Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-04-22

and was preparing to 60 further south.
About 7:30 O'Clock he took his jewelry
stock and samples from the hotel safe to
his room to pack them in his trunks.
After packing them. without locking the
trunks, he went down stairs to the dining
room to get a cup of tea. While there
his room was entered by thieves, who
carried off the tray of fine gold chains.
THE MANDAMUs BILL.
Governor Hoyt vetoes It and tho Senate
SusIsins tho Veto.
The governor has vetoed the bill grant.
ing the right to courts of common pleas
to issue writs of mandamus against state
officers in tie following message:
EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, HARRISBURG, }
April 81, 1881. :
To the Senate and House Of Representatires
GENTLEMEN-I herewith return without
my approval Senate bill No. 213, entitled
IAN act to enlarge the jurisdiction of the
commonwealth in certain cases."
The objects and purposes of this act are
correct, and a remedy such as is in
defect in the law. Iregret that this bill is
me to give it my approval.
The bill confers upon the several courts
Of common pleas of this commonwealth
jurisdiction and power to issue writs of
mandamus to all state officers Tin the
manner and according to the rules observ-
ed to the adoption of the present constitu-
tion.''
Under it's provisions the executive and
heads of departments may be summoned
into district courts and compelled to con-
vey the records of the government neces-
sary for their defense away from the capt.
tol, where they may rightfully belong, at
times when their absence might be injuri-
GUS TO public interests.
In many years, indeed, since the year
1911, the wise policy of tho state has been
to confer upon the courts of the county in
which the seat of government is located,
jurisdiction in all suits concerning the
revenues and other matters of public con-
cern.
Experience has proved the wisdom and
expediency of the laws comforting such
jurisdiction, and no sufficient reason can
now be assigned for change in this re-
gard. The act is further Objectionable,
because it extends and cOnfers upon the
| court of common pleas a jurisdiction to be
| exercised in an underlined and uncertain
| manner, viz "In the manner and ac-
| cording to the rules observed and prac-
| ticed by the supreme court of the COM
monwealth prior to the adoption Of the
! present constitution" It is beyond the
power of the General Assembly to extend
or confer the provisions of a law by re-
ference to its title or in any other method
| than by re e-enacting and republishing so
| much thereof as may be extended or con-
ferred at length.-Article 8, section 6, Con-
stitution.
This act undertakes to confer gener ally
| upon the courts of common pleas the
power granted in any act heretofore passed
| giving power to supreme court in cases of
mandamus as we'll as its power as a court
| of common law, and also limits such
courts in their practice to such rules as
may have been observed in the supreme
court seven years ago.
The mischief meant to be rcmedied by
the constitutional provision quoted is ag-
gravated by legislation of this character.
One purpose of the provision was to pre-
| vent the extension of laws in ignorance of
their contents, scope and effect by mere
reference to their titles.
| By this act body of rules is imposed
upon courts without indicating in the en-
actment their nature, contents, scope or
applicability, and it is therefore believed
to be within the principle of the case lately
decided by the court of common pleas of
Philadelphia. wherein the delinquent tax
act was unconstitutional.
This act, by its terms, includes all state
officers, and if the jurisdiction conferred
may he exercised as the supreme court has
heretofore practiced it, then it is not im-
possible that tho court of common pleas
| Of one county might assume to issue a
mandamus to a judge of another county
Che being a state oficer)to compel the per-
formancc Of ministerisl duty. Surely no
such power was intended or ought to be
| conferred on courts of common pleas.
| The right to appeal from the decision of
the inferior court in cases Of this char
acter ought not to be left in doubt. By
the act of June IA, 1886, comforting a
limited jurisdiction on the common pleas
| to issue writs of mandamus this right is
expressly reserved: Whether the right
to appeal provided for in the cases therein
| in this act may be open to argument and
| doubt.
This act is further defective in that it
provides no authority for serving the writ
of mandamus beyond the limit of the
county in which it is issued. If the desire
OF the law-maSing power is to confer the
jurisdiction upon all the courts of the
state, it ought to be made effective by Civ
ing them power to exercise it. No court
except the supreme court has ever had the
right to issue this high prerogative writ to
a state officer. The jurisdistion hereto
fore conferred on the common n1eaS is
limited and can only be exercised as to
inferior officers within county limits. BY
reason of an oversight in the constitu-
tional convention the original jusidiction
was taken away from the supreme court.
Nothing is needed to remedy the defect
but a method by which proper case may
reach that tribunal for ultimate decision
or appeal.
No objection is known to exist to the
enactment of a law comforting jurisdiction
to issue the writ of mandamus to state
officers Except Judges upon the courts of
the county in which the scat of govern
ment is located, and it is believed that no
constitutional objections exist to such a
law The special powers and jurisdiction
conferred upon the courts of Dauphin
county in state matters by acts passed be
fore and since the adoption of the new
constitution have been sustained, both by
the learned judges of that court and by
the Sllnrane cOnrt Of the state and large