Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-01-14
Of Favorable Decisions From Lower
and Supreme Courts.
NO ISSUE OF BONDS REQUIRED.
Reasons Why the Tax Levy Ordinance
Should Be Delayed.
FINAL ACTNN EXPECTED IN FEBRUARY

| end was begun In the Common Pleas courts
Yesterday City Attorney Moreland has
been at work arranging the matter for
months and finally secured the consent of
the three Common Pleas courts to hear ar
guments sitting in banc. Yesterday was
! the day selected. At l o'clock in the
afternoon five bills in equity were filed,
as follows:
BY George l. Whitney, against assessment
| for grading, paving and curbing Center ave-
nue., to test the constitutionality OF the cura-
| tive act, and of the liability of the city to
| pay the contractors, the point being raised
| tina: the city for valuable considcrat ton
| had assumed the liability of the contractors
! after remedial legislation had been passed,
but conceding that Councils had ordered the
| Chief of Public Works TO finish all work un-
finished when the old acts we're stricken
down.
Protests against assessments.
| BY Mark Donley and wife against assess
ment for grading. paving and curbing South
Twenty-eighth street.
By Cyrus :. Gray against assessment for
the sewer on Atlantic avenue, to test the
naked legal question nf the constitutioEality
OF curative legislation.
BY Dr. c. T. Bingaman to test various
points of curative legislation, the suit being
brought on the paving OF Anderson avenue
sidewalks.
BY Noah Rubrignt, to restrain the city
from proceeding with grading. paving and
curbinc Hamilton avenue under the new
street act, TO bring the new act to a test
The suits were divided among the three
courts of Common Pleas and Judges Stowe,
of No. 1. White, of No. 9, and McClung, of
No3, sat to listen to the arguments D. T.
Watson ard Major W. c. Moreland argued
on behalf OF the city, while Johns MeCleave,
Joseph A. Swearingen and C. A. O'Brien
appeared for the plaintiffs. j. H. White
appeared for Booth s. Finn, who were
joined with the city in some of the bills as
defendants. The arguments continued over
three hours, and al their conclusion the
papers were taken by the Court.
City Attorney Moreland was highly
pleased with the first days proceedings in
the suits. In an interview he furnished
some important information not heretofore
brought out He said:
To Settle the Entire Subject
The bills filed to-day were to raise every
important question that could arise under
the new legislation, both curative and pros
pectiye. Exceptions 70 the viewers reports
were filed il each court, some purely tech
nical, some frivolous, and some went to the
question of the constitutionality of remedial
legislation. It was believed impossible to
have a fall hearing on each of these excep-
tions, and even if we could, IL was feared the
court might feel constrained to give DEGREES
on unimportant points and we would run the
risk of having the important decisions de-
ferred for q full year. In view of this the
bills and answers were prepared and filed so
that the court will be called on TO decide:
First the constitutionality of the remedial
act; second, the constitutionality of the acts
relating to future Improvements: third, the
right OF Il person assessed simply for benefits
to have a trial by jury; fourth whether
viewers in estimating the cost, damages
and expenses of an Improvement, are con-
Cluded by the contract between the CITY and
contractor, or whether they have the right
to pass upon the value of the work itself;
fifth, whether the CITY is liable on its con-
tracts to pay the contractors for these i'm
proveineatS; sixth, whether She acts of 1887
and 1883, having been declared unconstitu-
tional; the act Of ISIS, which requires peti-
tion of majority in interest, being unre-
pealeG and the petitions for the work in the
East End only having been signed by one
third, the city could proceed with its collec-
tionS.
The Only Satisfactory Plan.
These questions radically dispose of every
important matter that can possibly arise
under our legislation. They are fairly and
fully raised under the pleadings and when
decided will be authoritative. 1t is not only
a much more speedy way of settling these
questions Dat far more satisfactory.
These cases will be decided this week by
the Lower Court, and l believe the entire
costs and all the legal points raised will be
decided in favor of the city. The cases will
be argued before tie Supreme Court Oh the
ed inst. was before the Court last week
and that date was fixed. 1 confidently ex-
pect that by February l, or bY che 18Th at
latest, We will have authoritative decisions
by the Supreme Court.
ba I,oI
Legislation, in my opinion there will be no
possible excuse or necessity for the issue of
\ dollars worth of bonds, but my Judgment
is that it would be very un wise to take any
action On the appropriation ordinance until
after such-deciSion. My reason for saying
there will be no necessity for issuing any
bonds is that with remedial legislation sus-
tanned we can proceed without any delay
with the collections of the assessments
made for these public improvements. We
shall not require exceeding SG00 600 this
year to pay the obligations OF the city to the
contractors II by March we are able to
collect 100000 on the improvements there
wonld seem no difficulty in having an eN-
tension of time OF co days further on the re-
mainder. Within that 60 days the city should
collect S1C0,0I0. to $500 coo more. This sum
applied would give Us 90 TO 80 days further
in which we collect the remainder SO that by
midsummer the city could collect $780, co.,
which would represent all the claims they
could enforce against us during this year.
All the money collected on these improve
ments must be raid in to the credit OF the
contractors claims. The bonds would only
be issued for the benefit of the city's |
creditors. If, therefore, we pay in the
assessments and the creditors get the same, |
the necessity for the bonds is gone.
Why the City Can Collect.
base my belief of the city collecting this
money on this fact: The city has made ap-
piication for the appointment of viewers in
140 different cases, representing all the work |
completed or in process OF completion under |
the acts of 81 and SO. or these the viewers |
have already reported in 81 cases, of which !
As have been confirmed absolutely by the |
cases. These will be almost disposed of in |
the present action. The AS confirmed repre- |
sent about $50, 900. This money can be col |
lected at any time by the city, but no effort |
will be made to collect it until the final de- |
cislon of the Supreme Court. The 19 cases |
with exceptions disposed of will represent |
$40, 600 more.
At least one-half the owners of property
in this city will pay their assessments just |
as soon as it is certain under the law, and |
this would mean, paid into the city treasury |
by March or April, almost the entire amount |
the city will need to pay its contractors. By
the last OF this year there ought to be a
sufficient sum collected to meet all claims |
due at that time.
Ny reason for holding back the appropria-
tiCn ordinance is because with this legisla-
tion sustained, no reason will exist for any
which contractors are entitled 20 have
against the city, representing about $500, coo,
can be carried over until next year and as
these judements represent the amounts due |
the contractors at this time, the collection
of the assessments referred to will be appro-
priated to their payment because the ordi-
nance on which the vote was taken and the