t may
be construed to apply to many cases
besides that of Vailsburg.
The decision of the court is princi-
pally interesting because it affects the
officials and employees who are in what
mas been called the protected class IN
Newark, Jersey City, Bayonne, East
Orange, Railway, South Orange Village
and New Brunswick, which haVe
adopted the law by ordinance, n in
the single county of Essex. The men
in the protected class in most of the
places mentioned are of the same po-
Iitical faith as that of the present gov
erning bodies.
500 OfHce-HoIders Here.
In Newark and Essex County there
are some 800 Democratic ~office-holders,
NlSl lie the Common Council of this city
and the County Board of Freeholders
are Republican. Seven of the Republi-
can aldermen, however, are opposed to
any wholesale cleaning out of the City
Hall. and. with the Democratic min
GRITTY, they constitute enough to con-
troll the Council. In the Board of Free
holders there is a strong sentiment
ngainst any clean political sweep, so
tina there is no prospect of any i'm
mediate changes in incumbency of
places.
When the police and flremen are
taken into consideration, the number
affected In Newark should be placed Mt
about 1900, but it Is hardly to be be-
lieved that there will be any attempt
to undo any of the civil service work
in those departments. AS a matter of
fact. the old Doremus civil service law,
which provides for a city Civil Service
Commission, to be appointed when
needed, to conduct examinations for
fire and police eligible lists, is to be
construed as in effect here once more,
now that the Alderman laws provl-
sions are not.
The present eligible lists for these
departments furnished by the State
Civil Service Commission may, if the
Fire and Police Commissions so desire,
be thrown out and entirely ~disregarded.
Chief Examiner Gardner Colby of the
Civil Service Commission announced
last night that all municipal examine
lions scheduled by him would be called
Off at once. One had been arranged to
take place here On Monday.
The opinion written by Supreme Court
Justice Garrison holding that the law
In part is unconstitutional, gives some
interesting citations. In part it reads.
The Supreme Court. decision in DE
Hart versus Atlantic City GA Vroom,
age 2s3) runs direct counter to the
fundamental doctrine of Paterson ver-
sus Tho Society. which may be sum-
Married to be that the legislative will
may be imposed as law upon muAici-
paiities, but If any other will is to in
tervene between the Legislature and
such municipalities 1t must be the will
OF the people who are to be governed
by such law and not an alien will. even
though 1t be that of the governing
body for the time being Of the munich
pality. That this is the logical result
of the doctrine that we lave adopted
has been sufficiently pointed out, and
1t must be equally clear that such
doctrine is effectually %subverted If
some other will than that either of the
Legislature or of the people can be
called in to take out a constitutional
enactment of the lay
Paterson versus The Society called
Tor the application of this doctrine only
tt the extent that a municipal charter
enacted to take effect upon it's accept
arce by the electors of a municipality
was a constitutioually enacted law; the
case now before us calls for the APP
plication of the same doctrine to the
extent that Il supplemental charter, ,
enacted to take effect upon its adoption
by the law-making body of munich
pality, is not constitutionally enacted
law.
n case calling for this application
of the doctrine OF Paterson versus The
Society has hitherto come to this court.
with the exception of De Hart versus
Atlantic City. in which the point was
not considered or. at least. was not
decided. /
In the decision of the present case.
therefore, I am of the opinion that the
decision of this point in De Hart versus
Atlantic City. in the Supreme Court,
should be overruled and the true doc
trine applicable to the case before us
declared to be as herein stated. From
this 1t results that u statute in the
nature of a supplemental charter that
is enacted to take effect upon its
adoption by the governing body of a
municipality is not constitutionally
enacted law.
This result leads, in the present
case, not to the invalidation of the