Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

was acknowledged by all that there were errors in the organic law, but the people did not seem ready for a change. Discussions in the Legislature and elsewhere took place from time to time, relative to amendments, but it was not until 1843 that the growing discontent culminated and took definite shape. In that year, Daniel Haines was elected Governor, manifested a deep interest in the subject and in his annual message to the Legislature recommended the passage of a law calling a Convention together. to revise the Constitution. In accordance with this recommendation, the Legislature, on the 23rd day of February, 1844, passed an act entitled "An act to provide for the election of delegates to a Convention to prepare a Constitution for the government of the State, and for submitting the same to the people thereof, for ratification or rejection." By the terms of this act, an election for delegates "to meet in Convention to frame a Constitution for the gov ernment of the State" was to be held in the several Counties, on the 18th of March then next, to elect delegates equal in number to the members of the Legislature from the various Counties. The Convention was to assemble at the State House, in Trenton, on the 14th day of May. After a Constitution had been adopted, it was to be submitted to the people on the 2nd Tuesday of August following, who were to vote by using the words: "Constitution" if in favor, and "No Constitution," if opposed. Isaac H. Williamson, former Chancellor, was elected President of the Convention and Alexander Wurts, VicePresident. Mr. Williamson became ill during the Convention and resigned his office and Alexander Wurts was chosen in his stead. The Convention met promptly on the day appointed and finished their labors on the 29th of June, 1844. By common consent the members were equally divided between the two great political parties then in existence in the State, so that no partisan measure entered into the result of the discussions of that Convention. Great care was taken in the selection of the members and the best men in the State were chosen. Every Article was subjected to the severest criticism and everything was done in order and with deliberation. On the day when the Constitution was signed by the President, Secretary and Assistant Secretary, it was delivered by the President, Mr. Wurts, to Governor Haines, who ordered that the same should be filed in the office of the Secretary of State and the original Constitution thus signed was filed by Charles G. McChesney, then Secretary of State, in his office, on the same day. On the 13th of August, 1844, the Constitution was submit

ted to the suffrages of the people and was adopted by a very large majority, the number of votes cast in its favor being 23,371 and those in opposition, 3,526.

This Constitution very materially changed the government of the State. The office of Governor had theretofore combined the two departments of the Executive and the Court of Chancery, the Governor being Chancellor. The Governor also was thereafter elected by the people and ceased to be Chancellor. The Council, under the old Constitution, had been the Court of Appeals in the last resort; a new Court of Errors and Appeals was created, consisting of the Chancellor, Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and lay members, the object of this being to retain the popular element in this high court. Judges of all the courts except Justices of the Peace, Senators and many minor offices were nominated by the Governor and elected with the consent of the Senate, which took the place of the former Council. The rights and privileges of the citizens were specified in what might be called a Bill of Rights introduced into the Constitution. A vexed question arose before the Constitutional Convention, which, at one time, promised to give rise to serious difficulty. The Council, under the old Constitution, was composed of one member from each County. The representatives in the Convention from the larger Counties insisted that this was an injustice; the small County of Cape May had the same influence, so far as votes went, in the proceedings of the Senate, as did the larger Counties of Essex, Monmouth and others. The proposition was introduced and strenuously supported that the State should be divided into senatorial Districts, making the representation in the Senate dependent upon the number of inhabitants and not upon the territorial lines of the Counties. One gentleman who strenuously supported the district system, a man of great sagacity and undoubted patriotism, left the Convention and refused to sign the Constitution, because this plan was not carried out. The Governor was to be elected for the term of three years and was not eligible for office at any time during the three years succeeding the expiration of his term; neither could he make any nominations during the last week of that term. These were the main differences between the two Constitutions Since the adoption of the one of 1844, various attempts have been made to amend it.

There are different opinions as to the character of this new Constitution, but, whatever they may be, it certainly was a great improvement upon

that of 1776, and it is very doubtful whether any better organic law exists in any of the other States of the Union.

The Governors of New Jersey, since the adoption of the Constitution of 1844 have been the following:

[blocks in formation]

It would require more space than can be given in this volume to notice the legislation from the adoption of the Constitution of 1844 until the present time; besides, it is very easily accessible through the published laws and it is therefore deemed unnecessary to give it here. Α decision of the courts, rendered in 1893, however, is so intimately connected with the construction of the Constitution of 1844 that it ought be noted. Almost immediately after the adoption of the new Constitution, the Legislature divided the different counties into districts; the voters residing in these districts were called upon annually to elect a member to represent their district in the Assembly. This system continued until 1893, when the question was submitted to the courts whether that course was warranted by the new organic law, and the Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional. On an appeal from that decision, the Court of Errors confirmed it and the people of the State were driven to the old system of electing the Senators and members of the Assembly, by a general vote of the County. The division of the State into legislative districts had placed it within the power of demagogues to elect men of inferior calibre as members of the law making body and that body sadly deteriorated in character. Whether the re

turn to the old method will work a remedy of the evil, remains to be

seen.

New Jersey, in its history, from the beginning of its statehood until the adoption of this vicious method of electing members of the Legislature by districts, had acquired a reputation of calling upon the best men within its bounds to make its laws. It is to be hoped that this return to the old system will again bring to the front men of undoubted character and ability to perform the highest duties to which the citizen can be called-to mould and shape the legislation of his State.

CHAPTER XIII.

CONTENTS.

Courts of New Jersey not Established on any Systematic Plan until the 18th Century; Population, at first, not Homogeneous; Dutch, Norwegians, Puritans, English, Quakers, Swedes and a few Danes; Unsettled Character of the Province Prevented any System; Settlers too Busy in Obtaining Subsistence; Courts not Needed; Division into Two Provinces Retarded Establishment of Courts; First Court at Bergen in 1661; Surrender of Government to Queen Anne had no influence on this Court at Bergen; Court at Newark Created by Town Meeting in January, 1666; Character of this Court; First Legislative Action about Courts in 1675; Local Court at Woodbridge in 1668; Governor Carteret sought Aid from these Courts; Courts in Monmouth, in 1667 Created by Governor Nicholls, by Patent; Three kinds of Court Created by Legislature, in 1675; In 1682 Change Made; Courts of Small Causes; High Sheriff; Court of Common Right; Comparison with Modern Courts. No Rules for Guidance of Ancient Tribunals; Grand Jury; Courts of Sessions; In 1693, Supreme Court of Appeals: Influence of Quakers on Character of Punishments; Contrast between Penal Code of West Jersey and that of East Jersey; Thirteen Crimes Punishable with Death in East Jersey; No Enactment in West Jersey Providing for Death Penalty; Influence of Concessions and Agreements" on Courts in West Jersey; Court of Chancery; Constitution of 1776; Courts of Appeals under Constitution of 1776; Defects of this Court; Cornbury's Action Relative to Courts; Creation of County Circuit Courts; Good Results of these Courts; Pleading in the Courts; Styles of Action Changed; First Term of Supreme Court in the Colony; Roger Mompesson; William Pinhorne; Thomas Gordon; David Jamison; William Trent; Robert Lettice Hooper; Thomas Farmar; Lewis Morris; Daniel Coxe; Robert Hunter Morris; William Aynsley; Nathaniel Jones; Richard Salter; Samuel Nevill; Charles Read; Frederick Smyth; David Ogden; Richard Stockton; David Brearley; Provincial Congress 1776; Rev. Jacob Green; Constitution of 1776; Samuel Tucker;

John De Hart; Robert Morris; John Cleves Symmes; Isaac Smith; James Kinsey; John Chetwood; Elisha Boudinot; Andrew Kirkpatrick; William S. Pennington; William Rossell; Mahlon Dickerson; Samuel L. Southard; Gabriel H. Ford; Charles Ewing; George K. Drake; Joseph C. Hornblower; John Moore White; Thomas C. Ryerson; William L. Dayton; Daniel Elmer; James S. Nevius; Ira C. Whitehead; Thomas P. Carpenter; Joseph F. Randolph; Henry W. Green; E. B. D. Ogden; Lucius Q. C. Elmer; Stacy G. Potts; Daniel Haines; Peter Vredenberg; Martin Ryerson; Edward W. Whelpley; William S. Clawson; John Van Dyke; George H. Brown; George S. Woodhull; Joel Parker; Mercer Beasley; Joseph D. Bedle; Van Cleve Dalrimple; David A. Depue; Bennet Van Syckel; Edward W. Scudder; Manning M. Knapp; Jonathan Dixon, jr.; Alfred Reed; William J. Magie; Charles G. Garrison; George C. Ludlow; Gilbert Collins.

The courts of New Jersey were not established upon any settled plan, nor upon any perfected system, until about the beginning of the eighteenth century. This was due, in a very great measure, to the peculiar circumstances connected with the early settlement of the colony. The first white population was by no means homogeneous. The Dutch, with a few Norwegians and some Danes, went into Bergen County, on the Hudson River; the Puritans, from New England, settled on the Passaic River, at or near Newark; a few English came direct from England and established themselves in and around Elizabeth Town and Perth Amboy; the Quakers peopled the central part of the State; and the Swedes and some few Danes sailed up the Delaware Bay and River, and landed in the southern counties. Each of these nationalities brought to its new home its peculiar idiosyncrasies, and each strove to impress itself and its own customs and laws upon the others.

It was perhaps, however, due more to the unsettled state of the country, and to the fact that the new settlers were necessarily so intent upon securing for themselves and their families the absolute necessaries of life, and in softening the asperities of their condition, that they had no time to provide for the wrangles of suitors. There was no necessity that their attention should be given at once to the perfecting of a system of jurisprudence; but there was need that means should be taken to preserve life, and their wives and children must be fed.

The early division of the colony into two distinct, independent districts or provinces was also a hindrance in the way of an early settlement of so important an adjunct to civilization as the establishment of tribunals for the adjustment of disputes between citizens, arising from

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »