Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-01-09
ERRORS POINTED OUT.
Allegheny'S City Attorney Receives
the Supreme Court Opinion
ABOUT THE CLASSIFICATIONS.
Why the Law Governing the Northside is
/ Unconstitutional.
COMMON COUNCIL POSTPONEs ACTION

When Allegheny Common Council met
in special session last night to consider the
new charter proposition, Mr.. Wertheimer
moved for an immediate adjournment. He
did not think they knew anything more than
they did the other night, and it would be
dangerous to make a move until the Su-
preme Court had made its decision.
City Attorney Elphinstone informed
Council that a synopsis of the opinion of
the Supreme Court had been published in
the morning papers, and it showed, as he
had said before, that there could be three
classes only. Heexpected to receive copy
of the opinion about o'clock, and it would
appear in the morning papers. He added
that he wished it understood that he had
not swerved hairs breadth from what he
said Thursday night. Thereupon Council
adjourned.
MIR. ELPHINSTONE SUSTAINED.
Later in the evening the City Attorney
received from Philadelphia the full text of
the Supreme Courts decision. 1t declares
the classification act of 1887, under which
Allegheny has been acting, unconstitu-
tional, and it opposes more than three
classes. The opinion is vindication of the
position taken by Mr.. Elphinstone, and in
dorses the position he took in asserting that
there could be but three classes of cities in
Pennsylvania.
The decision is put upon the broad ground
that under the spacious guide of classifca-
tion the act is local and special legislation,
pure and simple, which without pretense of
necessity opens wide the door for further
legislation of the same vicious and inhibit-
ed character.
sit is difficult if not impossible" said Judge
Sterrett by whom the decision of the Supreme
Court was delivered, ITO escape from that po-
sition. The pernicious system of special legis-
laticn practiced for many years before 1874 had
become general and deep-rooted, and the evils
resulting therefrom so alarming that the peo-
pie determined to apply the only remedy that
promised hope of any release, and the result of
that determination was the adoption of the
Constitution. One of the manifest objects of
that instrument was to eradicate that species
of legislation and substitute in lieu of it gen.
eral laws, whenever it was possible to do So"
After quoting several provisions of the
acts to show the lack of necessity for any
further classification, Judge Sterrett an
swers the argument that the question of ne
cessity for classification is legislative and
not judicial one in this way.
IT IS LEGISLATIVE
''The answer to that is obvious The people
have seen fit not only to prescribe the form of
enacting laws, but also, as to certain subjects,
the method of legislation, by ordaining that no
local or special law relating to those subjects
shall be passed. Whether in any given case
the Legislature has transcended its power and
passed law in conflict with that limitation is |
essentially question of law, and must neces-
sarily be decided by the courts To warrant |
the conclusion that the people intended to in |
vest their lawmakers with judicial power and |
thus make them the official arbiters of their |
own acts would require the clearest and most |
emphatic language to that effect. No such in
tention is expressed in the Constitution, and
none can be inferred from any of its provisions. |
That these limitations were design ed to estab-
lish fixed and permanent rule cannot be
doubted. But if the ultimate application of |
that rule were to rest solely on the judgment |
of the body on which it was intended to oper-
ate. nothing could be more flexible.
IN such proposition can be entertained by
the courts without abandoning one of the most
important branches of jurisdiction given to
them by the fundamental law, namely, the
power to ultimately determine whether or not
a given law is local or special and has been
passed in disregard of the constitutional limi-
tation that has been placed upon the power of
the Legislature. 1t follows that the decree of
the court below is correct, not only on the
act of 1887 is not yet operative. but also on the
broader ground that the act is unconstitutional
and void"
Classification is not expressly forbidden by
the Constitution. On the contrary it is dis |
tinctly recognized, for certain purposes. For
example: Article 8. section l. declares, 'tAll
taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of
subjects, within the territorial limits of the
authority levying the tay, and shall be levied
and collected under general laws" Thus, by
necessary implication, authority is given to
classify property for the purpose of taxation,
but by express mandate of the last clause
above quoted, all taxes must be levied and
collected under general and not special or local
laws
During the session of the Legislature i'm
mediately preceding the adoption of the pres
ent Constitution, nearly 150 local or special
avs were enacted for the city of Pittsburg and
for other municipal divisions of the State about
The same proportion. This was by no means
The pernicious system of special
legislation, practiced for many wears before,
mad become so general and deep-rooted and the
evils resulting therefrom, SO alarming that the
people OF the Commonwealth determined to
apply the only remedy that promised any hope
If relief.
THE CLASSIFICATION.
The act of 1874, dividing the cities of the
State into three classes. viz: Those containing
over 100000 population, those containing less
han 3OQ'0OO and exceeding 100000, and those
less than. 100000 and exceeding
0.0OO, was sustained as to such of its provisions
Is have been involved in adiudcated cases be- |
,ause it was considered within the spirit, if
lot the letter OF the Constitution. As to the |
lumber of classes created, that act appears to
lave covered the entire ground of classifica-
ion. 1t provides for all existing as well as
very conceivable prospective necessity. It is
to suggest any legislation that
las or may thereafter become necessary for
my member of either class, that cannot. with
,ut detriment to other members of same class,
,e made applicable to all of them. If classifi-
,ation had stopped where the act of 1874 left it,
would have been well; but it did not With |
tut the slightest foundation in necessity, the
lumber of classes was soon increased to five,
md afterward to seven; and if the vicious
principle on which that was done be recognized |
~ the courts, the number may at any time be |
urther increased until it equals the number of
titles in the Commonwealth. The only possible
purpose of such classification is evasion of the
Constitutional limitation; and as such it ought
o be unhesitatingly condemned.