Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-09-21
was affrmatively recommended by the Fl
nance Committee of Councils yesterday.
A CLEAR TITLE
TO THE POOR FARM MAY BE GIVEN TO
BLACK & BAIRD.

Judge Ewing Holds That the Inv Was
Complied with in the sale of fhe
Properry-D efning the Power Vested i'm
Councils.
Judge Ewing's opinion on the sale of the
Poor Farm is as follows:
The parties by writing filed have agreed that
the Court shall pass upon the whole case made
by the pleadings and affidavits without a mas
ter's intervention and enter a final decree.
There are really no facts in dispute. The
allegations OF fact contained in the bill are ad-
mitted by the answers, except that of collusion
between the parties proposing to purchase and
that is squsrey denied by the answers, and
complainant's counsel abandon that allega-
ton.
The proceedings in relation to the opening of
the proposals, as set forth in the complaint
were in strict accordance with the previous or
dinaace of Councils directing the advertise
ment for proposals to purchase
The Pittsburg City Poor Farm, situate in
MiftiIn township. Allegheny county. with all
the improvements thereon, was wholly paid for
by the sale of property belonging to the city
and by taxes levied on the entire city therefor.
AT the 18th of June, 1857, the legal title to
this property was in the Board of Guardians of
the Poor of the City of Pittsburg. This board
was elected blythe City Councils, and performed
the municipal functions of caring for the poor
of the city The board was but trustee of
the title, with interest otherwise in the
property 1t was in no sense private corpora
ton. BY act of March %, 1877, it was declared
TO be department of the city government
POWERS TRANSFERRED.
BY act ,of May %, 1857. this board was au-
thorized to sell the Poor Farm, with consent
of Councils, and from the proceeds purchase
,+t-a nd
buildings thereon. and pay the balance into the
CITY Treasury.
BY virtue of the act of June a 1857 relating
TO cities of the second class ii. e. Ptttsburg),
the powers and duties OF the Board of Guard
ianS of the Poor were taken away and trans
ferred to City Councils and the Department Of
Public Charities.
Assuming Tor the present the acts to be con-
stitu,I0nal and as we interpret them, upon the
reorganization of the city government under
the act OF June "A, 1887. all the powers and
duties Of the Board OF Guardians were ended.
unless II was the duty of executing formal
conveyance OF the properly in question to the
city. They were tnen mere naked trustees,
and while it may have been their duty to con-
vey the legal title. such conveyance was not
necessary to the ownership of the city. After
the term of office of all the members of the
board VINO were in office June Il. 1887, had eN-
plred, and when the ordinance took effect,
February !, lSSS, the said board did execute
and deliver TO the city of Pittsburg deed con-
SAID board to the property in question, to wit:
July p, 1890. No other members of SAID board
had been elected after June II 1857 In
OPINION the city had the title to said property
with the right to convey 1t in accordance with
the lax, and no such power exists in the late or
any future Board OF Guardians
he twelfth section of the act of June Il,
lSS1, provides that the Councils of large cities
snail have full power and authority to provide
by ordinance for the relief and employment of
the poor OF said cities, and for that purpose
Shall have power and
AUTHORITY TO SELL
and purchase real estate and improvements
and erect such improvements as may be deemed
necessary for the proper care and maintenance
Of said Door. This power is, of course, to be
exercised in accordance with the law in rela-
tIOn thereto, whatever that may be. In this
case an ordinance of Councils, duly passed. is
necessary. Such an ordinance, directing the
sale of the Aliffiiu township Poor Farm belong
ing 10 tue city. was daily passed and formally
approved by the Mayor, as Sc: forth in the an
swer Of the city of PIttsburg 1t enacted that
the property known the "City Farm" the
lana IN question. should be sold and conveyed.
and prescribed the terms and conditions of the
sale. and prescribed the duties of the CITY cffi-
GERS IN the premises, providing finally for the
approval and acceptance of the bid by the City
Council, which has been given by the joint
resolution. This joint resolution has not been
laid before the Mayor for his approval.
We are OF the opinion that this Joint resolu-
tion was not such legislative action as under
the statutes required the approval OF the
Mayor. He had already approved the ordi-
nance directing the sale of this specific
property and the terms and conditions of the
sale, everything except the mere price was
fixed. 1t differs essentially from the case IN
relation to the purchase of poor farm argued
with this case. If then the various acts of as
sembly cited in relation TO cities of he second
be constitutional and valid We see good OBJ
lection to the validity of the proceeding un-
less decree of court was necessary,
Assembly q ie
enacted that the Courts of Common Pleas of
the several counties shall have jurisdiction and
are hereby authorized TO decree a public or
private sale of any poor house property or real
estate held for the relief and employment of
the poor in any county, city, borough, township
OF poor district al such times and IN such parts
or parcels and upon such terms as in the
opinion OF any such court may be-
CONSIDERED MOST ADVANTAGEOUS.
The second section provides for the petition
Of the overseers, directors or managers and
that the sale shall only be ordered after a full
and careful investigation by the Court, and
provides for the investment of the proceeds by
direction of the Court. The third section of
the act contains general repeating clause of
all acts inconsistent Herewith Does this act
become part of the law governing the sale
and purchase of property for poor purposes be-
longing to the city o. Pittsburg H. e., cities of
the second class?
This and the questions of the constitutional
ity Of the acts of May 25 1857, and June IA 1887,
il our opinion raise the only doubtful oues-
tion in the case. Counsel for the defendants
have argued very furcibly and ingenously that
special and local legislation regard to Door
districts is rot forbidden in the Constitution of
the state and in this they are supported by
suggestion of the Supreme Court in the recent
case OF the Oyarseers of jerks township VS.
the Commissioners of Sheffield township
With great respect for the learned Judge max
ing the suggestion (whO was distinguished
member OF the Constitutional Convention) we
cannot agree with this view until 1t shall be SO
decided 10y him or by the Supreme Court.
1t Is true that the seventh section of the third
article OF the Constitution does not IN the pre-
else word prohibit local legislation for poor dis
trcts as il does for school districts and for
this very good reason-tne care of the poor had
always been considered a municipal function
and affairs of counties, cities, townships and
bOrPuEBs for which local laws are prohibited
in the second paragraph of section !. While
the uniform rule has been to treat school and
school districts as something separate and in
dependent of the ordinary municipal govern
ments. the same reasons will apply to other
articles of the Constitution where school dis
tTicts are mentioned and poor districts are not
named.
THE LAW IS GENERAL.
1t seems to us that the act of April 2S 1887. is
general law providing for the sale ana pur-
chase Of property, and for the care of the poor.
These acts in relation TO the care of the poor
and the property held for the care of the poor
in cities of the second class can only be sus-
tanned. and as independent of the general law.
on the ground of the legislative power to
classify cities. That this power exists is an
open question. To what extent is difficult
and doubtful question.
Continuing Judge Ewing said that in the
case of Howard versus the city PiItsburr,
4T,sr y~n ms to-