Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-02-07
MARKET BOND
WRIT IS REFUSED
CONTINUED from First Page,


in December. Mr.. Armitage does not
pretend that he did not know of the
resolution to sell the bonds at private
sale. l am not much impressed with
the arguments advanced as to the
unconstitutionality of the law.
Referring to the fact that the
Federal Trust Company had entered
bid of 10150 for the 100000 issue of
bonds while they were sold to Adams
G. Co. at private sale for 100.25, the
! chief justice said:
IT do not know of any way the city
could compel the Federal Trust Com
pany to take the bonds at 101.50. II
the city of Newark had a valid con-
tract with the Federal Trust Com
pany, 1t could recover the amount
lost on the bonds at any time.
might say that If were interested in
the matter that I would say to the
Federal Trust Company. Fight the
case should 1t ever come to an is
sue"
The Federal Trust Company re-
fused to take the bonds when some
question had been raised as to their
validity by a New York law firm that
reported adversely on the constitu-
tionality of the act under which the
bonds were issued.
Continuing the chief Justice said:
"Mr. Armitage, as far as l can see,
a taxpayer. Is not hurt one penny by
the action of the council in selling
the bonds at private sale instead of
on the Federal Trust Company's bid.
Claims Sale Invalid.
Counsel for Mr.. Armitage claims
the sale to Adams & Co. was in
valid, as it was arranged by the city
comptroller and not by the full
finance committee of the Common
Council In my judgment a sale
made by the comptroller, even
against the Judgment of the finance
committee or over its protests, can be
executed by the Common Council
itself No mere committee is supe-
rior to the body that creates 1t.
Mr.. Armitage has waited until all
the proceedings in connection with
the sale of the bonds are closed. He
claims he did not know until jan
uary % whether the finance commit
tee had approved the action or not,
and thus was barred from proceeding
earlier.
"Thus we meet with the fact that
this is completed transaction. The
bonds have been sold and the money
paid for them. 1t is fair to assume
that the bonds have been distributed.
1t is the duty of Mr.. Armitage to
show that, by the allowance of this
writ, / would not be injuring inno-
cent parties, purchasers of the bonds,
more than 1 would Mr.. Armitage.
Mr.. Armitage's injury in this mat
ter is in the loss of S35, 900 income in
market receipts, which now go to the
sinking fund, and thus aid in redue-
ing the tax levy. With these bonds
issued this market income will go
toward the payment of interest on
the market bonds.
at would seem to me that the in
iurv Is so much less to him than to
innocent parties in this transaction
that the application for a writ is de-
MED"
Mr.. Fort in arguing for the issuance
of the writ attacked the consttu-
tionality of the law, claiming that 1t
amounted to class legislation in favor
of certain cities in that 1t referred
only to first-class cities. Mr.. Fort
stated that he could not understand
why the matter of public markets was
one In which only cities of the first
class were interested.
This brought a reply to this effect
from Chief Justice Gummere: In
large cities the ordinary method of
obtaining food supplies is not sufti-
cient. 1t is necessary that the civic
authorities take steps to provide for
the extra supply needed in commune
ties where the population is 100000 to
400, 000.''
Mr.. Fort also claimed that the &C
ton of the counsel In voting to sell
the bonds at private sale was taken
under 'Misapprehension and mis-
representation" in that at least two of
the members of the Council had since
stated they did not understand what
they were voting on which the reso-
luton was passed.
1t was evident from the trend of
Chief Justice Gummere's remarks in
the early part of the proceedings that
he was not much in favor of granting
the writ to City Attorney Boggs
contended himself with simply COM
batting the legal points advanced by
Mr.. Fort.