Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1884-07-02
COMMUNICATED.
The New Court House.
AN "op1NIoN AS Is AN OPINION"

Ter county than perhaps they would
think of at first glance. 1t is given in
the Herald as an "opinion' Of Thomas
Robinson, Esq counsel for the Com
missioners, and filed with the Commits
and on the subject of their
powers and duties relative to the erec-
ton of new Court House This may
seem strange to many, at this time,
that an "opinion" is necessary now, in
June, and after tICO successive Grand
Juries have acted on The subject OF the
new Court House, at late March and
June terms, and made their recommend
ations as the law required and the
Commissioners have gone on to this
time acting under the same. But 1t
seems the action of one OF the Juries,
that of June term, don't suit the views,
plans, or plots perhaps, of the counsel
of the Commissioners, and herce this
"opinion" TO get clear Of the same.
But more ridiculous, absurd and IL
logical thing could not be contrived or
written. And in order that every man
of any intelligence and common sense
in the county may see the question now
raised, fully and fairly, we here insert
the article published in the Herald, in
which the two sections, 10 and IL, of
the act Assembly of 1884, are found,
being the only law in the State on the
subject of the erection, rebuilding, or
county buildings:
NEW COURT HOUSE.
From Herald of June 25.l
Thomas Robinson, Esq, counsel to
the Commissioners, has filed with the
an opinion in regard to
the powers and duties of said officers
relating to the erection of new Court
House. The opinion refers to Sec. 10,
of the act of 1884, which says THAT
it shall be lawful for the Commission
ers of any county, having, first
the appreciation of two success
sive grand juries and of the Court of
Quarter Session of such county, to
cause to be erected at the seat of JUS
tice thereof, whe occasion may require,
such building OR buildings as may be
necessary for the several officers of the
county and for the reception and safe
keeping of the records and other papers
in charge of such officers &c. Section
IL of same act provides as follows
That it shall be the duty of the Com
of every county to keep and
maintain the puplic buildings aforesaid
of the county in suitable order and re-
pair; and it shall be lawful for them,
when necessary, having first obtained
the appreciation of the grand jury and
tho Court of Quarter Sessions of the
county, to klter, add to, or enlarge
such buildiAs'-Tte question arises,
under which of these sections are the
Commissioners atuhorized to act? In
;ccse Of a new csdnty, where no build
ings have been. erected, two grand
uries must decide as to what buildings
are necessary; and also III case OF old
counties, whether additional buildings
should be eretced; and no doubt, where
he public buildings have become d.
apidated or too small to accom- modate
yhe officers, and it becomes a question
they should be repaired, en-
arged, torn down and entirely new
edifice erected, two grand juries should
approve new erections as within the
spirit if not the letter of the law.
Mr.. Robinson gives as his opinion that
lnder the first clause of the llth Sec
ton, which makes it the duty of the
Commissioners to keep and main
Jain public buildings in suitable and
order and repair that the
Commissioners have the authority to
'eplace the public buildings without
he intervention OF either the Court or
grand jury. On several previous occa-
,ions grand juries have recommended
he enlargement Of public buildings;
md this, with the fact that the whole
question has been submitted to the
grand jury at March sessions passed
lpon by that body and approved by
he Court, the action of the grand jury
1t June sessions was entirely unDeces-
AIRY and not demanded by the provi-
lions Of the law referred to. We re-
gard the opinion as given by Mr. Rob
nson to be correct, and that the Com
nissioners have full power to proceed
With the erection of suitable and pub
ic buildings"
As the editor Of the Herald closes in
he above by saying be thinks the edi-
or of the Eagle is right, we would like
o join in the opinion" of two such
bile lawyers on this question. But
What is the point decided by this "opin-
on" Of the counsel Of the Commis-
ioners. First, it is that only one Grand
Jury need act in the matter. But the
aw requires tho successive Grand
Iuries to act, which has already been
lone. But this law is now attempted |
o be ignored, it would seem, by the alb
urd argument that the 10th section of
VI the law, above quoted, don't apply, |
md that only the first clause of the
lth section of the act of 1884 does APP
,ly now to our new Court House re-
In other words, Mr. Robin
ION gives it as his "opinion," and puts
ION file" too, that under the said |
lause our present Court House ques-
ion is merely one of keeping the old |
building Sin suitable order and repair"
)r, in other words, that the old Court |
1ouse was not actually burned down,
md no parts Of it were actually torn
Iown, by order Of the Commissioners,
'ut that all this was merely done under
he clause CT keeping in good order
md repair" Surely this is new and |
kind of way to keep in order
md repair building now razed down
o the very fouadation stones. If it |
lad been treated as question Of only +
from the time Of the fire. last |
December, Why were the acts Of
be two Grand Jqries aWaited,
nd why the Courts and Jurieg'
pproval waited for and so far
cted upon? If it was only some little !