Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1896-10-08
Water Works and Clubs.

eastern counties; few were from western
counties bu. none from this county. The
three decisions that will attract the most
attention are two regarding borough and
city water works, and one regarding the
sale of liquor by clubs.
Regarding borough wster-works the
Court rev erses itself.
The decisions are in the cases of j. 7.
White and others against the city of
Meadville, aud Martin Metzger against the
borough OF Beaver Falls. 1t is held that
a municipality cannot build water works
of its OWE If the town is being supplied
by private corpol alton. The borough or
city's only recourse 10 to buy the plant of
the private company.
The decision puts in force as the law
what was contemplated by the Woods
water bill. 1t was passed by the Legis-
lature, but was vetoed by Governor Hast
ings. 1t provided that municipalities
could not build water works of their own
if private companies were supplying the
town, but they must buy out the private
plant.
In the opinion in one case handed down
by Justice Dean, he admits that the Su-
preme Court made mistake in its ruling
in the Millvale borough water works case,
and that ruling is now reversed. In the
Millvale case it was held that municipal
body is clothed with powers of legislation
TO limited extent, and whea within the
i limits of its authority, it's acts are OBJ
ligatory. In the contract with the pri-
vste company no restriction was placed
on the borough's right to erect water
| works 10 the future.
That is right, it was held, given to all
such bodies by the law, and they may
| exercise it, no matter al what cost to pri-
vate companies whose franchises are held
subject to such right. The right of
borough to ercot water works is independ-
ent of the right of private corporations
i to erect similar works, and it is of no COZ
sequence that such erection will injure
private franchises OF the same character.
This ruling is now fatty reversed, and
the injury to private companies is consid-
cred. In addition to the last decisions.
more questions are to be decided. The
referee in the Rochester Water Works
case made his report on the same lines as
| held by .he Court in the present cases.
| Exceptions to it go further and raise the
| question as to the right of q borough, in
| corporated under the general borough act,
to build water works at all, unless given
authority by a special act of Assembly.
If this is sustained it will bring into ques-
ton the validity OF millions OF dollars
| worth of bonds issued by such boroughs to
| build water works.
| In referring to the decision that had
been given in the Millvale case, Justice
| Dean says: 'It was assumed by all parties
| in the court below, and by the learned
Judge of that court, that the authority of
the municipality to violate its contract ex-
| listed. With the greatest reluctance on
the part of every member of thIs Court the
decree of the Court below was affirmed.
'Thst reluctance is expressed in no
doubtful language by our Brother Greene
| who delivered the opinion. 1t was as
sumed by all counsel in both courts that
| Lehigh Water Company's appeal was void
| of contention on that point and the case
| was decided on other grounds.
at was q mistake. We now are glad
of the opportunity for correction, especial
| IL so because the example of Millvale bor-
Ough seems to have led other municipal
orporations to adopt the same course Of
action"
In conclusion, a permanent injunction
was granted against the city, restraining
it from entering into contract for the
construction of Q water works.
In the Beaver Falls case the opinion in
the Meadville case il cited as covering it.
An injunction is granted against the bor-
ough restraining it from securing $123.000
for the ccnstrr cton of water works, or
for issuing bonds for that purpose, or en-
tering into any contract for the erection of
the works.
The decision regarding clubs, favors the
clubs, and holds that it is not a violation
of the Brooks law to sell to members.
This has been mooted question since
1887. County courts all oyer the State
have decided it both ways, but decision
could not be obtained from the Supreme
Court until now. The question was raised
arl orruad in, ha Gunariar N1urt h,,t M
decision was given The matter is now
settled by the Supreme Court. No decis-
ion has been handed down in years that
directly affects greater number of peo-
pie than this one. The opinion was Writ
ter by Justice Dean. Tho suit was that of
William r. Klein against the Livingstone
Club. II was appealed from Lehigh coun-
ty.
Justice Dean first describes the charac-
ter Of the club, chartered organization.
The suit was brought by member to ro-
strain the club from selling liquor to mem |
bers, on the ground that it was q violation |
Of tho license law and imperiled the clubs |
charter.
1t was admitted the club derived no pro-
fit from the sales. Justice Dean says: |
1.-The Brooks law only reduced to a COM |
prehensive system all the features of all |
tie license laws at its date on our statute |
books. There il not in it, nor in any of |
tho statutes which it replaces, prohibi- |
tion Of the use of liquors IN clubs. any |
more than there is prohibition Of its use |
in a family No indictment for furnishing |
liquors to members of club could be sus-
tanned, uDless the evidence showed be-
yond reasonable doubt such furnishing |
constituted a sale. The statute being
penal, it mast be subject to strict con-
structiOn. We cannot extend it beyond
its letter if we. in constituting the Brooks
statute, adopted the settled rule of con-
struc:ion.
"There are no words in the act, which
by any possible construction can be stretch
ed into prohibition of the use of liquor in
clubs, or that can be deemed as requiring
they shall be licensed. There is, in fac.
no express legislation concerning this dis
t1nctive, open, notorious, long existing use
of liquor; the plain implication is, that the
consumption OF liquor in clubs, as known
to the Legislature, was not deemed o sale. |
The general words of the law, however,
make the sale of liquor without license IL
legal every Ghere In the Comm onwealth;
and whether this be q sale, ia now a judi
cial and not a legislative question"
Referring 10 members Of clubs. the Court
continues: "1hey are all owners of the
property, wban purchased in equal shares,
IL ulFISIVu "tIb Lhcu luhuc, ohCu |
woald be entitled To an equal share of
liquor, but one consumes his share and
that of others who do not drink liquor, and
he puts back il the common treasury the
valne OF the Others shares, therefore, sl-
though by consumption the division is not
equal, yet it is made equal by the contri-
button to the treasury.
"Does this constitute a salef We think
not; there is no element of bargain. only
a method of distribution Of the common
property.
lit has been argued that the effect of
orr decision, II against plaintiff, will be to
deprive the licensed hotels of patronage to
which tnoy are impliedly entitled, by pay
ment Of heavy license fees under the
Brooks law; that members of clubs will +,
consume such liquors as they desire in
their club rooms, instead of at licensed
bars. This is not without force, but it
should he addressed to the Legislature,
who seem, for fifty yeras in all the legisla.
lion on the liquor question, to have care
fully reirained from prohibiting the furnish
ing of liquor to club members by their
clubs, as well as neglected to impose on