Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-01-29
LAW HOLDS UP
SEWER DRAIN
Irvington Council Finds Notices
of Hearings Were Not Ad-
verified Properly.

| Because notices of the hearing on
the big south side storm sewer in
Irvington were not posted according
to law, the Town Council unani-
mously decided last night to refuse
the petition Of property owners in or
der to prevent any legal complica-
lions which might follow it's accept
ance. This action was taken on the
advice of Town Attorney w. Eugene
Turton. Another petition will be pre-
sented next Wednesday, night.
The error was only brought to light
after a two-hour discussion and was
put forth as trump card by VIII G.
i Headley, counsel for a number OF
property owners objecting 10 the
sewers construction. Three petitions
bearing the signatures Of 129 object
ors were presented.
| The petitions set forth fifteen rea-
sons why the drain should not be con-
structed 1t was commended that the
council was not authorized under the
! law to undertake the work, that the
cost would be too excessive, that
/ Newark, though benefited, does not
| intend to contribute to the cost, that
the sewer would abolish a living
J stream, that the property cannot
legally be assessed, that the proceed
ings do not conform with the act
appertaining and that the present
! stream, If cleaned out, is ample to
care for the storm water.
Among the signers were: Former
Mayor William l.. Glorieux, Nathaniel
! Drake, Mahlon s. Drake, A. J. States
Company, Ernest Boerger, Stone-Post
Company Joseph T. Castles, Gustav
A. Kruttschnitt, Mrs. Elizabeth Oh
lenar and Alfred Sykes.
This is the same old story of the
rich against the poor" exclaimed A
bert Stehle, of Brokside avenue. You
can never kill this proposition. We
will keep you mighty busy with petit
water from the east end sewer down
upon us and 1t Is unfair to refuse
US help now. hope you members Of
the Council have manhood enough to
put this through"
Several other citizens emphasized
the need of relief from inundation,
declaring If the DIRECTORS lived in
the affected territory they would
favor 1t. The Council chamber was
| packed, but no one of the audience
spoke against the drain.
Councilman Leonard Setaro de-
clared he would block the sewer I'M
til he Is sure that no legal obstacles
are involved. At the same time he
recognized the need of speedy relief
/ for those affected. Mr.. Setaro read
q legal opinion from Attorney Turton
to the effect that an assessment could
be levied on the property benefited in
/ spite of the fact that q previous as
sessment was levied when Skinkle
brook became the drainage medium of
the territory.
Councilman Sharp took g. firm
stand against the sewer. contending
that the present brook is adequate
If cleaned out and in any event the
cost of the sewer should be ascer-
tanned. Regarding the cost. Tax As
SCISSOR G. William Pfeil pointed out
that there are 1900 lots in the affected
area and IL the cost Is placed at
the high figure of 5000. 900. each lot
would be assessed less than $50
Councilman Michael A. Dougher
declared some OF the signed directors
were not opposed to the sewer, but
only wanted to know the cost He
urged that bids be advertised for to
determine the same
Finally the council voted to re-
ceive the petition and have an ordi-
nance drawn. At this point, MIR.
Headley asked on what date notices
January 49," was the answer.
Then I submit your action is
illegal. because the law requires that
ten days intervene between the post
ing of the notices and the holding of
the hearing. Today is only the 2Sth.
Only nine days have elapsed"
The council then rescinded its for
mer action and ordered another hear
ing for February IL. Later In the
evening. on Mr.. Turton's advice, the
council again rescinded its action and
refused the petition by unanimous
vote with the understanding that an
other petition will come In next week