Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-01-28
DEADLOCK IN
FIGHT TO TAKE
DEMOCRATS JOBS
Essex and Hudson FreehOlders
Show No Signs of Settling
Row Over Bridgemen.

Essex freeholders today declared that
Il the Hudson county f~reeholders who
belong to the joint bridge committee
do not consent to the dismissal of the
eleven Democratic bridgemen a COM
plete deadlock will result and all the
important business of the committee
will be tied up. The Hudson freehold
ers at the joint meeting in Jersey
City yesterday afternoon fatty refused
to Gust the Democrats or to take n
action whatever until the Court of Err
rors and Appeals shall AVE decided the
civil service act.
Tile Essex freeholders wanted to APP
poirt these Republicans to take the
Jobs on February /: A. Hagel, Arthur
Malta, s.. Rotlovwis, Ferdinand Coyle,
Henry Youngheu, John Thompson.
Adam Kraushaar, Henry Dauth.
Joseph Smith, J. Fornicela, George
Aspere, John Jellett and julius
Bauer. The latter two We're to
be roadmen. The Essex ~freeholders
argued that County Counsel Mum had
rendered an opinion to the effect that
a clause in the civil service law read
that joint committees, where both
counties pay pro rata share OF the
salaries of employees, are not protected
by civil service. Director Ougheltree
o the same view
Freeholder McGorcTn Reads Opinion.
b~reeholder McGovern, of Hudson,
read IN opinion on the matter sub
mitted by County Counsel Griffin, of
Hudson, as follows:
1.-THE Boards of Chosen ~Freeholders
of Hudson and Essex Counties are
Jointly charged with the maintenance
of f~certain bridges oyer the Hacken-
sack and Passaic rivers The uniform
practise has been to permit Essex to
appoint one-ha]f of the employees on
those bridges and Hudson to appoint
b other half, which appointments
are c%oncurred in by both boards. Es-
sex County adopted the civil service
law. Hudson did not; the Freeholders
OF Essex now propose to remove their
appointeos on these bridges and APP
point persons in their stead. and ask
the concurrence of Hudson; no at
tempt is being made to remove the
a%ppointees of Hudson.
"On the foregoing state OF facts you
ask my opinion, whether Hudson
County may safely concur in the re-
u1oval of these employees and the ap-
pointment of their SUCCESSORS.
-The question depends ON the con-
attraction of the civil service act claws
of 1905. y. 1850. Before the adoption of
the civil service act by Essex, under
the arrangement between the two
boards, whereby each appointed from
Its county half of the employees OH
these bridges. 1t might be said to be
bad faith OF the part of Hudson If 1t
interfered with Essex In the aelection
of one-half Of these employees; but
since the passage of the said act ana
Its adoption by Essex. a situation is
presented which requires the Hudson
board to exercise care in concurrlng
In the dismissal of these employees
and the ratification of the appointment
Of their successors. lest it may be COM
PEELED to pay two sets of salaries.
1.-THE spirit of the civil service act Is
to protect employees in their positions
during good work n not TO permit
their removal for political reasons But
the act only applies to the employees
of counties adopting the act. Theo-
retically, and perhaps in a legal sense,
h persons on these bridges are en-
ployees of both counties, and may not
come within the provisions of the act
until Hudson adopts the law. From a
practical standpoint. however, apart
from any theory. the persons sought to
be removed are as much employees of
Essex as If the bridges were, entirely
within the body of Essex Gently.
THE present civil service ~. while
somewhat ambiguous. Is along the lines
Of broad remedial legislation, and I
have no doubt tho courts will interpret