New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-10-07
rH1 ccsr Of THE PiTrsBrRG RIOT
WHO Is To PAY

WHO Is To PAY THE BuL-A DECISION OF TIE
sUPgEsI~ c)CEr- iLLEGHESY COUNTY LIABLE.
PITTsBrRG, Penn. Oct. Can important
decision OF The supreme Court. bearing on the
riot losses rAis city. was rendered here 10
day The Court ~ opil and so Decides that allie
cheny County is liable The opinion written by Justice
Paxon covers hrfy-even large pages, IL very coupre-
heusive and expresses the ~ the entire bench
with tae exception Of justice sieett who did not sit IN
Tie Argument aad OF tn Justice Green, who vii
not Ilke Bis seat until November.
In tn " he decision, the Court taxes NJ the
argument OF the county that under the new Consttu
ton OF to state adopted 1s7i the law OF I,l IS H.
operative Tais point decided against the county The
Court holding that theneV Constitution was nsi i'll
tended fo a. emit roly instrument bnt simply - an
alteration and modification Of the old Constitution ID
the progress - rr and change the laws when
deemed essential 10 the welfare Of The state The
Court decides that Until such times the Legislature
may change. mO.ify rrpeai u. The law o. ISL Is
operative AMI enabled 10 stand.
The Court tnen reviews the liability OF the county
under tbs act. Tie point was made by Allegheny
County the present nos sueh A. coneui-
plated by the trainers ~ tue Jaw mat The disturbance
amounted Instruction. spreading through several
states and srtner. that tile damage al occurred after
the Intervention Of the state authorities Tie Court
says Tat construction be gwen 10 the Act OF
ST narrow not 20 meet this case.
Ia regard tue Intervention Of tie state militia the
Court says;
We see no evidence ~ any serious attempt upon the
par OF tho local authorities 20 suppress. H. A. the inc
of iis rencemcu feeble attempt Ni1 male 10y thr
~herd res IIfiu- tie enrolment % some ha4-lHLeu
deputies. Buf rneIe was no proclamation calling npnu
the body % TIE county % come 10 hls assistance u r.
serving the public peace. NJ DOUBTS. at THIS day.
that II proper IN rt had been made at the proper
ftue rne mob could have been urld ~ check No one
eib- thar IL sould have BEEN lad The citizens OF the
county realized THAI tey were responsible Tor the loss
Tr- IN. o.f ~ rhe Assembly, folded away auIOug the
pamphlet laws. probably forgotten II overlooked
lg
N. mob thaG bad dened the military power was put
down m main bv The civil authorities after tie c-
zeus mad been aroused - sense OF coIiAoI Ganser
Thn aw will nor ro crate the spectacle Of great cy
looking with iud ference while property 70 me Vtle
or millions !. beng destroyed ~ MOO. 10 prevent
Oceureuees was one OF the Objects OF Hr Act
OF ISL Tbs Tact that the state, Shen called upou
rendered assistance and sent portion or IL nhary
To scene, d not absOve the county frOu tr Implied
obligation 10 preserve the peace, nor rom its respOus
bty neglect OF thht dnty. We're u Otberwlse 10
might the interest Of a municipality ~ Increase the
size n "A moo.
The law VI 1871 provided that no person persons
shall be entitled the benefits OF this act II t shall aI-
pear that the destruction Of his or their property was
caused Ivy his Illegal improper conduct The
Court reviews this point " the county At length. IL
says:
I'll not pretended that the losers did any improper
arr Inev were hundreds Of mi away anu knew
nothing II the destruction OF their property until II was
accomplished. -. -.
Pennsylvania Railroad Com pany he'r DIAL ees- Cohced
the purpose ~ this ease, waf act OF
the company Illegal mprope within the meaning
OK the statute IL Was SAID tAat tIr mon Was nIe~
upon Granted. Bat by whom 7 Not by the Pennsy-
yania Railroad Company, but BY the military sent tefe
by the Governor the state II was an act Tor Nhlc1
nertner the COMPANY nor the plaintiffs responsible
Buf Il said thai the company reduced the wages ~
It's employees and the face Of the Dissatisfaction pro-
.itiou Will OF the mOO more untenaoie position
han thls could well De ima<ined-