Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-10-15
LANCASTER, PA. October Is, 1889.
Snags IN the Law.

The supreme court decides that the
law which has been supposed to take
from the county treasury the damages
awarded for taking land in opening city
streets, and from the city treasury only
the damages awarded for the houses and
improvements upon the land, does In
fact take the land damages from the
county treasury, but requires the city to
pay them back to the county when they
exceed the amount contributed by the
city to the making of roads and bridges
In the county the opinion of the SUI
preme court being that the amount re-
ceived by the county treasury from city
taxation for road purposes was intended
by the law to lie applied by the county
70 the payment of the land damages in
opening city streets and that this was to
be the extent Of the county's response
bility.
That may have been the intent Of the
law; but 1t Is not expressed in its Ian
guage, rs the supreme court finds; but
Il declares that the word county" Is
printed in one place where Ii should be
'city,n and that this correction makes
the land damages payable to the county
out Of the city treasury, after the amount
IL has contributed TO the county treasury
is exhausted. This change the supreme
court finds necessary to make the law
read sensibly; and it seems TO he right
In this conclusion but it runs against a
snag In making the correction, since it
creates q contradiction to the previous
section in the law, which requires the
damages TO be paid out of the county
treasury and only the damages for inn
provements out of the city treasury.
The supreme court settles this diff
Guilty by declaring that the land dam
ages In the first place are payable by
the county In all cases; which then shall
recover from the city the amount It pays
in excess of the road tax contributed by
the city to the county treasury. That Is
one way to get out of the snarl, but IL
will be seen that it requires the court to
strike across the plain declaration of the
law which, as II reads it, declares that
'the street opening damages in the city,
while the balance on said account Is
against the city shall be payable out Of
the treasury of said city. The court
declares that they shall first be paid
out Of the treasury of the county
and It leaves the county in an embarras-
sing position. 1t requires it to pay the
city's debt and to invite the city to re-
turn 1t the money. But it does not APP
pear that there is any time stated in the
law when this settlement between the
city and the county shall take place.
The law reads that the city "shall he
reimbursable out of the county treas
ury only when the balance shall he
In favor Of said city," This seemingly
contemplates that the city has
become the creditor of the county and
fixes the time when the county may De
called upon by it to pay up. The su-
preme cuurt, however, holds that the
county must pay in the first place. But
there does not seem to be any time fixed
for the city to refund to the county any
sum that the county has paid in excess Of
Its liability. The coIh:y ;s required TO
keep All account with the city and
charge or credit the sums contributed
and received by the city ; and the con-
temptation would seem to be that 1t
5uouiu stop paying tIie CITY iulu uuih-
ages after its credit was exhausted but
this the supreme court says II has no
right to do, but must keep on paying.
We cannot help thinking that these
are rather hard lines for the county; and
that it would have been a good deal
more healthy for its treasury if the su-
-preme court had not found that it was
necessary for il to advance this money
to the city. We are inclined to think that
the city commands the situation. The
county has to pay the damages for the
opening of the city's streets and the
city may be reasonably easy about the
need Of refunding the money. The
cOunty's claim upon her is limited to the
past six years and when she comes to
collect for that time, il may be that she
will need valider law to stand on than
this contradictory and insensibe one
which the supreme court has had to
alter to read and with its alteration does
not succeed in avoiding its contradiction.