The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-10-24
ORDINANCE Is
NOT NOW In FORCE
OPINION RENDERED BY CITY
SOLICITOR vosBuRG.

Asked for by Clerk Lavelle in the
Matter of the Ordinance Providing
for the Paving of Linden Street,
Between Monroe and Webster Ave-
nues-Mayor Returned the ordi-
nance to the City Clerk Within the
Period Fixed by Law-veto Was
Valid.
1t has been stated by some that the
ordinance providing for the paving of
Linden street, between Monroe and
Webster avenues, is in force, despite
the fact that 1t has not been passed
over the mayors Veto The conten-
tion is made that the ordinance be-
came in force by the act of assembly
which provides that an ordinance shall
become operative if the mayor does
not return it in fifteen days.
The mayor returned 1t within the
fifteen day limit, but it was not re-
ceived until after that period, there
being no quoroum present at the meet
ing in which it should have been read.
To satisfy himself on the matter
City Clerk Lavelle wrote to City So
licitor Vosburg for an opinion and
his letter and that of the solicitor are
given below, the latter deciding that
the ordinance at present is invalid.
Office of the City Clerk.
Scranton, Pa, Oct. 49, 1899
Mr.. A. a. Vosburg, City Solicitor.
Dear sir: An ordinance providing for
the paving of Linden street from Monroe
avenue to Webster avenue has been re-
| turned to this office by the clerk of the
common council without the approval OF
the mayor. 1t is claimed that on account
of Irregularities that the ordinance is In
full force and is operative notwithstand-
ing that 1t has not received the mayor $
approval. 1t appears that the ordinance
passed both councils regularly and was
presented to the mayor for his approval
on Sept. IL, 1899 The clerk of the COM
mon council received a sealed envelope
| from the mayor on Sept 2S. 1899. There
was to have been regular meeting of
common council on said date
QUORUM NOT PRESENT.
| There was not a quorum present there
| fore there was no meeting and the com
munication aforesaid was not opened ana
|
of its contents. At a meeting held Oct.
| II, 1899. the said sealed communication
| was opened. The chair declared it out OF
| order on the ground that 1t contained a
| clerical error not being addressed to the
| common council. Later on during the
said meeting Mr.. NJ. V. Morris moved
| seconded by Mr. Reese, that the mayor 5
communication which had been ruled
out of order during the earlier part of
| the meeting, he read.
Mr.. Grier claimed that the communlca-
| tOn referred to was not addressed to
common council and was dated Sept. IS
! that it appears the communication had
fbcen amended and If so, it should be
dated oct. u. 1899, not Sept. 2S. The
! communication was read as amended be.
ing a veto of the aforesaid ordinance
Roll was called on the passage of the
| ordinance Notwithstanding the mayors
veto. Yeas, 6; nays, il. 1 enclose here
with copy Of the ordinance, also the
veto referred to. | request you to furnish
"A written opinion stating whether yol
consider the ordinance valid and in force
Respectfully submitted.
NJ. II. Lavelle, City Clerk.
The city solicitors reply is as fol.
lows:
Scranton. Pa, Oct 20, 1899.
Mr. Martin II. Lavele, City Clerk.
Dear Sir: Replying to your communi
cation of the 10Th inst, ] would say
that the act of assembly governing mu
nicipal legislation of this city, is that o
May %, 1889, section Z, which provides
that Every legislative act of the coun
ellis shall be by resolution or ordinance
and every ordinance and resolution whici
shall have passed both branches shall b
presented, duly certified, to the mayor 70
approval. If he approved, he snail sigl
the same, but if he shall not approve, h.
shall return it, with his objections, L
the branch of the councils wherein /
originated, which shall thereupon pro
Ceed to reconsider 1t.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
Every ordinance or resolution whicl
the mayor shall not return within fifteel
days from the date of its presentation L
him, as aforesaid shall become a law a
fully and effectually as if he had ap
proved the same"
Under the act OF 1874, it was held Il
Pa, Globe Gas Light Co., VS.. City o
Scranton, 81 Pa, 53S, that If there is n
regular meeting of the council before tn
expiration of the fifteen days. the mayo
must call one to consider his veto; bu
In the act of 1874 there was n special pro
vision that THE mayor shall call specia
meetings of councils to reconsider ordin
|
days notice to each member of council,
No such provision appears in the ac
of 1889. to which | have referred.
On Sept. 2S, 1899, the mayor returne
the ordinance in question Cile of CON
mon council No 49, 1890, TO the clerk {
the common council, without his approx
al, with his objections to the same. Ther
was a regular meeting of the commo
council fixed for the evening of the sam
, day. but owing TO the fact that no quo
rum was present, of course no action wa
taken upon the veto of the mayor Sui
l sequcntly a meeting was held, and I'll
[ veto of the mayor was sustained.
From the facts above stated, it appeal
l that the mayor returned the ordinance
3 | the clerk of the proper branch of coul
ellis, within the period fixed by law, ar
a after il was so returned, within the ii
teen days. there was a regular meetr
fixed for this branch of the councils I'll
=, fact that there would be no quorum,
] course, could not have been foreseen |
2 the mayor, and in the absence OF II
: provision for the calling OF a speci
5 meeting to consider his veto which
) omitted in the act of 1889, | cannot no
that he was required to do So
g / am therefore Of the opinion that Il
A NM