The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-09-23
V0SBURG MAKES REPLY.
Another Opinion on the City Con-
troller's Right to Extra Pay for
Doing School Board Work.

Below is another opinion from City
Solicitor Vosburg supporting City Con-
troller Howell's claim for compensation
from the school district for handling
the school accounts. 1t is virtually a
reply to Mr.. Reedys opinion of last
week, which assailed the ground taken
by Mr.. Vosburg in his original opinions:
Esdras Howell, Esq. City Controller:
Replying to your second inquiry as to
your relations to the school district, |
would say that under the forty-first seq
ton OF the act of May %, 1874, each third
class city was constituted one school dis.
trict and by the thirty-ninth section of
the same act. the city controller is given
the supervision and control of the fiscal
concerns of all departments of the city
and school district.
But there is a serious question about
the consitutionality of sections thirty
nine and fortY-one, Of the act of 1874 for
at least two reasons:
First-The act contains more than one
subject, and
Second-The subject of school districts
Is not stated i'm the title.
I am informed that Judge Mcpherson
has held that this section of the act of
1874 is unconstitutional, and that the
lcountersiGning of school warrants by the
controller Is therefore unnecessary and
the authorities seem to support this view
of the matter.
See Ayar's appeal, 100 Pa, page 2S3
OF course under this aspect of the case,
you cannot be compelled to perform du-
ties imposed upon you by an unconsti-
tutional act of assembly.
Furthermore, the act of 2Sth May, 1889,
p l.. 271. which regulates the municipal
tiles of this state, so far as its provisions
are in conflict with the act of 1874, de-
| fines fully the duties Of the city control
| Ter, and nowhere in this act are any du-
| ties with respect to the school district
imposed upon him. The act of 1889, article
xix, section ., provides that "All acts or
parts of acts inconsistent herewith, or
| supplied by the provisions hereof, he and
| the same are hereby repealed" This pro-
vision apparently repeals the inconsist-
ent provisions Of the act of 1874 with re-
speCt TO the duties OF the city controller,
| even if that act is held to be constitu-
tional in that part which relates to
| school districts and the city controller 5
| relation thereto. In my opinion, there
| fore, you cannot be compelled to act as
auditor or controller for the school dis
trict.
on the question of compensation, / refer
to the decision OF the ROthrock VS.. School
| District l33 Pa, page 492, where it is held
| that in the absence of any act of assem-
| bly, or provision made by the school dis
trict for his payment, the city controller
| cannot recover for services rendered the
| school district but the Supreme court
intimates very strongly in that case, that
| If the controller is specially employed by
the school district as an individual and
not simply on account of being control
| Ter of the city, he could recover com,
pensation for services rendered.
| So it seems that the school district
should employ YOU by special appropriat=
action, and not ask you to perform youl
duties as "eX-otiiciO" controller of the
| school district.
| 1t is significant that the act Of 1889 has
no provision that the city controllers sal
AIRY shall be Increased during his term OF
| office and, under either aspect of the case
whether the sections referred to in tn,
act of 1874 are unconstitutional or not, ol
| If not unconstitutional, they have beer
repealed by the act of 1889, there Is NJ
legislative prohibition to the increase oi
his salary or emolumCnts during his term
II prohibited, it must be under the con
stitutional provision and a. I have al
ready advised you, this only prohibits al
increase by law, which in Baldwin VI
| Philadelphia, 90 Pa 10, was interpreted
to mean by an act Of assembly,
There Is nothing then i'm the constitu
ton, to prevent an increase by somC
other method, ana ! fail to see how {
payment by the school board would ViO
late the constitution.
| Further than this as I have already
said, ! do not see how the hiring Of
clerk by the school board to perform thi
work, to he paid by the body direct
could be considered n payment to you il
any sense of the word.
AS the matter now stands / think yo,
are fully justified in requiring the actor
upon the part of the school board, by
which you are specially employed at
fixed compensation, before continuing Il
perform the duties required of you b,
that body.