Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-04
BOUNCING A BURGESS.
The Solicitor of Bellevue Borough
Presents an Opinion
AFFECTING MANY MUNICIPALITIES
Mr.. Martin Deposed From the Presidency Of
the Councils.
A DISPATCH CONTENTION SUSTAINED

| with the question of the right of the Burgess
| to preside at meeting of the Council and
| to act as member thereof The situation
there is essentially the same as in Etna
borough, which, as exclusively shown in
THE DISPATCH last Sunday, was the first
to make an attempt to remove the Burgess
from his assumed position, and, as stated
yesterday, the Burgess, Alex. Martin, will
take the question to the Supreme Court to
have Judge Stoves opinion on the point at
issue tested.
j. w. Kirker, Esq, Solicitor for Belle
vue borough, submitted written opinion
on the matter to the Council of that village,
which will be of interest to every borough
in the State, and seriously affecting many of
them.
In Bellevue the Councilmen, numbering
six, have been presided over by Burgess
Johnston, making seven members, and have
been divided into two factions over many
matters, standing three TO three. The
Burgess sided with one faction and gave it
the winning vote
An Opinion From the Solicitor.
As result of this the point was raised
and the matter finally referred to Solicitor
Kirker for his opinion. Kirker takes the
same view as Etna's solicitor and holds that
the Burgess has no right to participate in
the proceedings of Councils. He says:
The answer to the question presented de.
pends upon the fact whether or not under
the general laws of this Common ealth re-
of boroughs and the decree of the Court in
cooperating the borough of Bellevue, the
Burgess is ex-officio member OF the Town
Council. II he be not a member of the Conn.
Gil it needs no argument to demonstrate
that he has no more right topreside over, or
in any other way participate in the proceed
ings and deliberations thereof than the
borough constable or any other borough
official who has not been duly elected by the
qualified voters of the borough as Council
man.
Continuing, he recited the incorporation
of Bellevue borough in 1867 by the Court of
Quarter Sessions In the decree of incor-
poration, he stated, the Burgess is not
named, nor is he by it made member of
Council, or mention made as to his official
powers, privileges or duties. 1t must,
therefore, follow that if he has the right to
preside as Chairman of Councils he must
get that right by some act of Assembly.
Someone Has to Get Out.
The original general act of Assembly re-
lating to this subject was approved April 1,
1884. The fifth section provides for the
election of one citizen who shall be styled
the Burgess, and five citizens to be Town
Council. The eighth section provides that
the Burgess shall be President of the Town
Council and shall have and exercise all the
rights and privileges of a member thereof
If this section of the act of 1884 is in force
the Burgess has the right to preside at the
meetings of Council and vote, but it is also
self evident that in such case some member
of the Council holds his seat illegally, as
they would have seven members of Council
and by they law they are only entitled to
have six. Continuing, he states that an act
was passed in 1851, since known as the
general borough law of this State, which
specified and designated the powers and
duties of the several corporate officers of
boroughs 1t provides that all general laws
of the Commonwealth inconsistent with it
are repealed. The fifth section of this act
defines the duties of the Burgess and no
mention is made of his right to preside
over or participate in the acts and delibera-
tions of Council The sixth section pre-
scribes his duties, and says he shall enforce
the ordinances and regulations and sign the
ordinances, etc., adopted after they shall
have been duly transcribed, etc.
A Limit to the Burgess Duties.
The act of 1884 did not require the Bur-
CESS to sign the ordinances, no doubt for the
reason that his participation in their passage
was deemed sufficient executive approval.
Therefore under the act of 1851 the Burgess
is stripped of his legislative power and his
powers and duties limited to those of the
chief executive and ministerial offices of the
borough only. Therefore, owing to the in
consistency, the eighth section OF the act of
1884, before mentioned, was repealed.
The act of 1871, supplement to the act of |
1851, was next recited. 1t makes the number |
OF members of Town Council six instead |
of five, as they had been Heretofore The |
question, he continued, has never been !
passed upon by the Supreme Court, but it |
had been discussed in four cases decided by |
the Common Pleas Courts. In three of the |
cases which could bear ON the subject, the |
latest being the one decided by Judge |
Stowe, the rulings were such as to bear out |
the conclusion that the Burgess of borough
in which six Councilmen had been elected |
has no right to preside over or take part in
the deliberations of the Council In con-
clusion Solicitor Kirker said:
By the act of April 8, 1851, it was the duty
ministerial officer only. Such power and |
authority rs he had been vested with under |
the act OF 1884, to be President of the Town |
Council and act as a member of that body, |
were taken away by the act of 1851. am,
therefore, clearly and decidedly of the opfn-
vue has no legal right to either preside at |
the meetings or otherwise participate in the |
proceedings and deliberations of its Town |
Council. |