Juniata sentinel. [volume] (Mifflintown, Pa.) 1846-1873, 1873-03-26
urgh," and the other. approved Feoru.

burgh," and the other. approved Feoru-
ary s, 1871, approptiating $4,000 to
the destitute and needy" sufferers by
the fire in Miffliutown, Juniata county.
For the relief of Fi.tsburg the sum of
$50, 900 Was appropA,,ss ito be di,trib-
uted among the destitute by the authori-
ty and under tue direction of the mayor
and the Select and Common Councils of
the said city" 1t was the most exten-
sive conaagration that ever occurred
within this Commonwealth. 1t brought
thousands of men, women and children
to absolute want t; they had neither
bread, raiment nor shelter their neces-
sites required immediate relief l might
truly say, in the case Of the sufferers of
Pittsburg, the appeal came from starving
shivering men, women and children.
Active as is human sympathy, it was
felt it might fail to respond as promptly
and fully as the immediate necessities Of
this people required, and the Common
wealth, mindful of their suffering, recog-
nized the Divine commeudation I'll
was hungered and ye gave me meat !;
naked. and ye clGshed me" To have
done less would, perhaps, have been to
permit her own children 10 perish. The
relief to Pittsburg was not compensation
for loss, it was relief-immediate relief
from actual want to thousands of home
less, starving men, women and children.
and when the immediate necessity ceased
the relief ceased. By an act approved
April %, 1916, the original act was re-
pealed, and but $4,000 of the $4,000
was paid to the destitute" of Pittsburg.
do not recognize the appropriation
to the "needy" of Pits burgh and the
subsequent action Of the Legislature, in
repeating the same and Withholding the
moneys not drawn fof their immediate
relief, as any precedent for the power
attempted TO be exercised in the bill
herewith returned, ten months after a
fire, to donate people $4,000, and
shall dismiss it as such in the further
consideration of this bill.
The danger of precedents, and the care
that should be observed to avoid estab-
fishing bad ones, is illustrated by the one
cited of Mifflintown: A like number Of
citizens are described in each act as hav-
ing been made homeless and destitute
Two years ago $50 900 was taken from
the Treasury of the Commonwealth and
given to the "destit"te and needy" Of
Niifflintown, and now S75. 900 is proposed
to be taken and given not to the "poor
and needy" but to the sufferers gen
orally.
l have had occasion before to observe
it is maxim that bad precedents make
bad laws, and that, when good, they are
only to be considered in constituting, not
in the enactment of laws. That no other
appropriation, except the one cited, is to
be found upon the statute books of this
Commonwealth (and the one to Pitts
burg not recognized, for the reasons
given, as a precedent for this bilD. is
very conclusive evidence of the will of
her people in relation thereto, and that
tue one cited is not in accordance with
their Judgment.
There is, though. a higher test to which
this bill must be submitted, and by which
my action is determined. Can this bill
be supported upon principles, and ia it in
conformity with public policy If so,
it should receive my approval; if not,
my duty is clear, however much it's per
formance may conflict with my personal
feelings or desires.
The money in the Treasury of this
Commonwealth belongs to its whole peo
pie, and for their common benefit only is
there authority to use it.
If the appropriation provided for by
this bill is proper exercise of that au
thority what rule or Limitation is left for
the protection of the public Treasury in
the future l submit there would be
none, and if the rule established by this
bill is impartially administered, as it
should be, if proper one, there soon
would be no Treasury requiring protec-
ton. Upon what principle can the Com
monwealth pay oGt Of its Treasury
moneys to one portion of her citizens for
losses they may have suffered by fire
and refuse it to others who have suffered
from like cause2
If the principle of the bill is sound its
operation should not be confined to any
one locality or people, but be extended,
by general law, to embrace the citizens
of the entire Commonwealth F; those who
live out of cities or boroughs, as well as
those who reside within them to small
fires, as well as large ones to the house
or barn of the farmer or laborer, as well
as to the property of those who reside in
incorporated boroughs or paved cities.
In each the owner may have lost his all
Why not receive like compensation there
for
Again, if the principle is correct, should
it be restricted to loss by fire. Should
it not embrace, equally, loss by floods.
tornadoes, &c. Indeed, fthe principle is
sound, it is difficulty to fix its limitation.
Losses by fire can often be guarded
against by proper insurance losses from
other causes often cannot There is no
year but what the high waters or floods
in come of our rivers cause great and un-
avoidable destruction of property. Why
should not the Commonwealth compen-
safe the losers thereby equally with those
from fire? And -sssss they have never
applied therefor. On the 9th of Sep
tember, 1869, one hundred and eight
men were suffocated and destroyed by
fire at the Avondale mine, in this Com
monwealth-poor laboring men, upon
whose daily toll hundreds of women and
children were depending for their daily
bread.
In the language of my lamented pre-.
decessor, ''never before was a scene more
heart.rending witnessed within the limits
of this Commonwealth" If occasion