The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-09-08

Communications from Mayor James
Moir were read at last nights meet
ing of the select council removing
Patrolmen James Saul and Stephen
Dyer for cause. They were referred to
committee on motion of Mr.. Chitten-
den with instructions to consult with
the city solicitor and ascertain the
powers of the select council with ref
erence to the removal of police officers.
The removals are dated as of Aug. IS.
communications were also received
from the mayor appointing Wells S.
Hockenberry and David j. Davis to fill
the vacancies caused by the removal
of Saul and Dyer. These appointments
also went to committee.
The fire department committee re-
ported favorably on the ordinance pro-
viding for the payment of the claims
of Evans Brothers and the North End
Lumber company for extra work on
the Cumberland hose house. This or
dinance was referred to the committee
on June Is. After the Cumberland
hose house was completed there was
much opposition to the payment of this
bill of extras.
The following opinion from the city
solicitor with reference to the licensing
of transient retail merchants was read
and filed:
SOLICITORS OPINION.
Scranton, Pa, Aug. H. 1892
To the Honorable. the Members of the
Select and Common Councils of the
| City of Scranton.
Gentlemen: With respect to file of Sc
| lect council No. IS, 1899, being an ordi-
nance to provide for the licensing of
| transient retail merchants in the city Of
| Scranton, l would say: That this Ordi-
nance seems to be framed in accordance
with the act of assembly approved the
| second day of May, 1899, and if this act
of assembly is held to be valid, the ordl-
| nance in my opinion will stand.
! The act of 1899, to which | have just
| referred, has not yet received judicial
Interpretation, nor has it's constitutional
| itS and vitality been passed upon by any
| court so far as | can learn. OF course
the act of 1898, which was repealed by the
act of 1899 was held to be invalid by
| Judge Gunstcr in the case of the com
monwealth against Morris Wormser, and
as the two acts referred to are some
what similar in form, this decision may
| form some guide as to what the ruling
will be upon the act of 1899 when 1t is
| called into question.
| 1 It ItEulhllpll Ol DuSlneSS Is one VI
| the police powers of a municipality; and
the question raised with respect to Ordi-
nanCes of this character usually is,
whether they are directed against the
! business as such, or whether their effect
will be to discriminate against persons in
| the exercise of a certain business. 1t iJ
generally held that municipalities have n
| right to regulate business but not to dis
criminate between the persons who are
! engaged in the same trade or pursuit
and whether or not the act of 1899 is held
| to be constitutional, will depend upon
whether 1t falls within the former or lat
| ter class of legislation to which l have
| just referred. Until there has been n Ju-
dicial decision as TO the validity of the
! act of 1899. | can only repeat that the pro-
posed ordinance is framed in accordance
| with that act and will stand or fall with
it, Very truly yours.
A. A. Vosburg.
City Solicitor.