The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-02-17
CAN BOROUGHS
LEVY POLE TAX
Interesting Question Brou2hi Up Yester-
day in Argument C0rr'.
POSTAL COMPANY AGAINST TAYLOR
The Borough Levied Tax OF 81 on
Each Telegraph, Telephone and
Electric Light Pole in the Borough
and Now the Postal Telegraph
Company Is Trying to Have That
Action Declared Iiiegai.-The Fell
Iows.Smith Case.

A case of importance to the boroughs
or the state of Pennsylvania was
argued yesterday morning in court, be-
ing the case of the borough of Taylor
against the Postal Telegraph and Gable
company foreign corporation doing
business in the state of Pennsylvania.
The case was argued for the borough
by j. NJ. Harris, borough solicitor, and
the defendant company was represent
ed by Watson e. Zimmerman, Mr. Zim-
norman making the argument for the
company.
The question raised in this case was
whether the plaintiff, in the. absence of
any express legislative grant and in
the absence of any agreement between
the parties, could impose q fee or
charge upon the defendant for the care
ana inspection of its telegraph poles
and wires.
The case was argued on exceptions to
the report of l. II. Burns, who was ap-
pointed referee under the Act of 1869.
Ihe referee decided that the borough
mad the power under the general Act
OF 1881 to impose such a charge as
compensation for the inspection and
supervision of the wires and poles of
the defendant: that this power was in
the nature of police power, which was
provided for by the general borough
law by necessary implication.
The referee cited the case of the bor-
ough of Bethlehem against the Penn
sylvania Telephone company a North
ampton Reports. 3S9) and the case Of
Millerstown against Bell Q23 Pa. St.,
l5l). In these cases It was decided
That an ordinance requiring a tele-
graph company to pay a fixed price
for its poles fairly comes within the
police power over the streets given by
the Act of 1851.
ORDINANCE INVALID.
Mr.. Zimmerman contended that the
ordinance was invalid, that the con-
ciuslons of the referee were wrong be-
cause there was no express legislative
grant empowering boroughs to impose
tax on telephone poles and telephone
wires, and that the sum of 81 per pole
was excessive and out of any propor-
ton to the expense Of maintaining such
inspection and supervision over said
poles and wires by the authority of the
borough; that the tax was not in point
or fact imposed as a compensation for
the inspection and supervision of said
| H.
posed solely as a means of raising
revenue.
In answer to this, Mr. Harris for the
borough maintained that the amount
imposed upon the defendant as a COM
pensation for the inspection of it's poles
and wires was not to be measured in
terms of the actual expense of making
such inspection; that the inspection
11yr I>., 81,
officers of the borough by it's high con-
stable and police, and that the liabil-
ity of the borough for injury to per-
sons and damage to property was
factor in its police power to charge the
defendant with such fee; that the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania pos
sesses the police power over her roads
and public highways, and, that when
this power l.: handed over to a munich
pal corporation, the municipal corpor-
alton becomes the conservator of the
peoples rights and must assume the
responsibility for injury done to per-
sons and property, whether that be
done by the municipal corporation her
self or by corporations doing business
within her limits. The rights to do
business within the municipal corpor-
alton is not an absolute right but a
qualified right and is subject to the
regulations of the particular munich
ral corporation.
MERE COMPENSATION.
1t was further contended by Mr. Har-
rs that the sum charged by the ordi.
nance for the inspection and the ex-
animation Of the poles of the defend
ant was not made in the nature of a
tax for revenue purposes, but that it
was a mere compensation for the pos
session and obstruction of it's streets
and the occupation of it's land; that
the ordinance was not in restraint of
trade> that it was not unreasonable.
that it did not impose a burden with
out benefit; that it did not violate
any of the provisions of the constitu-
tion of Pennsylvania but rather de-
rives its authority clearly and by
necessary implication from the consti-
tuition. Supreme court cases and some
e---------------------