Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-06-12
THE RIOT TEST CASE IN THE SU-
PREME COURT.
From the Harrisburg Patriot.

whlch the county OF Allegheny was
plaintiffin error (and defendant below
and John, Gibson Sons & Co, defend
ants in error (and plaintiff below, be-
ing the most important as test case,
growing out of the late riots at Pitts
burg upon the decision of which many
Others involving in the aggregate some
millians of dollars will depend. BY
legislative enactment of May 81, 1871,
responsibility was imposed upon the
county of Philadelphia for damages
of specified nature occasioned by
riots in that county. In 1S49 that
enactment was extended to Allegheny
county. This suit was brought under
the acts of assembly mentioned, by
Gibson, Sons Il Co., VS.. Allegheny
county for the value of sixty barrels
of whisky destroyed by the mob at
Pittsburg in July, 1877. The plaintiff
an error was ably represented by the
following distinguished lawyers; Dan
iel Agnew, George w. Biddle, S. II.
Geyer and George Shiras, Jr.
The argument prepared by these
gentlemen was arranged with great
care, and laid the entire subject open
before the court. Its salient points
were That rs no person can be en-
titled to the benefits of the acts of 1911
and 1S49, if his improper conduct has
caused the.destruction of his property ;
that therefore the plaintiffs below had
no remedy, for the reason that the
Pennsylvania railroad company was
their bailee and that the company by
acts of its own had "occasioned the
riot and was responsible for the conse-
quences, and was guilty of improper
conduct within the meaning of the
statute"
That the outbreak was not such
mob or riot rs the statute contem-
plated, but owing to the wide extent
of its range, took more of the charac-
ter of an insurrection, and was far
without the scope of power held by
Allegheny county to quell or subdue it.
That the state authorities had un-
dertaken before there was any de-
struction of property to abate it, and
state relieved the county.
That the whisky was in transitu
from Cincinnati to Philadelphia when
destroyed, and "was not property sit
Udte in the county defendant, within
the meaning of the act of assembly
given in evidence.
And the 7th section of the act of
May, lS4l, is in contravention of the
federal constitution, aud also in vio.
latiOn of the constitution of Pennsyl-
vania, and therefore is void.
We cannot pass this cause without
special reference to that branch Of
the exhaustive argument of ex-Chief
Justice Agnew referring to the bear
ing of the new constitution of the
state upon the act of lSil. The po-
sition taken by the eminent jurist was
that the act, though constitutional at
the time of its passage, is inconsistent
with the present fundamental law and
is accordingly no longer valid for the
purpose of its enactment. The reasons
in support of this position were, because
it Disseminated between different coun-
ties of the state subjecting them to
different liabilities because, under it
the debt of county might be incrcas-
ed to sum far in excess of the consti-
tutional limit wiz: seven per cenium >
because it is inequality of taxation
because its enforcement would infringe
upon those rights of private property
which the constitution guarantees to
protect; and because, it is inconsistent
with the 10th section of the 9th article.
1t declares that ANY county, township,
school district or other municipality,
incurring any Indebtedness, shall. at
or before the time of so doing, provide
for the collection of an annual tax
sufficient to pay the interest and also
the principal thereof, within thirty
years" In this connection he said
"Now, If We consider the Indebtedness
as fixed and ascertained by the several
judgments for the damages, and there
Is no other means of determining how
much or what sum shall be provided
for under the 10th section, it Is impos-
sible to comply with the mandate of
the section. The liability is unknown
until the destruction of the property,
and the loss is unknown until deter
mined by the judgments of which there
may be many. 1t is impossible,
therefore to provide for the collection
of the annual tax. To pay either in
terest or principal, either before or at
the time of increasing the indebted
ness" The reasoning of Judge Ag-
ney throughout his brief argument
was clear and exhaustive. The in
genious manner in which it was woven
convinced all who heard ii that it en-
anated from the mind of a great law
yer. And the power with which it
was presented at the bar of the hiph