Bd. of Health of State of N.J. v. Inhabitants of Town of Phillipsburg

• Decision Date: 15 November 1915
• Docket Number: No. 9.,9.
• Citation: 85 N.J.Eq. 161,96 A. 62
• Parties: BOARD OF HEALTH OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF PHILLIPSBURG.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

96 A. 62

85 N.J.Eq. 161

BOARD OF HEALTH OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY

v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF PHILLIPSBURG.

No. 9.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 15, 1915.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Parker and Bergen, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Court of Chancery. Suit by the Board of Health of the State of New Jersey against the Inhabitants of the Town of Phillipsburg. From decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

For opinion below, see 83 N. J. Eq. 402, 91 Atl. 901.

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City (J. I. Blair Reiley, of Phillipsburg, on the brief), for appellant. John W. Wescott, Atty. Gen., and Herbert Boggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SWAYZE, J. We should think it unnecessary to add to what the Chancellor said, but for some suggestions in the brief in this court of counsel for the appellant, which seem to deserve remark.

1. We agree with the Chancellor that the object expressed in the title of the act of 1900 is the prevention of pollution of the state's waters, and that establishment of a state sewerage commission is only one of the means by which that object is to be accomplished. The title differs entirely from the one suggested by counsel, "An act for the establishment of a state sewerage commission to prevent the pollution of the waters of this state," etc. It is true that the words of the title of 1900 "by the establishment of a state sewerage commission" might be read as words limiting the scope of the act. Whether words are to have that effect in any particular case depends on the legislative intent. That such was not the intent in the present case is shown by the words that follow in the title. It can hardly be that the Legislature meant to limit the prevention of pollution to the cases where the creation of sewerage districts was authorized and where the powers and duties of the commission and the boards were prescribed, defined, and regulated. It would be going far to treat each clause as a limitation; yet the grammatical structure of the three clauses and the connection of each with the words "to prevent the pollution of the waters of this state" is the same. "Authorizing the creation of sewerage districts," "prescribing, defining and regulating the powers and duties," are connected with what precedes by the same particle "by" that connects the words "the establishment of a state sewerage commission." All three clauses were alike meant to show by the title certain means by which the object of the act was to be accomplished, an amplification, rather than a limitation.

The contention of the appellant is that the object of the act cannot be accomplished by another agency than a state sewerage commission, and that the state board of health is a different agency which cannot be called a state sewerage commission. Even if we assented to counsel's major premise, as we do not, we should dissent from his minor premise. The act of 1900, as he says, is a revision. It takes the place of the act of 1899. It undertakes to legislate on the subject de novo. The Legislature might provide that the state sewerage commission created by the act should be the state board of health. There is no magic in the mere name "state sewerage commission." The title does not point to a definite commission such as the one then existing under the act of 18...