The government of Hudson County, New Jersey

Contents

Chapter

I. Introduction.

n. The County Supervisor, Chief Executive.

Chapter I Introductory

Hudson County is one of the two counties of the first class in the State of New Jersey.^ In point of population it is the largest county in the State but in respect to its area it is the smallest.^ The cost per inhabitant for the government of the county in 1913 was $3.30, which was an increase of $1.32 per capita since 1908. The per capita wealth of the county in 1913 was $977.68, and in 1908 was $820.85, showing an increase of $106.83 in the per capita wealth of the county for a period of five consecutive years. The county has had a rapid growth both in population and in economic wealth and the prospects are favorable for a still greater development due to its position as near neighbor to the City of New York, just across the Hudson.^

While Hudson County has grown to be the most populous of tlie twenty-one counties of the State, its history as a separate political unit dates from a much later period than that of the older counties of New Jersey. The first appearance of any county as a unit of local government in New Jersey was in 1675. Hudson County, however, did not become a separate county until 1840.

In the colonial period, distinct county functions first

take root in the "Concessions" of 1665, which may be

* Ks.^ex County Is also a county of the first class. Its population In 1910 was 512,886. For Ic^jislatlve purposes all counties in New Jersey are divided into four classe.s. Those havlnp a population above 300,000 are of the first class; those having between 50,000 and 300,000 are of the aecond class; those having: between 20,000 and 50,000 are of the third; and those having a population under 2n.000 are of the fourth class.

"The population of Hudson County in 1910 was 537,231. The total area is 38,709 acres, or about sixty square miles.

•The County of Hudson and the City of New Yorlt Ho parallel on opposite sides of the Hudson.

regarded as comprising the first charter of the province.* By the Concessions the assembly was granted the right to establish courts, limit their jurisdiction, and appoint the executive officers for the courts.'^ In accordance with the charter the assembly passed the act of 1675 which made provision for a county judiciary. "At the same time," saj^s Howard, "four counties were somewhat vaguely defined, each with a county court or court of sessions meeting twice a year."®

The several administrative officers which were sood added to the county courts of the colonial period, were the sheriff and the county treasurer, or collector, as he came to be known later. It is interesting to note that the early judicial bodies exercised certain administrative functions relating to the assessment of property for taxation and the building of county jails. In assessing property for taxation the county authorities co-operated with the local assessors in the several towns. This presents a feature of local government which has been pointed out as constituting an important precedent for the mixed town and county system of local rural government which extends so widelv in the United States to-dav.' The functions of the courts were further developed as the county government gradually took shape. General sessions of the peace and courts of common pleas were established from which appeals might be taken to the supreme court of the colony. In 1704 definite county

♦Howard; Local Constitutional History of the United States, Vol. J, page 365-368.

•Ibid. Text of "Concessions;" Learning & Healy Coll, pg. 1-25. Other references: Field, Provincial Courts of New Jersey, in Coll. of the New Jersey Historical Society, Vol. 3; New Jersey Archives 1; Scott, Influence of the Proprietors in Founding New Jersey 7-22.

• The four counties were Essex, Middlesex, Monmouth and Bergen, from which latter county Hudson County was finally separated by act of the legislature in 1840. A separate county government for Hudson County was established in 1843.

'Scott; Influence of Properties, pg. 19-23; Howard, pg. 367. Professor Howard says: "Thus in 1686, rales for highways, laid out by the county commissioners appointed by the general assembly, and taxes for all other public purposes within the limits of the town, were to be levle«5l by four or five assessors elected by the people of each town; and the Justices of the county court were authorized, with the consent of & majority of the assessors, to approve, amend, and confirm the same.

government was provided for tlie colony by t]»e Ordinance of Lord Cornbury.**

The mixed town and county system of local government, therefore, developed quite early in New Jersey. The justices of the peace, like their English prototype, performed administrative functions as well as judicial. They were given the authority to work in co-operation with the town officials in financial matters. In 1693, "each town in the coimty w^as empowered to choose one or more men to join with the justices of the county court, annually, to adjust the debts of the county and assess taxes for their payment.® The association of these two groups of officials working together developed into the county boards composed jointly of justices of the peace and of chosen or elected "freeholders" representing the several towns.

The freeholders and the justices were authorized to choose a county collector to act as the receiver of taxes for the county; they were also empowered to assess property for purposes of taxation. The county collector was held responsible for the collection of taxes and might sue the collectors of the local town governm(>nts for nonpayment of their respective share of the county taxes. The justices were directed to sell the property of citizens who became dolinquent in the payment of their taxes. The expenses of the county governments were small and the taxes were of minor importance to the town expenditures.

The freeholders and the justices were empowered to supervise the constrnction of a county jail and a ))uilding for the county court. Such authorization usually was given to the counties by a special act of the assembly; this act outlined the ]:)rocedure for the county officers to follow. The justices and the freeholdcsrs might decide first on the need for a jail or court house. An election might then be held to determine the location of the pro-

• For this Kenoral subject sae Fluid, Tho Provln<',i;il <"oiirt>i of New Jersey, Appendix C of which contains the Ordinimce of I-.ord Cornbury.

•Scott; Influence of th«- froprief ors, p^'. 22. Foirlte: Local Rural Government in Countle.s, Town and VlUages, p. 29.

posed building. The matters of determining the cost, the method of assessment on the taxpayers and the work of construction were also left to the county boards.*'* From the first the method of selecting freeholders from the municipalities was by election. The system of individual town representation on the county boards was introduced at an early date, and was allowed to continue long in operation. Recently, however, it has given way to a system of county boards which are composed of a few members elected on a ticket at large. ^* The practice of giving representation to the several municipalities on the county taxing board was an influential moulding force on the local institutions of the early colonial government. If the county boards were to exercise the right of assessment and taxation of property owners in the several towns, the latter insisted on the right of representation on the county boards; this was granted. ^^

The colonial legislature of New Jersey created counties at will; and by the time the colonies had declared their independence, we find thirteen counties in existence. The procedure in creating the new counties was similar to that in practice at the present time. The inhabitants of the particular locality were required first to petition the legislature for a separate county government. The legislature might then respond with an act to that effect. This act would designate the boundaries, determine its representation in the Assembly, grant the local authorities power to construct the necessary county buildings, and extend broadly the operation of all existing laws to the new county, in so far as these might ap-

•• Learning- & Spacer Collection Early Laws of New Jersey, p. 268. also p. 350.

"Laws 1312, Chapter 158. The provisions of this act have been adopted In Hudson County. See Chapter 3, Infra.

"Thus in 1843. three years after Hudson County was separated by act of the leg-islature. we find each township represented on the county board as follows:

Bergen Township 2 Freeholders

Jersey Town.ship 2 Freeholders

Van Vorst Township 2 Freeholders

North BerpftR Township 2 Freeholders

Harrison Township 2 Freeholders ply to counties in general.'^ Eight counties have been created in New Jersey since the colonies declared their independence, and during all this time the state has had but two constitutions. In both of these instrunients the details of county government have been omitted. The legislature has constantly exercised the authority to. modify and determine the institutions of local rural and urban government.^*

The present constitution of New Jersey, including amendments, makes little reference to the institutions of local county governm.ent; indeed it cannot be considered as much as a guide to the legislature. The legislature, as a result, may classify counties and adapt different features of county government to the several classes. In this respect the situation in New Jersey is commendable when taken in contrast to the situation in New York, where the state constitution expressly prevents any classification of counties, and where populous counties likeErie and Westchester must be governed in conformity to general laws which apply to all counties alike, regardless of widely varying local conditions.

In another respect, however, the situation as regards legislative discretion in governing counties in New Jersey is open to severe criticism. The legislature is tempted to interfere too much with the details of county and city government. Although the constitution expressly forbids the enactment of special and local laws "regulating the internal affairs of towns and counties; appointing local offices or commissions to regulate municipal affairs," the spirit of this prohibitive clause is violatf^d in actual practice.' "^ The legislature enacts measures which are drafted so as to apply to counties and cities as a class, but which in actual jiractice often affect and an; intended to affect one county or municipality. By a series of judicial decisions the courts have up-

•• For an <!x;implfi. .see Act of tho AHSombly creating County of Sussex, Acts of Provlnct! of New .Urney 1753, page 20. '•Constitutions 1776 and 1854.

"Constitution, Art. 4; Sec. 7; par. 11.

held this practice^ oi' llio k^gislature.''' It may be pointed out in this connection that the courts of New Jersey in comparison with other states have gone to the extreme in upholding the constitutionality of legislation the practical effect of which is to interfere with the internal affairs of some one coimty or municipality. For any abuses resulting from this practice responsibility must rest with the judiciary as well as with the legislature.

The constitution is silent in regard to such county institutions as the board of chosen freeholders, the supervisor, and the score of administrative boards, commissions and officers. It does require, however, that ** sheriffs and coroners shall be elected by the people of their respective counties, at elections for members of the general assembly" and that these officers shall hold office for three years, ^^ It is also provided in the constitution that county clerks and surrogates shall be elected in each county who shall hold office for five years. But aside from providing for the officers of the court, the general plan of county government is left to the legislative discretion and may be changed from time to time by the legislature w^ithout encountering serious constitutional difficulties. Thus it would seem that nothing in the constitution would forbid the introduction of commission form of government for counties in New Jersey.

Under the State constitution each county is permitted to elect one member of the state senate.^ ^ In former times this provision operated equalh^ on the several counties of the state. Counties then were more uniform in population and wealth, and the constitution-makers of the state of New Jersey followed the example of the

"A digest of these cases is given in the New Jersey Digest, Vol. 6, under "statutes," Sec. 19-22. In Diclcenson v. Board of Freeholders (71 N. J. 159) it was held that where the population bears a reasonable relation to the subject matter, legislation based thereon is constitutional. Other cases where this question is discussed are Board of Freeholder* V. Clarke, C.5 N. J. L. 271, and Mortland v. Christian, 52 N. J. L. 521.

"Constitution Art VII. Sec. 2, Par. 6 and 7.

"Constitution; Art. 4, Sec. 2, Par. 1.

framers of the federal constitution in providing for equal representation in the upper branch of the central legislative body. Today the purpose of the constitution framers is defeated in actual practice; Hudson and Essex counties together represent almost one-half of the population of tlie state and about one-lialf of the wealth, but they are denied representation in the upper house of the legislature in proportion to their importance.^® All attempts to amend the constitution have failed due to the control exercised by representatives of the smaller counties in the state senate, all of whom vote as one against any attempt at change in the present system.-"

Counties in New Jersey are represented in the lower house of the state legislature in pro]iortion to their population.-^ Members are elected annually from each county throughout the state and are apportioned among the several counties according to the number of their inhabitants. A new apportionment is required every ten years, but the whole number of members of the lower house shall never exceed sixty. Hudson county elects twelve members annually to serve in the Assembly. These men are elected at large, instead of by separate districts; the result of this arrangement is that the county delegation usually represents, as a unit, the strongest political party in the county. The party leaders make special effort to secure and control a united delegation of assembhmen at each election. Through ex-

"The ratables of the state in 1914 were 12.481,605,038, while those of Hudson and Essex counties were $l,160.4fi3,164. The population of New Jersey in 1910 was 2,537,167 and the combined population of Hudson and Kssex was 1.040.117.

"Governor Wilson in ISll exerted his influence for a new constitution in the state, which, an.onK other changes, would destroy the minority rule of the smaller counties. Reviewinp: the situation a recent writer says: "When the State entered the work of building: a new ayctem of government tor herself in lfi44. adherence to the Jersey Idea of 1789, led to the establishment of the ui.per hou,se of the leprislature, on the same basis of equal representation for the counties. The subject was not of sueh Importance at that time, becanse none of the countle»« were over larpe; they were a fnmlly of little communities, and the charter builders readily agreed to the proposition th.'it <'.'irh county should have one, and only one seat in the state s«n:tt«- " Sii<l4ett's "Modern Battles of Trenton;" p. 380.

"Con. Art. IV. Section 3.

tra-legal means the county often regains "influence" by a unit delegation in the lower house in proportion to the loss it encounters through under-representation in the senate.

In certain aspects, state centralization of control over counties has beeu developed, to a more advanced stage in New Jersey than in the majority of states.^^ However, the two counter tendencies, first, of centralized control over local affairs by the state, and second of greater selfgovernment by tlie local county and municipal authorities, are discernible in this State as elsewhere. The constitutional provision requiring equal representation of all counties in the senate has assisted the centralizationists in state control over the larger counties; the larger counties have been at the mercy of the smaller. The legislatures have frequently enacted legislation affecting the internal government of the large counties which the latter claimed should be a matter for their own regulation,. The fact that Hudson County has always been a stronghold for one political party, while the legislature for twenty years has been under the control of the rival party, has increased the antagonism between the state and county governments.

The five Hudson River counties, with Hudson County in the lead, have rapidly grown in population and wealth until their influence in state affairs has become powerful; especially is this true of matters which touch their mutual interests and which call for their joint action. The state has necessarily had to develop powers correspondingly great in order to perform properly the functions belonging to it. Among the functions of county government which have been made the subject of regulation, directly or indirectly, by act of the legislature, are assessment of property for taxation, election, park and highway matters, jury reform, care of orphans, ))esides many other functions. In most cases the object of the legislature has been to secure uniformity of regulation. But there are many county mat-

ters which might be made uniform throughout the state which have not yet been acted upon by the legislature.^*

In certain political aspects, Hudson County as a distinct unit may be worthy of rank with many of our state governments. The organization of the county government bears close similarity to the organization of state governments; that is to say, the county government is modeled somewhat after the classical plan of separating the three powers, executive, legislative and judicial. Furthermore in certain economical aspects, the county will bear comparison with many of the more dignified political units recognized as "States" by the Federal Constitution. For example, the budget of Hudson County is equal to and in some cases is greater than the budget of such states as Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Mississppi, Montana, New Hampshire and Tennessee; it is twice as great, furthermore, as the annual appropriations, respectivelj', of South Carolina, Vermont and Utah.^* The county bonded debt is greater also than that of forty-five out of the forty-eight states in the Union. The population also is equal to if not greater than that of such states as Rhode Island, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, Delaware, Arizona, Wyoming and Nevada.^^'

From an enumeration of such facts it appears that the responsibilities placed upon the officials of Hudson County are as great if not greater than those placed upon officials of many states. It would seem, therefore, that the same care should be used in selecting good men for the county government as in choosing officials for the more highly respected governments of the states. In view of this, furthermore, the opportunity for public service in the county should be just as attractive to men of ability as the public service of the state. The best men

"New Jer.Sf-y has as yet no law providing for a uniform accounting system for municipalities.

"American Year Book — 1913 Financial Statistics of States, p. 186 IT. "Ibid.

in tho coramuuity should bo placed in charge of the county niachinory.2^

The importance from a political and economic viewpoint of Hudson County may be more readily appreciated when we stop to consider the compact nature of its physical composition. The urban population of the county is continuous. There are in all, thirteen separate municipalities in the county and no one section of the whole could be regarded as a rural neighborhood. It is diflBcult for the outsider to ascertain where one municipality begins and where another leaves off. The county government is a sort of superstructure, and as such, rests upon numerous mimicipal governments. Each of these separate municipal governments, like that of the county also, is thoroughly active in all its branches, and there is a great amount of unnecessary expense to the taxpayers due to the duplication of municipal functions by the county and municipal governments.^'^

There is, furthermore, much variety in the forms of municipal government to be found within the limits of this county. The largest municipality, Jersey City, has been under commission government rule for three years, having adopted the provisions of the Commission Gov-

*• In a voters' directory published by the Citizens Federation of Hudson County in November, 1914, short sketches of each candidate for election were presented as follows:

SHERIFF

EUGENE F. KINKEAD (Dem.), 292 Harrison Avenue. Jersey City, where a resident for thirty-four years. Born in County Cork, Ireland. 1876. Education, Seton Hall College. Business, president Jersey Railway Adv. Co. and Orange Publishing Co.; secretary Miles Tighe Contracting Co. Has held position as alderman, president of Board of Aldermen of Jersey City and congressman for three terms. Points to his record and states that he would devote much of his time to the youthful prisoners in the county jail.

CHARLES A. MOHN (Rep.), 312 Division St., West Hoboken, where a resident for twenty-three years. Born in New York City, 1863. Educated Martha Institute, Hoboken. Business, plumbing, heating and roofing. Was councilman for one year and mayor for three terms in West Hoboken. Points to his record as Mayor of West Hoboken and as a business man.

" Essex county presents much the same duplication of municipal functions by the county and municipal governments. "See Counties of the First Class" by Winston Paul and H. S. Gilbertson, Proceedings Amer. Pol. Science Association, February, 1914, p. 292.

emmeut Act of 1911 by popular referendum. Hoboken, and Bayonne liave both recently voted in favor of commission government; thus at the present time the three largest municipalities in the county have commission government. Jersey City is a city of the first class, the other tAvo municipalities are cities of the second class. All three have, until recently, been operating under the old charters which provide a governing body for each composed of a mayor and council.

West Ploboken, West New York, Union, Kearny and Harrison fall within the class of municipalities known as towns. None of these town governments overlap, and each one is operating under the general acts relating to town government. 2^ Town governments are composed of an elective town council and a councilman-at-large, or mayor. The town council appoints the necessary administrative officers and enacts ordinances for the town government.2^ The town differs from the cities of the second class in only minor matters of government. The separate classification exists chiefly for convenience in regard to financial legislation respecting the municipalities.

In close relation to the towns are the townships, of which there are three in Hudson County. The towns and townships are entirely separate and there is no overlapping with other municipalities. The township governments are in the hands of a small elective council of three to five members. The chairman of the council is elected by the members; there is no office of mayor. Administrative officers are appointed and local ordinances are enacted by the township council.^"

There are also two boroughs in Hudson County, both of which are boroughs of first class.^^ The boroughs, like the other municipalities, are bodies corporate with

"Other elective town officers are the clerk, collector and the assessor. The appointive officers of the council are the attorney, treasurer, recorder, overseer of the poor, etc.

"The township council appoints an attorney, engineer, and physician.

"BorouRhs are divided Into three classes; those having 3,000 Inhabitants and over are of the first class.

power to sue and be sued. They are governed by a small elective council. The smallest unit of local municipal government in New Jersey is the borough; a New Jersey borough is the same as a village elsewhere.

This description of the component parts of Hudson County is not made with a purpose to magnify the local situation in comparison with other populous counties where cities and county are coterminous. The purpose is to emphasize the fact which has received the attention of political scientists of late, namely, that some readjustment must be made in counties where, just as in Hudson, the municipal and county jurisdictions have become coextensive,^^ The situation wiierever presented is one which calls for a readjustment of governmental functions between the county and the municipalities. In certain places law makers have abolished parts of the count}' structure and placed those remaining parts under the fiscal control, at least, of the city government.^^ This change has been made in counties where, like New York, the limits of the principal city have gradually spread over the whole countj^. In other places — a notable example is Alameda County, California — the problem of reform presents a somewhat different aspect, because there may be one, or several large municipal units within the limits of the one county. In such instances, any changes suggested must be along the lines of a federated city-county government, since no one city among the group can claim to have entirely supplanted the county.

Hudson County, in so far as it lends itself to recon-

^ Report of the City-County Committee, Proc. American Political Science Association, February 1914, p. 281. The Government of Alameda County, California. Annals American Academy Political Science, May 1913. Page 237. Bramhall, Cook Co. and Chicago, Proceedings A. P. S. A., Vol. 3, 1912. Hornell, The City and County in Mass., Proc. A. P. S. A., Vol. 3, 1912. Long-, Consolidated City and County Government of San Francisco, same citation. A. Ludington, The Relation of County to City Government in NevF Yorli, same citation. Woods, The Separation of City and County Governments in St. Louis, same citation.

"In the annual budget of the city of New York provision is made for the maintenance of five separate county governments which have been merged in the city.

struction falls witliin the latter class.^* The strongest argument,however,for a reorganization of the county and municipal government rests principally on the ground of economy and efficiency. Money is being wasted each year by duplicating appropriations in the county and in each of the municipal budgets for many functions such as health, parks, police, etc.^^ The following table represents all appropriations for governmental purposes by county and cities for the year 1913:

TAXING DISTRICT BUDGET POPULATION

Since Jersey City, the largest municipality, covers one-half of the county, any consolidation of municipal and county government would have to take into account the other municipalities as well. It is generally recognized by those who are seeking to bring about a consolidation of county and municipal government in Hudson that consolidation of municipalities must come first.'^*^

Such a plan is supported by the press; the Jersey

"Essex County also Is composed of a group of municipalities; but It extends over a greater area than its near neighbor.

"Of the two New Jersey Counties, the committee of A. P. S. A. says: "Your committee feels that this situation warrants the creation of a HJnglo county legislative body. In many cases this body could be created on the federal plan. It believes that the federal plan would be better than election at large because public opinion and scrutiny have already been focussed upon the mayors and elective officials of the city on the one hand and upon the elective officials of the township on other governmental unit representing farmers' interests on the other hand." p. 284, Proceedings, Feb. 1914.

"A law was passed in 1915 permitting a popular referendum as a means of getting an expression of public opinion on the question of & consolidation of municipalities.

Journal says: "Consolidation of the towns would be beneficial to th(!m, but a general consolidation of the county into a single municipality would be the best thing that could happen in this direction. General consolidation would eliminate the freeholders and all their dependents and sav<: one-half of the county expense and possibly one-half of the local government expense as well."^^ Again, "The North Hudson town would gain incalculably by consolidation. By reducing the number of governments a great many duplicate offices would be abolished."^**

Ex-Judge Robert Carey also advocates a consolidation of the municipalities as the first step. His plan of reconstruction amounts to an eventual consolidation of the municipal and county government into one large municipal unit.^^ He says: "A big step toward the desired end would be the consolidation of the North Hudson municipalities, with a charter similar to that now enjoyed by Jersey City. There would then be four such cities in Hudson and the amalgamation would be comparatively easy If the North Hudson towns

should consolidate, there would be four big boroughs in our county available for consolidation in the big city of the future. ' '*'' As a plan of government for the new city Judge Carey makes the following suggestion: "First, there could be elected every ' four years five commissioners at large. These five to constitute the executive and administrative board of the city. Second, each borough could elect a borough president. The borough presidents and the five commissioners elected at large could constitute the legislative board of the city. This would present a democratic system and an efficient system. The borough presidents could be made the deputy

"Letter to the Hudson Observer, Jan. 6, 1915.

** Hudson County naturaUy Is divided Into three sections popularly «alled North Hudson, South Hudson and West Hudson. By a consolidation of municipalities in each of these sections, the county would be composed of three or four large municipal units, instead of the thirteen at the present.

administrative officers for each borough and could be obliged to supervise and superintend matters strictlylocal to a borough Each borough president could

be empowered to select a borough advisory board of three. ' '

Such comments are indicative of a general movement for some kind of consolidation at least, which will eventually bring about one single government for the fourteen distinct governments in the county at present. The government of Hudson County at present is so complex and covers such a wide range of activity that it is the purpose of the following chapters to describe the county government in detail so as to show what the county government is, what it does, what it costs, and why it costs.