The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-08-25
THOSE DECISIONS
FROM HARRISBURG
GConcluded from Page 81

IL may well be that it was not intended
that any of these should either be sub
ject to impeachment or removal on adj
dress of two-thrds of the senate. But
that consideration will not prove that
an important municipal officer, exer-
cising grave public functions, shall not
be subject to removal at the pleasure
of the power which appointed him"
We do not agree that the highway
commissioner is a petty officer BY
Section 3 Of the ordinance above re-
ferred to, his salary is fixed at 81 500
per annum, and separate office with
necessary office expenses; he is re-
quired to keep a record OF his official
acts; to see that all streets. sidewalks,
lanes and alleys, and other public
places, are kept in good order; to see
that all ordinances and regulations of
the city in respect to these and to sew
ers and water-courses are complied
with and enforced; to make quarterly
reports to councils of his official doings;
to furnish a bond. with at least two
sufficient sureties, in the sum of $4,000.
and to have paramount control of all
work done and laborers employed on
all the highways and public places OF
the city; and many other powers and
duties are conferred and enjoined upon
him.
After full consideration, we are con-
vinced that no valid distinction can be
| drawn between this case and the
Houseman case. and being bound by
that authority, we adjudge that the
| respondent be ousted and removed from
| the office Of commissioner of highways
| OF the city of Harrisburg: and counsel
may draft and submit a formal judg-
| ment.
The Weiss decision in another Har-
| risburg case is also relied upon to
sustain the mayors position. This is
| a case where the select council of Har-
| risburg refused to confirm three police
| appointments of the mayor because
| the officers they were to succeed were
| hOnorably discharged veterans of the
! civil war, and under the act of 1897
| not removable from office without reas-
enable and just cause being shown.
! The mayor brought mandamus pro-
ceedings to compel the council to take
action on the nominations, alleging
| that the act was in conflict with Art.
| VI, Sec. 3, of the Constitution. which
declares that appointed officers, other
| than judges of the courts Of record
and the superintendent of public in
struction may be removed at the
pleasure of the power by which they
| shall have been appointed"
Judge Weiss decided that this con-
tenton of the mayor was correct and
| granted a mandamus to compel the
select council to act.
EX-City Solicitor James II. Torrey.
who has been retained by Patrolmen
Saul and Dyer to ascertain whether
or not they can be summarily dis
missed, as attempted by the mayor,
says he does not see in either decision
any warrant for the stand which His
| Honor takes.
The SimontOn decision will not apply
in the Saul and Dyer case, Mr.. Torrey
| believes. because there is a distinction
made by the law between appointive
offices such as street commissioner and
that of police officer. The Act of 1899
expressly gives the mayor power to re-
move officers appointed by him whose
offices are created by ordinance. but
the law in reference to patrolmen
specifically states that "the mayor
shall nominate and bV and with the
consent of select council appoint, sus-
pend or dismiss and in like
manner all vacancies shall be filled.
That the appointve power may re-
move. is not to be disputed, Mr.. Torrey
says. The question to be determined
is who is the appointive power. The
answer is found in the above quotation
THE mayor shall nominate and with
select council appoint"
In a word the SimOntOn decision doe.
not apply and the point raised by Mr.
Torrey was not disposed of in the
| Weiss decision.
Patrolmen Saul and Dyer are intent
on having the motion taken to the
supreme court if necessary to establish
the validity of their position. They
report each day to Chief Robling fOi
duty and propose to sue for salary fol
the period that will intervene between
their dismissal and the appointment OF
their successors.
In another column is printed an op'
iniOr from City Solicitor Vosburg ir
the district chiefs case in which HI
| contends that even under the law
quoted above the mayor is the appoin
tive power, the select council being
vested merely with authority to as
sent or dissent, and not with any share
of tho nower of aDOinting