The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1893-10-20
Opinion of the Supreme Court.

delivered at Pittsburg, in the three
cases of the Commonwealth against
the city of Philadelphia, have been
transmitted to the Prothonotary of the
Middle Districts and copies have been
furnished to the Attorney General.
The opinions in all three cases are the
unanimous judgment of the court and
are written by Justice Dean and sus.
tain the principle for which the Com.
monwealth contended-that Bardsley
was the agent Of the city and that the
Commonwealth could not be made to
suffer by his failure to pay it the taxes
which the city had collected and paid
to him and that the negligence Of
Auditor General MCCamant and State
Treasurer Boyer to enforce the prompt
payments could not be imputed to the
Commonwealth and that it could not
be made to suffer by the laches of its
officials.
The first of these cases was the
claim OF the State to recover that por
ton of the tax on personal property
for the year 1890 which the Receiver
of Taxes had received and paid to
Bardsley and which he had not turned
over to the Commonwealth, aggrega.
ting $47a,oIS.II, subject to the re-
turn to the city Of $Io0,957.o7 as its
balance on the one.third share re-
turnable to Philadelphia. In this case
the city defended upon the ground
that, although Bardsley had received
the money, he was the States. agent
to get it into the State Treasury, and
for his failure to do so the Common
wealth would be the loser and not the
city.
The second of these cases was for
the unpaid personal property tax of
1901. It will be rememb cred that
over third of this tax, or S3oI ,667..
50, was collected by Bardsley and lost
by him before he went out of Office.
The balance, $527,24I.47, collected
by his successor, w. Redwood Wright,
was all paid into the State Treasury
and the same was credited to the
county. At the end of the year there
was returnable to the county one
third of the whole amount, S279,oo4.-
o6, but as the county was still in de-
fault in an amount in excess of this,
which 1t declined to pay, the Com
monwealth brought suit for the whole
amount.
The third and most sharply con-
tested of this series of cases was the
suit brought by the Attorney General
for the tax on municipal loans,
amounting, less some exemptions con-
ceded by the Commonwealth, to $780,
soo7s. In this case the city had
specifically appropriated the money
necessary to pay the tax on its loans
and had paid it over to Bardsley,
treating him and regarding him as the
States agent to collect it. He had
failed, however, to pay it over, and
the then Auditor General and State
Treasurer had not exacted payment
from him. Auditor General Mccain
ant had settled this account against
him individually and had always held
that the Treasurer personally, and not
the city. was responsible for this tax.
Under the instructions from the At
torney General, however, he resettled
the account and charged it against
Philadelphia and upon this suit was
brought. which the city was quite hcpe-
full could not be maintained. The
question involved, it IS admitted by
the Supreme Court in its opinion,
twas not flee from doubt" before this
trial, and uncertainty prevailed as to
whose agent the City Treasurer was
when he received this loans tax.
''The law was susceptible to conflict
ing inferences as to the real functions
of the officer" but the Supreme Court,
after careful examination and COM
parison of the many acts OF Assembly
and decisions cognate to this subject,
sustains the contention of the Attor-
ney General and affirms the opinion
of the lower court. But, in view OF
the special hardship of the case, it re-
lieves the city from most Of the penal
ties imposed and enters judgment for
the amount claimed, with interest at
6 instead of IL per cent, leaving the
judgment at SS5,I9I.9a.
RESULT OF THE DECISION.
The net and aggregate result of this
decision is that the city must pay to
the Commonwealth $53o,4I4.I9 Tor
moneys collected by Bardsley and
never returned to the State. Besides
this the city loses the $s79,o94'oo
one-third of the personal property tax
for 1891, which, never having been
paid to the State, will not be returned
to the city, and also the $4a5,ooo OF
the school fund, which was improvi-
IDENTIFY paid to Bardsley by the State
officials.
AS to the remaining and only la
b;htv of Rardslev to the State, the At