The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-07-30
THE GOVERNORS REASONS.


In Tuesdays Tribune appeared an in
terview with City Solicitor Torrey, in
which he expressed surprise that Gov
ornor Hastings had vetoed the Spear
municipal act without making his objec-
tions known to the state committee OF city
solicitors A recent issue OF the Will
Transport News contains what purports
to be the reasons of the Withholding OF
Governor Hastings executive approval OF
the bill. The bill proposes amendments to
present city laws The reasons are stated
In an explanatory way by the governor
and are prefaced with the following words
in reference to the blll
at Is very voluminous and contains
many provisions that would improve the
existing laws relating to cities OF the
third class and II is with regret that by
reason of several of its provisions, which
seem to me Objectionable, / am con-
strained to withhold my approval" Con-
tinuing, separate sections are taken up
seriatim and tfe governor points out
therein reason for his action. In section
), which gives power to cities OF the
third class to construct, own, maintain
and operate electrical subways, either in
whole or part, from the general reve-
nues of the city, etc." there is included q
clause which gives the city power TO re-
quire any company using overhead wires
to use the subway and the city to receive
Street railway companies are excepted.
The APPARENT meaning of this clause, the
governor regards as an unfair and un-
reasonable exercise of power"
Clause O. section s, deals with "the pow
or to purchase water works and borrow
money and issue bonds, If necessary, to
pay the cost thereof" The menace IN this
clause is its feature to state anything
about the voting Of the people for an in
crease Of debt and, besides, the clause
seems to ignore the constitutional provis-
ion in regard to an increase of the debt
above per cent. of the assessed valua-
tion of a city's property
The governor thinks that clause 13, of
section 9, which gives councils creative
power in regard to "any office, board of
officers, or department." is Objectionable.
1t is not an Improvement upon existing
laws and the creative power should re-
main vested in an act of assembly.
Again, objection is filed to the amend
ment which causes an omission of the
statutory limitation of six years, wherein
viewers are appointed in n case where
| property or materials" have been "cn-
| tered upon, taken, or appropriately for
certain improvements. If this Is done in
order that there may be no limit to tho
| right of the appointment of viewers then
the governor thinks it is objectionable.
Where section As of the bill amends Sec
| tion 80 of Article XIV, of the act of 1889 in
| regard to the assessments upon properties
| for municipal improvements, by emitting
the clause which provides for a means Of
redress by the assessed property owner,
the governor fails to see reason for 1t
and regards tho existing laws as a salu-
tary provision
| \ further amendment of section 80, of
| Article XIV OF the act of 1889 lies in the
provision made for a new method of as
| sessments by ordinance thus giving the
cities of the third class an opportunity to
collect assessments for improvements
which have been made during n term OF
eight years previous to the passage of
the new act Upon this the governor is
explicit and considers that the approval
of this section would allow property to
be assessed which belonged to new owners
who had no idea of such a possibility.
| Continuing further he says: THE evident
purpose of this provision is to cure mis-
takes and correct the carelessness of pub
lie officials, but it ought not to be done at
the expense of property owners who had
neither voice nor power in making the
| improvements. There are a number OF
minor provisions in the bill of an objec-
tionable character but those already dis
cGssed furnish sufficient reason for with
| holding my approval