The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-12-29

Three of the most interesting and
far-reaching cases that will be argued
before the state Supreme court next
year will be Lackawanna county cases.
In all three Of the cases important con-
stitutional questions are involved. That
the court considers them Of first i'm
portance is demonstrated by the fact
that in two of the cases re-argumcnts
have been ordered. All three cases viii
be heard during Lackawanna county
week at the Supreme court, which be-
gins Feb. 19.
The I4ackawanna county list for that
week will be headed by the school
board case, which the Supreme court
has ordered a re-argument of. This
case has in reality already had three
hearings before that body. the Pitts
ton school board case, which embodies
exactly the same facts, having been
argued twice and the Scranton case
once.
The purpose Of the proceedings which
the Supreme court will be asked to pass
upon is to decide whether or not q
board of twenty-one members is legal.
If it is not, then the district must be
satisfied with n board of six. The de-
cision of the Supreme court will be
affected largely by what Justice Brown
and Justice MestreZat think about the
proposition. 1t is generally supposed
that the court at present is evenly di-
vlded as to the merits OF the case aud
therefore ordered a re-argument before
a full bench.
SUPPOSED TO BE AGAINST.
The two new judges will take their
| seats the first of the year, and here
! abouts there is an impression that they
! VIII not look with favor on the large
/ board and consequently there Is re-
newal of interest in the selection of
members of the board of six at the
! spring election. Chief Justice Sterritt,
who retlres from the bench tomorrow.
was generally believed to favor the
large board.
/ The John Gibbons contempt case will
! also have a re-argument before the
Supreme court in February. When this
case was argued late last spring the
! judges were evidently so much i'm
pressed with the belief that Mr. Glib
bons was guilty of contempt that after
his attorney had concluded his argu-
ment they decided not to hear from the
opposition.
A more extended consideration of the
case evidently caused the members OF
the court to change their minds. They
saw they were confronted by grave
constitutional question that would be q
precedent and have a great influence
on tho conducting of elections in this
state in the future and they decided tc
get additional information on the sub.
ject before giving their opinion.
The third important Lackawanns
| county case will be an appeal from the
decision of Judge II. NJ. Edwards In
the poor board case. In the quo war.
ranto proceedings brought in the name
of the commonwealth by District At.
torney John r. Jones, to test the righ
of the present members Of the board tt
hold office, Judge Edwards decided tha
the Act of 1866, which was attacked
was constitutional This vests in tn,
president judge Of the court the power
to appoint members Of the board.
AN ELECTIVE OFFICE.
The judges conclusions were tina
under the Act Of 1862 the office was al
elective one, but the people havins
failed to avail themselves Of this privi
lege the president judge was properly
exercising his appointive power to fl
vacancies, as the law provides.
Proceedings We're then begun in tn,
name of John J. Murphy, one of tn,
members-elect, to GUST Frank ]. Dick
ert, the member appointed for the dis
trict Mr.. Murphy was elected TO rep
resent, and the case is still pending il
the local court.
To have the case reviewed by tn,
Supreme court during the coming yea
an appeal will be taken from the opin
ion OF Judge Edwards declaring con
stitutional the Act of 1866. If the Su
preme court decides against the loca
court on this question, the poor boar,
falls back entirely on the provisions o
the Act of 1862, which vests the ap
pointing power in case of death, re
moval or resignation in the hands O
the judges OF the court OF quarter ses
sions.