The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-12-12

the realtors have n right to them, the
only method by which they can get I'm
Is by mandamus to the rest of the
board to admit and recognize them.
The right of the two REALTORS, Carter
and Gardner, depends on the validity
OF the Act of May 5, 1899, p. l.. 23i,
already referred TO under which they
were duly appointed by the judges of
the quarter sessions of this county.
This statute the respondents contend is
unconstitutional on numerous grounds.
What is outlined in the title is
strictly followed in the body of the
act. This reference to the con-
tents Of the statute is necessary In
view of the objections raised to IT,.
These objections, as already said, are
numerous. and If 1t were not for the
eminent counsel who raise them we
should he inclined to pronounce them
hypcrCritical For instance IL is claimed
that there is more than one subject
covered by the title; but how or why?
1t is declared to be an act to regulate
the affairs of the poor district mem
toned, and then the particulars in
which that Is to be done are given. No
one can well say that the title does not
disclose the complete purpose of the
act and II Is certainly not to be con-
demned for its detail. The only ques-
tion is whether the different things es-
saycd to be done are germane to the
general purpose. But in what respect
are they not?
ABOUT CHANGE OF NAME.
1t is said that the name is changed
and the boundaries enlarged; that thC
manner Of electing the directors, their
number and terms of office, are rcgu-
lated; and the new office of auditor ot
the district created. But why are no
each and every one of these a legiti
mate part of the general subject? witt
what shall such an act concern itselt
If not with these? Were this Original
legislation, the corporate body created
| would have to be given a name and its
| boundaries defined, and why does no
! the change of its name and the en-
| larging of it's boundaries, if they ar
| enlarged, fall within appropriate sup
| Elemental legislation concerning tn
| affairs of the district? Or how, again
can it be urged that the officers of tn
J corporate body affected their numbe
| and terms of office and the auditing o
their accounts, do not fall within tn
/ general subject covered by the act?
The mistake seems to be made o
| taking these as distinct subject
| which they are not. They are mer
| specifications of the different things
be accomplished by the act. with sue
gestions of how it is to be done.
| surely would not be expected that W
| should have as many as there are af
| fairs to be regulated, each act concern
| ing itself with a single one of these
and yet there is just what the argu
ment of counsel would lead to if sus
tained.
| To escape this dilemma, it is said in
stead of bringing so many things in b
way of a supplement there should hav
been an entirely new act covering tn
whole general subject. But how doe
this bear on the validity of the act a
made up? If all that is founded in
could be brought into a new act wit
regard to this poor district, why ma
it not lawfully appear in the genera
supplement TO the original act whic
created it; or what canon of legislf
tion is offended by providing for 1t
Clearly it is admissible to effect II
changes desired by appropriate supple
| mental legislation such as we have be