The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-04-09

court decided not to hear any verbal
arguments on this rule and what the
attorneys have to say will be presented
in the form of proper books. ID. ].
Reedy, solicitor for the school board,
and d. J. Davis. one of the attorneys
for the board of SIX went to Philadel-
phia yesterday to present the briefs.
They will remain in Philadelphia to
hear the arguments in the Pittston
school board appeal, which will be
heard Monday. The case is almost
identical to the one from this city.
The decree Of supersedeas is sought
by the members of the present board
to prevent the local court from issuing
q writ Of custer pending a decision by
the Supreme court on the merits or tHe
appeal from the decision Of Judge Arch
bald in the quo warranto proceedings.
The argument for the supersedeas is
in part as follows:
This being on a rule to show cause
why the appeal should not be decreed a
supersedeas, it seems to us that the ques-
tionS involved are:
Frst-The injury which may be done
to the school district of Scranton, by
enforcing an execution against the de-
PENDANTS.
fill the offices of school controllers If
the appellants in this case are ousted.
Third-The possibility of error in the
ruling Of the court below.
THE ARGUMENT.
The first and second may be argued to-
gether The city of Scranton was incor-
porated by Act of April 23 1866, F. L. 1884,
and its supplement of March 30, 1861, p.
l.. G35. Up to the adoption of
the act of May %. 1874, the city Of Scran-
| ton had four school districts. The leg
| islature by an act approved May 3, 1882,
! sought to repeat the acts of 1866 and 1867.
Attention Of the court is called
| to the title of this act No mention what
| soever is made of the act of April %.
| 1866, nor is it cited for appeal. Does the
| act of May ., 1889, repeal the act of March
| 50. 1867?
Under the statement OF facts as agreed
upon. four hundred and twenty thousand
| dollars of bonds issued since 1877 are out
! standing. Fifty-hve thousand dollars
were issued between the acceptance Of
| the provisions of the Act of May 23 1874,
| and the passage of the Act Of May 3,
| 1889. If the act of 1874 is declared un-
| constitutional, then there was no city of
! Scranton school district, and the bonds
| are illegal and void.
| Again, II the offices of the present con-
| trollers are declared vacant, there are no
| persons legally qualified to fill the Of
| fees. 1t is conceded that a board of six
| directors. whose terms of office commence
| the first Monday in June, 1895, was elect
ed at the Spring election of this year,
| but the right of the six directors to the
| office of school controller in the city of
Scranton is disputed
Great and irreparabe injury will be
done the school district of Scranton by
continued and incossant litigation. Until
| this question is finally disposed of, no
| change should be made in the personnel
! of the school board
Mr.. John Jermyn, who is the real party
of record in the case. makes no claim for
| the office in question
The board of six school directors are
| not parties to the record and no Oppor-
| tunity has been given the court below "a
| pass upon their title TO the Offices. Until
| such time as their title is passed upon
| there are no other persons than these
| appellants legally qualified to hold the
Offices
| NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Thrd-The act of May 90. 1874 p. L., 25i
| is not unconstitutional 1t has been be-
fore this court in many phases and al
most every section of the act has beer
passed upon, including the forty-first sec.
| tion, and its constitutiOnality has beer
| sustained.
In Com. vs. Evans, 1o2, Pa, St, 39G
| this identical question was before this
! court. Mr.. Justice Paxton delivering the
| opinion Of this court, said
"The city Of Scranton is a city of the
| third-class ana is divided into twenty,
one wards. Under the forty-llrst section
Of the act Of May %. 1874 p. L., 254, each
ward Is entitled to elect one school con
| trollcr. Those elected from even mum,
hercd wards at said first election GS7S
| To serve for two years and those from
odd numbered wards for four years
thereafter. every two years, alternately
| they shall elect one each, 20 serve fol
! four years. II will thus be seen that IA,
| term of a school controller is four years
| I'M Scranton school district IS. Simpson
| Ct al. l3}, Pa. St. POP and in McCaulcS
| ys. Easton school district, 1913 Pa. ST
493 the forty-secUnd section Of the ac
| Of May %, l>T4 was before this 60 -
! ana its Constitutouality sustained.
IN Commonwealth ys. TayloH ct al.
l59, Pa. St, Al also 1863 Pa, ST, the ac
Of May II, 1>7l p. J., 100. which is sim
ilar in character TO the act Of May %
was held to he constitutional
I'm every case in which the fortv-frs
section Of the said act May % 1874. ha
been before this court or the lower courts
! the inference rs clear tndt It's COnstitu
| tionality Is mdOubted.
The court below i'm declaring the act u
lN7i unconstitutional S, med TO put for
ward as the principal reason that; 9TH
act contained more than one subiec
which is not clearly expressed in it
| title"
The forty-first section of the act Of 1874
as amended by the act OF June lG 1891
y. l.. 3OG is not obnoxious to Article III
Section OF the Constitution of pennsyl
| Vania.
ARE NOT THE SAME.
The townships Of this commonwealth
J each with a population Of two hundrc,
souls. are not to be considered i'm tn
same light as a city the size of Scranton
with its population OF 1O0,OOO persons, it
valuable and scattered school property
it's number Of teachers and varied in
| terests.
| The needs of the city of Scranton, an,
the capabilities Of board of six diFac
tors 10 properly administer its affairs
are proper subjects, in our opinion 70
, this court to consider, at least until tn
final disposition Of this case.
In each ward there is az least on
| school house. and most bave ttVo a.,