Reimer v. Mayor & Council of Borough of Allendale

• Decision Date: 29 December 1939
• Docket Number: Nos. 210, 211.,s. 210, 211.
• Citation: 123 N.J.L. 563,10 A.2d 160
• Parties: REIMER v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE et al. OSBORNE v. SAME.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

10 A.2d 160

123 N.J.L. 563

REIMER

v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE et al.

OSBORNE

v. SAME.

Nos. 210, 211.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 29, 1939.

Certiorari proceedings by William J. Reimer and by William S. Osborne against the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Allendale and another, wherein prosecutors assailed an ordinance abolishing the police department of the Borough of Allendale and repealing an ordinance regulating and establishing the police department.

Writs dismissed.

Argued October term, 1939, before BODINE, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.

Abram A. Lebson, of Englewood, and Landau & Mehler, of Hackensack (William George, of Jersey City, of counsel), for prosecutors.

Walter W. Weber, of Ramsey (John Milton and Thomas. McNulty, both of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendants.

HEHER, Justice.

Prosecutors assail an ordinance adopted by the defendant borough on April 13, 1939, entitled "An ordinance abolishing the Police Department in the Borough of Allendale and repealing an ordinance entitled 'An ordinance to regulate and establish a Police Department in the Borough of Allendale,' passed and approved September 13, 1928." A preamble declared that it was "in the best interests of the inhabitants" of the borough "that the Police Department be abolished and that necessary police protection be provided on a more economical basis."

In sum, these are the asserted grounds of invalidity argued: (1) The point that "reasons of economy" motivated the challenged municipal action "is not made in good faith, but is a Subterfuge in order to oust prosecutor from his office"; (2) the action so taken "was contrary to and in violation of the overwhelming protests of more than 75% of the legal voters and was, therefore, arbitrary, oppressive, illegal and contrary to the substantial rights not only of the prosecutor Reimer, but of all the inhabitants of the Borough"; (3) the substituted police system "results in a serious impairment of the security of the lives, persons and property of the inhabitants" of the borough, "and a saving at such a price is against public policy"; and (4) the ordinance "was the product of a malicious effort to oust" prosecutor Reimer "from his office of Chief of Police by indirect means and without the formality of charges and hearing thereon."

We find nothing of substance in any of these contentions.

The evidence establishes, as was avowed in the preamble to the ordinance, that retrenchment was the governing body's objective. There is an utter lack of proof of bad faith. Prior to the adoption of the ordinance thus repealed, September 13, 1928, the municipality was policed under what has been termed the "marshal system". The police department established under the repealed ordinance consisted, at the time of the passage of the repealer, of a chief and two full-time patrolmen. Part time service was rendered by six marshals. Following the adoption of the repealer, the "marshal system" was restored. The six marshals were continued in service and nine more were appointed, all to be compensated for services rendered in accordance with the need. While denied by prosecutor Reimer, the proofs reveal that he was tendered the post of chief marshal, and declined it. He would not submit to a reduction of compensation.

The change effected an annual saving in the police budget of approximately $5,000. The yearly cost of police protection had increased from $1,600 in 1927 to $7,800 in 1938, while the population had increased in the same period from 1,700 to 2,000. The police budget for the year 1928, when municipal expenditures had reached the peak, totalled but $2,870; and we are unable to discern any basis in the evidence for the rejection of defendants' contention that the challenged ordinance was designed to scale expenditures down in accordance with the reduced financial capacity of the taxpayers consequent upon the current trade depression. The police department was not singled out for more prudent management. There had been a general reduction of governmental costs; and the budget requisite for the administration of the police bureau as it then existed was out of all proportion both to police requirements and the aggregate of the moneys appropriated for the operation of the government. The total amount to be raised by taxation for local needs and purposes under the 1939 budget was $18,497.02. It was estimated that $2,500 would be the cost of operating the police department under the system set up after the passage of the ordinance under review.

The evidence does not warrant the conclusion that economy was a mere subterfuge to cloak a sinister purpose to deprive prosecutor Reimer of his office in violation of his rights under the law. This policy of retrenchment was in execution of pre-election pledges made to the electorate. The existing system was the product of the period when municipalities generally expanded their activities unaware of the approaching financial debacle; and the action now questioned was unmistakably motivated by a purpose to curtail expenditures in consonance with the necessities of the radically...