Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-12-07
JUSTICE SWAYzE
MAKES ANSWER
REGARDING BOND
Jurist Goes Into Details Regard
ing the Hudson County Court
House Probe.
Especial to the Newark start

SWayZe today sent a reply TO the COM
munication to him from Judge Charles
L. Carrick and others. of Hudson coun-
ty, regarding the bonding of petitioners
in the matter of the Court House probe.
Justice Swayze says;
Supreme Court of New Jersey,
"765 High street, Newark, N. j.,
December 6. 1910.
Charles L. Carrick, Esq, and others
and petitioners:
Gentlemen am in receipt of yours
of December 5, and 1t is apparent to
me that you have misunderstood my
views. 1t was not my intention to re-
quire you to give a bond TO pay the
expenses Of the investigation, whatever
the result thereof might be. 1t is true
that the second section of the act of
1907 may be SO read as to require that
the bond shall be for the payment of
the costs Inc expenditures of the in
y~estigation, n perhaps this might be
held to mean that the petitioners
should pay the costs, regardless of the
result, and such is not my construction
of it. The more natural construction
is that he bond should be conditioned
for the payment of the costs in case
they ought not to be imposed upon the
corporation under investigation. pur-
a to the first section. Such has
been the practical construction which
[ have placed upon it. In the West
New York investigation, in which the
petitioners gave bon but were never
called upo to pay anything, the ex-
penses in that case were ordered to be
paid by the municipality, pursuant to
the first section.
my construction and practise gives
effect to both the first and second Sec
tons, and as 1 said on Saturday in
open court, I think the intent of the
Legislature was that in a contested
case a bond should be required. 1 ex-
pressed on Saturday my idea that the
petitioners were actuated by proper
motives and by public spirit in their
request for this investigation, but the
matter assumed the character of q
controversy between the court house
commissioners n the petitioners, and
the questions raised involved more than
the mere exercise of my discretion, for
they involved the questions whether
the petitioners showed that moneys
had been unlawfully expended Ono cor
ruption being alleged), whether the act
was applicable to an investigation of
the expenditures of the court house
commission alone, n whether the
county of Hudson was the corporation
whose expenditures were to be investi-
gated. The result of that investigation
might justify the imposition of the ex-
penses upon the county of Hudson, but
it might not, and even If the result
should Justify that course it might be
finally held that the county of Hudson
was not liable. Under these circum-
stances I think the petitioners, as an
evidence of their good faith, ought to
be willing to enter into a reasonable
bond in order that there might be no
doubt that h expenses necessarily in
CURED would be paid by some one, and
l am very glad to know that the petit
toners are willing to assume this bur-
den if they have reason to believe that
the investigation will be searching,
expeditions and reasonably economical.
Il should approve a bond conditioned
for the payment of the costs and ex-
penses in case it should be illegal or
improper to impose those costs upon
the county. It is possible that the
amount which l stated was excessive.
l was thinking at the time of the
dIlOuHL VI Tile DOIQ L ndu required at
West New York. 81, 900, which, as the
result proved, would have been made
quate If the case had not been a proper
one to require the expenses to be paid
by the municipality. 1 am, of course,
quite willing to hear any suggestions
that may be made with reference to
the amount, and also willing to near
any suggestions that may be made as
m tho nEnnnr form ne condition ~ he
inserted in the bond, in view of my
construction of the statute. / assure
you that ! have the highest apprecia-
ton of the character and public spirit
of the petitioners, and at the hearing
1 announced my decision that there
should be an investigation. The statute
in providing that the justice of the
Supreme Court may himself make the
investigation makes it manifest that
h investigation is a judicial one and
must be so conducted.
There can, therefore, be no assump-
ton in advance as to whether the ex-
pendituTes investigated are unlawful or
not. My decision that the investigation
be had simply adjudicated that a
prima facie case was made out justify
ing such an investigation. The judicial
nature of the investigation has an i'm
portant bearing in determining by
whom it should be conducted, and was
in my mind at the time of my decision
as to who should conduct the investiga-
tion. Such an investigation should be
searching, expeditions and reasonably
economical, and in my suggestion I
had all this in view. an entirely
willing to appoint a maj 8residing in
Hudson county on any Other part Of
the State, if the parties Interested can
agree, and to hear the parties further
on the subject, in the event that no
such agreement can be reached The
suggestion I made was based upon the
large experience and eminent place the
gentleman suggested had held inqthe,
judicial system ofethis State, IN my
previous experienre ins making Such
appointments + have invariably APP
pointed someone not a resident Of the
corporation to be investigated, Believing
that more satisfactory results can be
arrived at where the commissioner is
removed from any possibility of inter
est in the subject he is appointed to
investigate.
"Soon after ! received your letter
this morning / was called up by one
of the newspapers Of Hudson county
and informed that Won had given ont