Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

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. A 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

the varied interests of a bustling, thriving community. It is true that that division was not made until 1676, and that forty years, at least, prior to that time, settlements had been made; but those settlements were few and scattered at different points, and it must not be forgotten that the population was made up of people possessing many different characteristics.

The settlers in East Jersey were restless, restive under restraint, and would brook no interference, either real or fancied, with their rights; while those of West Jersey were more peaceable and more disposed to submit, yet when occasion demanded were sturdy in insisting that their privileges should be respected and preserved.

But though there was no settled system of jurisprudence, no tribunals established by legislative authority, where suitors could be heard, their antagonistical claims adjusted, and justice done to all parties according to law, still courts of a certain kind were to be found about the beginning of the last half of the seventeenth century. No legislature had met which had the authority to establish courts when these tribunals first came into existence; so they had received no legislative sanction. Some of them, in fact, were created by the immediate action of the people, and all the powers they ever possessed came directly from the people.

The first court in New Jersey was a local or municipal tribunal es tablished at Bergen, in what is now Hudson County, near Jersey City. It was created September 5, 1661, when New York and New Jersey were under the dominion of the Dutch, and when Petrus Stuyvesant was governor. The patent for forming this court was signed by Stuyvestant in behalf of their " High Mightinesses, the Lords States General of the United Netherlands, and the Noble Lords Directors of the Privileged West India Company, Director-General of New Nether lands, Curaçoa, Aruba and Borayro and dependencies." This patent had eighteen or twenty sections which minutely described the kind of actions which might be prosecuted in this court. The names of its judges, three in number, were given in the charter, and they were selected by Stuyvesant; it was restricted in its jurisdiction, being confined to the municipality and to the settlement of disputes between its citizens.

Thus was established the first court of any description in New Jersey. When, in 1664, Stuyvesant surrendered to Nicholls, the English commander of the troops sent against New Amsterdam, New Jersey

and New York passed quietly into the hands of the conqueror of Manhattan. The transfer of government did not seem to work any change in this court, but it continued to exist and to perform all its functions until a later period, when its aid was sought at an eventful time in the history of the colony.

At the town meeting held in Newark, in January, 1668, which date, according to the modern method of reckoning time, would be January, 1669, the first action taken was the choosing of "Mr. Crane and Mr. Treat" magistrates for the year "insueing for our town of Newark.' There was no similar action up to this time, so far as appears from the records, and no mention of courts nor of magistrates. At the close of this same meeting, if the order of proceeding is preserved by the minutes, this resolution was passed, and, as it is important, it is copied verbatim et literatim: "Item, the Town hath Agreed that there shall be Two Courts in our Town Yearly, to hear and try all Causes and actions that shall be Necessary and desired within our Compass and according to our Articles; and that the same shall pass by the Verdict of a Jury of Six men. And one of the Terms is to be the Last Fourth day of the week commonly called Wednesday, in the month. of February, and the other is the Second Wednesday of the next following month of September."

This action is deserving of particular notice for several reasons: First, it is the initial attempt, so far as any record is known, to organize a court among the English speaking colonists of New Jersey; second, it originated with the people for their own guidance; third, it guarded the rights of suitors through the intervention of jurors; and, fourth, it fully exhibited the subordination to law of these founders of an empire. They claimed the fullest liberty, but that this liberty should be subject to order and only exercised within the limits of a due observance of the principles of eternal justice. The two magistrates selected were the very best men in the colony; they were revered and respected for their Christian characteristics and for their virtues; they had been the leaders of the people in all their movements, both before their departure fron. their homes on the Connecticut as well as after they located on the Passaic. But even such men were not permitted to sit in judgment upon the rights of their fellow-citizens, nor to settle. their disputes without the aid of a jury. The Anglo-Saxon element, which deemed a jury indispensable for the preservation of individual rights, here asserted itself. From this time onward, from year to

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »