Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-01-16
Allegheny Sees This Picture,
Then That. and Waivers,
LEANING TO THE BIG ONE.
Her Financial Men Report in Favor
of a Second Class Charter,
so DOES THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE.
Attorney Watson States Both Sides With
the Benefit of Doubt.
COUNCILS LISTEN, THEN HESITATE

All Allegheny is now engaged in the
contemplation of two companion pieces.
They are pictures painted by masters in
their rival lines. and, if they were to ap-
pear in some art gallery's catalogue, might
be jointly labeled, ''The Municipality Be-
fore and After Taking Second Glass
Charter" Only few days ago it was
thought the Northside preference ran toward
the companion piece Before Taking. ="
Now, however, the other picture is viewed
by many in the more favorable light. Both
seem to be popular to degree. so that the
solution of the problem, "To be, or to have
been?" is becoming really difficult.
For example: The Northside Councils
held joint session last night to consider
the charter legislation question. On the
opening of the meeting Mr.. Samuel Watson,
Chairman of the Finance Committee, read
an extensive report covering the work of the
Finance Committee and the Citizens Com
mittee on the charter matter. He first read
the opinion of George Shiras, Jr., which
has been published, and then followed with
the opinion of D. T. Watson, Esq, which
is appended:
PITTsBURG, January Is, 1889.
GENTLEMEN-By the act approved March 8,
1870 (P L. 10, the several acts Heretofore ex-
isting in reference to the city of Allegheny
were consolidated and under the name of the
City of Allegheny it was made a municipal cor
poration of the State.
That act modified and amended perhaps as
to some of its provisions by subsequent legis-
lation, is still in force, but it may at any time
be repealed or modified by the State.
The charter of municipality is not like unto
grant by the State of charter to private or
trading corporation. Such a grant accepted
creates contract between the State and the
corporation, which is protected by the Federal
Constitution, which the State cannot repeal,
unless the right to do so has been reserved.
SUBJECT TO CHANGING NOTIONS.
But the erection by the State OF a munich
pality for the regulation and control in local
matters of portion of the State is the creation
of public corporation peculiarly subject to
the control of the State and to the extent that
it may at any time repeal or change the char
ter.
This was held by the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Dartmouth College case,
and was never more broadly decided than by
our own Supreme Court in the case Of Phila-
delphia VS. Fox. 81 Penna. ST., $50.
II the General Assembly of the State should
pass, and the Governor approve, a proposed act
which has been handed me, entitled IAN act
providing for the incorporation and govern
ment of cities of the third class" am of the
opinion that it would supplant and repeal the
charter of 1870.
1t is clear, therefore, that action should be
taken by the city of Allegheny to determine
what is best for the city. 1t is better for the
city to remain as it is now, in class number
three, under the Act of 1874 (P. L. 230) or to
enter class number two? If it is decided to re-
a N her
better course to take? Should you allow the
proposed act to pass as it is now drawn, or
should you seek to have it so far qualified to
preserve to the city as much as is possible Of
the charter of 1870.
If you determine that it is for the best inter-
ests of the city to remain as nearly as possible
in its present position then you Should have
such steps taken as will either 1) have en-
bodied in the new legislation the important
provisions of the present charter, or (II) so
qualify the language of the proposed act that
the legislative intent not to repeal the local
law of 1870 may be clear, and thus, as far as
possible, preserve the said charter.
A KNoTTY PROBLEM.
Whether YOU can legally effect this latter re-
suit is close question under present decisions
and yet think it may be done if the de-
cisions of our Supreme Court in the cases of
Evans VS. Phillip III, Pennsylvania State 226
and Malloy VS. Reinhart ll5, Pennsylvania
State 25 are followed.
If you did succeed in preserving your pres
ent charter. you should remember it would. to
some extent. isolate the city from the other
municipalities in the State, and thus render it
more difficult to secure legislation when it is
needed, and such legislation is now said to be
needed in reference TO assessments for taxation
and collection and lien of taxes.
This opinion l have submitted to George
Shiras. Jr., ESQ.,, William b. Rodgers, Esq,
and George Elphinstone, ESQ.,. all of whom
have heretofore been consulted on behalf of
the city, and they authorize me to say that
they concur in the same. Respectfully,
D. 7. WATSON.
To W. W. Martin, ESQ.,, William Walker, Esq,
and others.
Mr.. Watson followed this by reading the
reports for the Finance Committee and Citi-
zens' Committee.
When the reading was finished Mr.. Wat
son moved to adjourn until Thursday even
jngs as citizens meeting was to be held
tonight and he preferred to defer action
by Councils until after that time. This
motion was adopted. Then the question of
having the reports printed came up. and,
after various motions had been offered,
motion was finally passed requesting the
official papers of the city to print the law
yers' opinions and the Committees re-
ports in full.