The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-05-01

The case of Joseph ]. Jermyn act
ing "for himself and other taxpayers
of the city of Scranton" against the
board Of city assessors board of revi-
sion and appeals and the city of Scran-
ton, was argued before the full bench
yesterday. Ira II. Burns and Horace
f. Hand appeared for the plaintiff, and
City Solicitor James II. Torrey for the
respondents.
The case is one of unusual Importance
as the constitutionality of the act of
1895 is brought into question, and be
cause the bill attacks and seeks to
overthrow tn" rev city assessment.
Mr.. Burns, who made the argument
for the plaintiff, claimed the law is un-
constitutional and void, because:
Frst-The Legislature cannot delegate
it's legislative authority to a municipal
board.
Second-That the law of 1895 allows
the different third-class cities to have
new assessments in different years and
thus the law would work local results.
For instance, Carbondale and Scran-
ton are both third-class cities, but this
year we have a>new assessment and
the other has not, thus showing diff
ferent local results under the same law
while the constitution provides that
taxes can only be levied under gen.
eral law. Mr.. Burns also argued that
there is no necessity for an increase of
taxation this year, because the burdens
of taxation are already grievous to be
borne.
MIR. TORREY'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Torrey, on the other hand, in ar
gung for the city, claimed that the
same power was given to all third
class cities alike, and that it was there
fore a general law, even though the
action of the different boards in the
different cities might not produce uni
| form results. He also claimed the ne
cessities of each city might be different
and that some fieXibility of the law
ought to he allowed in order that the
| law might to some extent adjust itself
to the particular needs of each munich
| pality.
Mr.. Torrey in his defense of the law
| contended:
First-That the bill brought by tie
| plaintiffs was contradictory in its ale
! cations with reference to the persons
| by whom the assessment was made, 1t
! being alleged in one place that 1t was
made by assistant assessors and in sew
eral other places that it was made by
the city assessors. Therefore the claim
that the assessment was illegal be-
cause made by assistant assessors must
be disregarded.
Second-I'he act of 1897 was drafted
upon the act of 1867, which has been
in force in Philadelphia for thirty
years. BY that act the board OF re-
vision of taxes in Philadelhia has al
the powers given by the act of 1895 to
the board of appeals and revision in
third class cities. They have the sam
! power to order a new assessment III
years other than triennial, either COM
plete or partial. If the act of 1895 is
unconstitutional because involving d
delegation of legislative powers, so is
the act of 1867. Neither act is so un-
! constitutional, because the Legislature
has full and unrestricted functions t.
such divisions of the municipal body
as it sees fit.
IS NO SACREDNESS.
Third-There is no sacredness in the
provision for a triennial assessment
|
an assessment may at any time repea
it and provide for assessments al
such times and in such manner as II
sees fit. The only restriction on sucf
changes is that they must be by gen,
eral laws. All law which applies
equally to all cities of the same class
is a general law. The act of 1895 meets
this requirement.
Fourth-To the argument that some
cities might have a new assessmen
every year and others only in three
years, it was answered that the logica
result of such argument would abolish
all discretionary powers in any office
or board in all cities. When the Law
provides that cities of the third class
may levy taxes not to exceed ten mills
on the dollar of valuation, the door Il
left open for our city to levy four mills
another six, another ten, thus workins
the same unequal result complained
of with reference to assessments. TIL,
effect of the argument carried to it
logical conclusion would require tn
legislature to prescribe cast-iron reg
ulations as to all municipal affairs
leaving nothing to the discretion of it
councils, boards or officers.
Fifth-The argument that the act O
1895 creates a municipal commission
in abrogation of the constitution wa
answered by the contention that tn
argument would destroy the board o
health, the board of water commits
sioners and every other board pro
vided by act of assembly in all cltie
of the third class. 1t would moreove
destroy all departments in cities of tn
first class, which under the Bullitt bill
of 1885 constitutes practically the en-
tire city government of Philadelphia.
CHALLENGED TO SPECIFY.
In conclusion the plaintiff was chal
lenged to specify any provision of tn
constitution which is violated by tn
act of 1895 and in absence of any sue
specification general allegations of un
constitutionality were held to be ire
leVant.
: The judges evinced exceptional inter
! est in the arguments and piled bot
= attorneys with questions. A larg
: number of lawyers were present an
they also paid the closest attentio
to the case.
Should the judges decide in favor {
the plaintiff II means that the 1856
taxes must be levied in the triennis
assessment of 1895 and in consequenC
thereof the valuation will be reduce
to such an extent that councils an
t the school board will have $4,000 les
5 to spend than they look for.
e The decision will affect all of tn
| tNnTa NxTf Nn1 oil aGtt L..