The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-01-04
LEGAL IMTHLLxGEMcn.
The Public Buildings rho CONTEST In tho Nj
fla


prcme COURT.
Supreme Court in Bdac-Chief Justice Thompson
aud Judges Read, Agneio, SbdrS,CoOd and WitLi1ptS
To-day at noon the court sat to hear the argu-
ments OF counsel In the matter Of the public build
ings to be erected in Broad street. The case is ia
the NlSl Prlus upon petitions for inJunctions, aud
The full court hears 1t at the request of the Chief
Justice so that the decision upon this hearing viii
most probably be final. There are two bill in equity
filed by he complanants, residents upon
i!iOn, bf0ao s'Ie and tax payers one praying an
BuildiTi st restrain them from erecting the new
ediice Cn ne Penn Squares, aud the other praying
an nj 1oj on against Common Councils to restrain
them jro levying the special tax for 1871, with
which t. deray the expense OF the work. Then
there ar third parties, owners of property near
Penn .uares, who desire the buildings to be
ereced and are therefore permitted, with the Com
miss,Uners and Common Council, TO resist the
efforts of the complainants.
William II. Rawlc ESD, opened the argument for
the complanants. He said his clients were very
much in earnest about this matber. not that they
desired to rctard the erection of fine public im-
proyements In this city when such improvements
were rightly and justly undertaken and accom-
ptshed but because they believed this project to be
unjust and unlawful, and therefore did not wish it
to be carried out uui this Court pronounced It Just
and lawful. The Commissioners as constituted pv
the act OF 1870, claimed the most unlimited supply
OF sovereign power; they could organize themselves
in whatever fashion they chose, elect their own
OceTs and employ their own assistants to be paid by
he public they could I'LL vacancies in their own body.
could enter into all needful contracts they might
det m proper for the erection OF these buildings,
amcnabe to no one under the sun, and levy any
amount OF tax whatever which this Court would
nave 10 enforce by us process. WHen lOOKeu aJ III
its true light this was terrible power to he vested
In any one set of men living under republican
(! rm of government and with democratic people.
IL this grant OF power to levy whatever lax the
commissioners might see ut were constitutional
and to be sustained, it was plain to be seen
for and collected as would amount to absolute
contscation II might he said that such a state OF
things would hardly exist under the management
OF such gentlemen as do and may compose the COM
mission; but this was not question of what would
probably occur in pursuance to this statute, but of
nnn Gnl thfs or
Nhen the engineers, architects, material, men,
an such persons necessary to an under
would not be hard to imagine that
money would be spent freely and lavishy. The de-
iShNdhts ld answered that tue act OF lNld defeated
We conplalnants petition, because that act declared
that 10 court sitting as court OF chancery should
nave power to delay, interfere with, or stop any
pubic building IN progress OF erection. such an
objection was merely technical, and was met by the
decision of this court in the case Of WOlbert W.
the Park Commission. There Wolbert
sought to enjoin the commissioners in their
work OF emerging the park, from opening his ice
hcGse, which was upon the appropriated gro1nd
and Judge SharSwood dismissed his bill because at
the time of fling his petition the public work was
actually in progress, and this decision was after
wards affirmed Dy per cUyipm opinion. The act Of
1916 simply meant to protect public work that was
really in progress Mt the time the equitable inter-
ference is asked. No one could say tue pubic build
inRs the erection of which Is now sought to be
nOined, are in progress. and therefore the oOiec-
ton falls Again, as to the icvyIng OF the tax and
its amount the defendants had said that 10 court OF
equity had the power to regulate the discretion OF
any body TO which authority Is delegated. or
course not. No one ever cOntcnded that this Court
could put on speCacles through which they would
See matter differently from other sensible people,
and deny to an organization that its discretion
should he thus and so Rut since the decision OF
the registry it could not be questioned that the
Court had the power to enjOln public officer when
he stepped beyond the limit OF his duty. And this
was all the Court was asked to do here,
If this power of unlimited taxation which the
legislature ought to bestOw upon the Commission.
ers was unconstitutional, it would be beyond theiI
duty TO attempt to levy it, and then the Court could
prevent great wrong by enjoining them.
At the close Of our report Mr.. Rawle still
speaking