Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-09-13
DECISION RESERVED.
ForcibIe Arguments From Legal
Lights For and Against
THE SALE OF THE OLD POOR FARM.
A Claim That the Mayors Assent Has
Already Been Given.
ONE DAT IN THE COURTS OF THE COUNTY

In common PleaS Court NO. yesterday
morning Judges Ewing and White heard
the argument on the application of c. l..
Straub, for an injunction restraining the
city from conveying deed to Milton l.
Baird for the City Poor Farm.
The first speaker was W. W. Thomson,
representing the plaintiff. He commenced
his argument in support of the application
for an injunction by holding that the quit
claim deed dated July "a, 1890, by which
the title of the old Poor Farm property was
transferred from the Guardians of the Poor
to the city was invalid, by reason that the
term of the last Guardian of the Poor ex-
pired in February last, and that there was
no Guardian OF the Poor in exist
ence at the time the deed was made
and signed. He presented the afi-
davits OF Matthew Weis, William Ramsey,
and c. W. Helmold, signers of the quit
claim deed, in which they acknowledged
that their terms had expired before the deed
was signed, and that they signed the deed
without a meeting of the board Mr..
Thomson then reviewed the act of 1887.
He claimed that the duties of the guardians
have not been legally transferred by that act
to the city, for the title OF the act did not
indicate plainly that the transfer of the
rights and duties were to take place. The
Board of Guardians of the Poor had been
created by the Legislature and could not be
annulIed until they had received proper
notice, which had not in their case been
given.
ATTACKED THE BILL.
D. T. Watson. in behalf of Mr. Baird, fol-
lowed. He combatted Mr.. Thomson's ar
gument, that the act of 1887 was not suf-
ficient to vest the power of the Board. of
Guardians of the Poor in the city when it
became city OF the second class. He ques-
toned the validity of Mr.. Straub's bill on
the ground that it should have Joined the
Board of Guardians as party to the
suit, and that the plaintiff was not praying
for relief from any injury, but was seeking,
as a taxpayer, to set up an outstanding title
against the city's title to the Poor Farm
and to prevent the city from getting over
S4O0, 900 for its property.
With reference to the failure of the Mayor
to sign the resolution approving the sale,
Mr.. Watson said: 81 think it is sufficient
to observe that the Mayor signed the ordi-
nance directing the Chief of the Depart
ment of Public Charities to award the
farm to the highest bidder. subject to the
approval of Councils. 1t is manifest that
here his connection with the matter ceased.
Had Councils not affirmed, the sale would
have been void, but Councils affirming, in
accordance with the ordinance previously
passed and signed by the Mayor, every re-
quirement has been fulfilled. Councils
might have left the approval of the transac-
tion to the Controller as easily as have re-
tanned it to themselves In either case the
further sanction of the Mayor was needless"
A QUESTION OF LOCATION.
J. McF. Carpenter, representing the COM
plainant, held that the purchase of the Poor
Farm outside OF the county was illegal, as
it was an attempt to place one of the depart
ments of the city of Pittsburg within the
corporation limits of another county; that
the purchase was void on the general prin-
ciples that a municipal corporation, in the
absence Of legal authority, has no extra ter
ritorial jurisdiction. He held that the act
of May 25, 1887, recognized the existence of
the old Board of Guardians of the Poor. al
though the prior act of 1877 had made them
a department of the city government. but
that under the act of 1887 the Guardians of
the Poor were authorized to sell the old
Poor Farm and purchase q new one within
the county of Allegheny, and directing that
the proceeds of the sale should be applied to
a purchase of another farm. He held that
while the act OF June IA. 1887, city charter,
con ierred the power to sell and purchase in
City Councils without restrictions, yet that
power could only be exercised in accordance
with the permissions within the gct of May,
1887, and that there was no appropriation by
Councils to pay for the farm.
Mr.. Carpenter continued that it was not
necessary to 60 into Westmoreland county
and pay 500 per acre wheE they could get
land in Allegheny county better suited for
Poor Farm purposes at half that price.
There was no necessity, either, for closing
up the sale when they did.
A MATTER OF DISCRETION.
SIS not that matter of discretion?" asked
Judge White.
"Yes," replied Mr.. Carpenter, "but dis
cretion over which the Courts have control.
Offers were made hours before the bids were
opened, but they refused to entertain them,
crying that they were too late. cannot
account for Brother Elliot's frame of mind"
concluded Mr.. Carpenter, "other than that
he had not recovered from his previous
Sabbath days devotion when he must have
been engaged in listening to those words of
the old hymn, Too late, too late, outside
the gate, We cannot enter now.'"
1. q. Lazear, Major Moreland and w. B.
Rodgers, for the city. followed. They held
that municipal corporations could hold
property outside the city limits and that
there are no restrictions as to where the pur-
chase should be made, as long as it was in
the State bounds. They quoted authorities
to show that parks had been purchased by
different cities without their limits and that
property for the needs OF the city had in a
like manner been bought. The speakers
held that purchase before an appropria-
tion had been made was proper action, be-
cause it was an emergency; that the city
needed property for a Poor Farm and that
Councils had provided for the payment, and
that argument to the contrary was void.
1t was an oversight that in the articles for
the purchase the stipulation as to the pay
mant was omitted, but this omission had
been rectifed in supplementary articles.
They held that there were purchases, such
as a pesthouse aud cemeteries, which are
left to the discretionary powers of the mu-
nicipality, and that the purchase of prop
erty for Poor Farm should fall under the
same head.
POINT OF JURISDICTION.
Judge Ewing asked Mr.. Rodgers, one of
the attorneys, if the courts of Westmore-
land county would have jurisdiction over
the officers OF the Poor Farm, supposing
that it would be located there.
Mr.. Rodgers-Yes, the courts there would
have jurisdiction in case any ofense
against the laws were committed.
Judge Ewing-How would the grand
jury of this county go to Westmoreland to
visit the Poor Farm in case of necessity?
The courts of Allegheny county cannot send
the grand jury outside of the county.
Mr.. Rodgers-I suppose special enact
ment to that end could be drawn.
The rest of the argument in the afternoon
was taken up in reviewing the act of 1887,
which granted the power of sale and pur-
chase of the Poor Farm, and as to whether