The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-10-14

What was known as the Keller orul-
nance dealing with the repair of as
phalted streets may be said to have
changed its name to Roche at the
select council meeting last night. Upon
coming up in select, at the meeting
before last it passed first reading and
was referred to the paving committee
in conjunction with City Solicitor Nc
Ginley. Three questions were raised:
F'irst---Whether the city can enter
into ten-year contract?
Second-Whether the city controller
could certify the contract?
Third-Whcther it would bring the
city debt above the constitutional
limit.
The city solicitor sent in an opinion
settling all these questions faVorably
to the passage of the ordinance, and
when it came up in its regular order
for second reading John T.. Roche took
the floor and said the Keller ordinance
contained many omissions and dupli-
cations.
Therefore he offered substitute
which would overcome these defects.
He wanted to substitute it outright
hut Chairman Chittenden would not
entertain the motion. Then he offered
ii section by section.
The principal feature of his amend
mpnts was to provide for an approprl-
alton of 2,6C0 to be included in the
estimate for 1899. 1t was amended to
provide for quarterly repairs instead
of annual repairs to keep the contraC-
tor. as Mr.. Roche put it, more in touch
with his work. Another amendment
provided that repairs should begin only
on such streets as are out of bond
There are $4,000 yards of asphalted
pavement ard not more than 10000
yards are ont of bond at the present
time. Mr. Roche makes the city engi-
neer the one to approve of the repair
/ work And he used the words the
! streets shalt be repaired and kept in
repair" to amend section of the orig
| inal ordinance, which he said was not
| definite enough.
Mr.. Keller when he heard OF the re-
marks made on his ordinance. said the
! ordinance was drawn under the super
/ vision of one of the best LAWYERS in
the city. submitted to another promi-
nent member of the bar, and finally to
! City Solicitor Mckinley The city So
! licitors opinion on the questions sub
mitted to him is as follows
SOLICITORS OPINION.
! TO the Honorable the Members of the So
lect and Common Councils of the City
of Scranton.
| Gentlemen: Three imI ortant IegI
| questions suggest themselves rcgarding
| the validity of ordinance, file of common
council. No. 30. 1898, providing for the re
pair of streets now paved with asphalt
| namely: ID Is it within the power of tn,
| city to make contract for term of tel
| years; ca Is it the duty of the controlle
| to certify such a contract; 90 Is the con
templated expenditure an increase of Ih'
Indebtedness beyond the constitution
| limit.
There is no constitutional or statutor!
provision limiting the terms of munCipl
| contracts; and in the absence of sucl
| restrictions or limitations, municipalities
have authority to enter into Contract
the same as other corporations or indi
viduals This was decided in the case o
Black against Chester. lis Pa. l0l tn
question at issue being whether the cit!
of Chester had the right to enter into
five years contract for lighting streets
The Supreme court held that the city hat
the right to make such agreement, an,
that the contract die not conflict with an,
constitutional inhibition.
1t is essential to the validity of a con
|
the city controller. The act Of May .;
| 1889, p. l.. 303 provides that "every con
tract involving an appropriation of none
| shall designate the item of appropriate
upon which it is founded. and the esti
mated amount of the expenditure there
under shall be charged against such lter
and so certified by the controller %
the contract before ii shall take ef
feet as contract, and the pay
ments required by such contrac
shall be made from the fund apprC
priated therefor. If the controller sha
certify any contract in excess OF the al
preparation made therefor, the city sha
not he liable for such excess but the con
troller and his surcties shall be liable fo
the same, which may be recovered in o
action at law by the contracting party aa
grieved. 1t shall be the duty of the cor
troller to certify contracts for the PAY
ment of which sufficient appropriate
has been made"
MCOLLUM'S OPINION.
In rendering the opinion of the court
the Chester case, Mr., Justice McCollun
in treating this phase of the question
stated: "lf "A contract involves an al
prODratiOn of money il is the contro
ler's duty to certify upon it the estimate
amount of the expenditure thercundC
charEeable against the item of appropria
tion on which it is founded. He does II,
make or supervise the ostimat tes, but h
is required to certify it upon the contrac
If the contract is to furnish light or wa
ter for a term of years, to be paid fc
monthly, quarterly or annually he shoul
certify Hereunder for the ensuing Gsc,
year. In other words it is his duty
certify upon 1t the estimate made by N
proper department in accordance with II
fact" And in the case of commonwealt
VS. George. 1jS Pa. 46t II was hold IN.