State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Several important questions have been raised on the return to this writ, relating to the constitutionality of the act of March 7th, 1883, and of the act .of February 7 th, 1883, entitled “ An act for the classification of counties of this state for all purposes of legislation in relation thereto; ” also as to the legality of the delegation of power to the voters of the county, by which the act shall not confer authority to
Upon this return the board of freeholders have acted and passed the preambles and resolutions in controversy. They recite the act, the election under it, the result and the power thereby conferred on the board to operate under said act and execute its provisions, and resolved that the board deem it advisable and for the best interest of the county of Hudson, to lay out, open, construct, improve and maintain a public road in that county, in accordance with the provisions of said act. By another resolution they appoint a committee of seven members of the board to be a standing committee under the. name of “ Committee on Public Road; ” and by a further resolution, authorize, empower, and direct the committee to select one or more preliminary route or routes, location or locations of a public road in that county, to be submitted to' the board for its consideration; to. make surveys and maps; employ a competent engineer for that purpose, and if they deem it desirable, sit to hear, upon notice given, any suggestions which citizens may offer. The entire cost of this road may equal, but not exceed, the sum of $1,000,000.
The prosecutors, being citizens and tax-payers of the county of Hudson, have interposed this writ of certiorari at this stage of the proceedings and raise the objections above stated, with others, to the construction of the road and the imposition of its cost upon the tax-payers of the county.
We have been stopped at the beginning of our examination of the reasons which appeared to be the most serious and important, based on the constitutionality of the acts referred to as authorizing these proceedings, by the preliminary objection
The rule of interpretation to be applied to such acts is, that in the construction of any grant of the power to tax, made by the state to one of its municipalities or to counties, for special purposes, it shall be with strictness. The mischief of a strict construction is easily obviated by the legislature, but the wrong done by a liberal construction may be irremediable before it can be reached. Cooley on Taxation 209, and cases in notes.
It is admitted in the state of the case agreed upon by the counsel, that the ballots “ for public road ” and “ against public road” were printed on the same tickets with municipal and county officers, and deposited in the same ballot-boxes at the election held on April 10th, 1883, when this question was submitted to the voters of the county of Hudson. This, we hold, was not a compliance with the requirements of the statute, and conferred no power on the board of freeholders to pass the resolutions returned with the writ, and proceed with the construction of the road. For this reason, without expressing any opinion on the other points raised and discussed, these resolutions, and all proceedings under them, are vacated, with costs. ■
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STATE, CHARLES SIEDLER, PROSECUTORS v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF HUDSON
- Status
- Published