Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-09-19
HIS HONOR'S VIEWS.
Judge Ewing Favors the Old Poor
Farm Sale, But May Raise
OBJECTIONS TO THE NEW SITE.
Controller Morrow Raises the Purchase
Money Question.
REARGUMENrs IN COURT YESTERDAY

Thatithe Poor Farm question is not dead
issue is becoming apparent daily. The re-
argument of the case before Judge Ewing
yesterday may or may not have been signif-
cant, but it is about certain that Judge Ew-
ing's opinion will cause something OF SEN
sation when 1t is given to the public, prob
ably to-day or to- morrow. 1t can be stated
on reliable authority that His Honor in
clines to the belief that the sale of the old
City Farm should be confirmed, and the
purchase of the Stewart farm rejected. 1t
is stated on the same authority that the de-
cision will be in accordance with this view,
and that the latter part OF the big deal will
be knocked out, subject, of course, to an ap-
peal to the Supreme Court and another de-
cisiou from that body. The City Attorney
stands ready to carry the matter up to this
tribunal in case this result follows.
OF course, it would be entirely out of the
question to approach either Judge Ew ing
or the interested attorneys on the matter
pending the decision, but there are very
we'll founded reasons for believing that the
question will be settled, so tar as the lower
courts are concerned, in the manner out
lined above. Judge Ewing is reported to
incline the belief that while the Stewart
farm may be worth every dollar asked for
it, at the same time 1t is not worth the
money for the purpose required.
CONTROLLER MoRRow's VIEWS.
When Controller Morrow was spoken to
about the matter yesterday, he said: "Such
decision would hit my ideas
exactly. 1 am convinced that the
sale of the farm was perfectly
just and legitimate. Unless fraud could be
shown after the action of the Board of A wards
Mr., Elliot was the legal agent of the city to act
after the action of Councils. also hold that
while the Stewart farm is splendid piece Of
property. and probably worth what was pro-
posed to be paid for it. that 1t is entirely too
valuable for Poor Farm uses have been sorry
all day that did not make an effort to have one
more question brought before the court. That
is, the validity of the purchase, or any purchase
by the city. when there are no funds on hand to
pay the same and no appropriation made to
meet the debt incurred. l think all such trans
actions are Illegal, and believe they should at
tract more attention in the settlement of cases
of this kind "
1t is said that three or four new sites have
been suggested within the county limits in case
the Stewart farm is rejected finally one being
some six miles down the Ohio river but the
lOcaClOnS COulQ not be aScertalneQ.
THE REARGUMENTs YESTERDAY.
The rearguments in the Poor Farm matter
ordered BY Judge Ewing were heard yesterday
afternoon in Common Pleas court room No. 2
Judges Ewing and White were on the bench.
The argument was opened by W. w. Thomp-
son, as the representative of Mr.. Straub, the
plaintiff. Mr. Thompson opened by stating
that there were three acts. the act of April,
1887, being general act covering all poor
boards in the State. The act of May granted
the Poor Guardians the right to dispose of
property, while the act OF June, which is the
new city charter act gave Councils the right
to dispose of property. The act of May, giving
the Poor Guardians the right to dispose of
special local law. The act of June did not call
for a transfer of the power to the City Coun-
ellis for the reason that the act of May had not
been re-enacted at length. The acts, however,
were superseded by general law, which was
covered by section 7. article 8. of the consti-
tuition.
Mr.. D. T. Watson followed, and argued that
the act of June repealed the act of April, and
the City Councils had the right to make the
sale without the supervision of the Court, and
that section of the Constitution did not apply
to case of this kind, but did apply to the sub
ject of grant to individuals. Mr.. Watson cited
numerous cases of similar nature that had
been tested In different parts of the State also
some Supreme Court decisions that were appli-
cable in the case.
A GENERA LAW.
Mr.. ]. McF. Carpenter next took up the argu.
ment, and said that the act of 1887 was gen.
eral one, and conferred the power to order
sale or purchase of property on the Judges of
Common Pleas, and this act was the one that
would have to solve the question before the
court. The acts of May and June, he argued
were to be read in connection with, but in SUBJ
ordination to, the general act, and the purpose
was simply to designate the agent Or trustee
who should make application for the sale or
purchase, as the case might be.
Mr.. Carpenter held that the acts were like the
Price act of 1858, which confessed jurisdiction on
the courts to order sales of lands held in trust
and that the language of the general act of |
1887 is that the courts have jurisdiction and NAV
have power to order the sale and purchase as |
under the Price act and the only fair construc-
tion is that no power to order sale exists out
side of the Court and that Councils were merely |
to act as agents to bring about the sale under |
the guidance of the Court. |
The arguments were very short the general |
grounds having been covered in the previous |
arguments. The Judges took the papers but |
did not intimate when an opinion would be |
handed down.