The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-07-29


nth section OF the act of 1895 the hoard
of revision and appeals was authorized
to issue preccpt during the intervening
years IL they deemed II necessary. TO the
board OF assessors requiring them 10
make another assessment of all property
and then that board of revision was re-
quired to take both the triennial and an
nual assessments, and, ''revisc, equalize
or alter such assessmens In any and ev-
cry year by increasing or reducing ..-c
valuation"
PLAINTIFFS CONTENTION.
As we understand, the plaintiffs con-
tention is, that this authorization to make
intermediate annual assessments II tire
board of revision deemed 1t advisable, is
illegal and void because It is in contra
vention of the constitution. The learned
counsel for the appellee contends that the
judgment of the court below can be sus-
tained on three grounds. The first of
them is that the valuation of the plain
tiffs property was made by n so-called
assistant assessor, but who was not a
legal officer, for the reason that in the
year when the assessment was made no
such Office existed. The averment con-
tained in the seventh clause in the bill is
referred to as authority for this conten-
tion. But the fifth clause of the bill as
serts that the board of assessors Of the
city of Scranton made the increased as
scssment, and it is therefore their act, no
matter who reported the valuations to
them. If they adopted them they as
sumed all the responsibility for the ac-
tion taken and IL is their action that is
under consideration. The second reason
alleged for sustaining the action of the
court is that the plaintiffs real estate
was changed in year other than TIL
ennial year under color of an unlawful
delegation of legislative power This ccn-
tention raises the whole question OF the
unlawful authority. The argument must
suffice to prove that the delegation of
the particular authority to make an as
scssmcnt in year other than the tri-
ennial year is unla wful. If II does not es-
tablish that proposition it is of no avail
Now it is not at all denied for the ap-
pellee that the entire taxing power OF the
commonwealth must be exercised by the
Legislature. Nor is 1t at all denied that
the legislative power TO impose taxation
in the municipalities of the commonwealth
may lawfully be committed to the munic-
ipal authorities. The decisions on this
subject are absolutely without uunlifica-
ton. Thus In DurachS Appeal, 62 pa.
494. 1t was said by Sharswood, j.: THE
municipal government is but a branch
of the government of the state, and what
ever powers Of taxation the legislature
possess they may lawfully grant or dele
73 Pa 44S we said: "Whatever power of
taxation the legislature possesses, It may
delegate to a municipal government, to
be legitimately exercised within its cor
porate limits" Ir Pa. r. r. Co. VS.. Pitts
burg, 104 Pa 500, Mercur, c. j., said: '"rhe
taxing power in this commonwealth is
vested absolutely in the legislature, and
when not prohibited by the constitution,
it is limited in the exercise of that power
by it's discretion only. = Whatever
power it possesses it may delegate to a
municipal government to be legitimately
exercised within its corporate limits"
These propositions being incontrovert-
ible it will be seen at Cnce that the ques-
tion at issue is narrowed down to this:
Can the Legislature authorize the prooer
municipal officers of a city of the third
class to make assessments in other years
than the triennial years? There can cer-
tainy be no constitutional objection to
the creation of a board of revision and
appeals with all the powers incident to
the functions of such n board. No such
objection is made in the present case, and
if it We're, it could not be entertained for
| a moment. 1t is equally certain that all
| assessments of property that are made
| in any such city should be made by the
| board of assessors. There being no valid
| objection to the official character of the
| persons who are to exercise the function,
| there remains only the single and very
| narrow question, is it unconstitutional Tor
| the Legislature to authorize any assess
| ments in the years between the tricnnial
years? The argument presented in the
| opinion of the court below has been al
| ready considered. In the argument of
| the counsel for the appellee, in addition 20
| the contention that the legislation in
| question is an unlawful delegation of pow
| cr, which has already been answered. a
| 1T, Vii
! Insurance Co., l6G Pa. ~, rules the ques-
ton in favor of the plaintiff. An exam
| ination of that case shows that the Ques-
| ton there raised and decided has no an
| alogy to the question we are now con-
| sidering. 1t was an attempt to delegate
to a single individual person the power
| to prescribe a compulsory form of con-
| tract between private parties. The whole
| subject was submitted to the official
without any kind of limitation or re-
straint and without responsibility to any
| supervising agency In other words II
rested only with The official designated to
! say what kind of contract should be
made,and it conferred upon him the whole
power of the commonwealth to enforce
the terms that he should prescribe. 1t is
a grave question whether the legislature
| itself possesses any such power, but il
it does it is most manifest that only the
| law making power itself can exercise It,
| for 1t is the making of law, 1t is the very
creation of legal status. But here the
| authority conferred is nothing but mat
ter of detail, it does not involve the pow
er itself. It is simply question wheth-
| er the annual assessments may be made
| in addition to the triennial assessments
| when circumstances seem to require sucn
| annual assessments, 1t is impossible tC
| conceive why this may not be done. lr
point of fact annual assessments are al.
ways made, though as "a rule the valua'
tions as made in the triennial assess
ments are followed. But it is quite possl
BILE for many reasons, that facts may
| transpire after the completion of the tri
| Cnnial assessments which may require
| changes TO be made. This was recog.
| nized under the old law in the cases ni
change of ownership or the condition OF
| the improvements, and the new law
simply enlarges the field of possibilities
that may demand a change, 1t can mo-
be that a mere enlargement of the oc
casons for the exercise of the power tC
make changes is fundamentally illegal
when the power to make some changes i:
conceded, or can not be impeached.
We are very clear that such enlarge
ment is not a delegation of Legislative
power but mere addition to powers al
ready lawfully ccnftrre In this connec
tion the following citation from the opin
ion of Chief Justice Black in the case Of
MoeTs VS.. City of Reading, 2l Pa. lSj. i:
quite opposite, viz: Half the statute:
on our books are In the alternative de
pending on the discretion OF some person
or persons to whom is contded the alIty
of determining whether the proper occas
ion exists for executing them. But IT car
not be said that the exercise OF such &
discretion is the making of the law"
NOT MADE LOCAL.
Some contention is also made in the ar
gument for the appellee that this change