The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-08-28

Judge Edwards on Saturday handed
down an opinion sustaining tn" Scran
ton city building ordinance. which was
attacked by Contractors r. n. Lal}ar
and II. II. Hurlbutt in an appeal from
a $50 fine imposed by Mayor Moir for
an infraction of one Of the provisions
requiring contractors to secure permits
from the building Inspector before en-
tering upon the construction of build
1ngs.
THE questions raised by the con-
tractors against the ordinance were all
of a technical character. The first is
that there was no authority under the
laws of Pennsylvania for the passage
of an ordinance and the second was
that the ordinance violates the Act Of
1874, which provides that no bill shall
be passed that contains more than one
subject which shall be clearly cx-
pressed in it's title.
THE opinion first takes up the initial
question. wherein it cites that the Act
of 1874 in the general welfare clause is
broad and comprehensive in its scope
and contains express authority for the
passage of ordinances on matters.
Furthermore. there is no reason why
the ordinance. relating to the erection
of buildings, is not valid under the Act
of 1894.
TITLE Is ATTACKED.
"The ordinance is attacked in the
second place because the appellant
states that it deals with three separate
questions. He says it regulates the
construction of buildings; is a license
ordinance fixing a schedule of fees to
be paid for permits by builders and
contractors and creates the office of
building inspector defines his duties
and fixes his salary 1t is also claimed
that if these three subjects could be
considered as ub-dvisions of one gem
cral subject, then the title of the ordi-
nance is defective. because it does not
clearly express the subject.
ITO this the judge says in his Opin-
ion that the contention is not well
grounded. A building ordinance in u
large city is necessarily an elaborate
piece of Legislative machinery and con-
tains many details. 1t involves a sys-
tenn of inspection, issuing of permits,
a scale of charges, and must contain
within itself the means of enforcing
compliance with its provision. 1t ap-
pears clear that the ordinance in ques-
ton contains only one subject. There
is nothing in the ordinance which is not
strictly germane to the subject of the
construction of buildings.
las to the title of the ordinance"
the judge goes on to say, "it would I'M
doubtedly be more satisfactory if it
were more comprehensive, but we think
it is sufficiently full to meet the re-
quirements of the law. The title need
not be indeXed to the contents of the
ordinance, yet it ought to be of such
character as not to be misleading.
IS ONLY REASONABLE.
"In an ordinance to regulate the con-
struction, repairs and removal of
buildings, in the city of Scranton, what
would one naturally expect to find? 1t
would be difficult to regulate the con-
struction of buildings in city with
out some provision for inspection. and
there could be no effective inspection
and control without building inspec-
tor who must be paid. In such an or
dinance one would reasonably look for
plan providing permits as we'll as for
schedule of charges graduated ac-
cording to the value of the building to
be erected. These are such details as
are eSStHlldlS 10 the subject of regu-
lating the construction of buildings
Where else but in such an ordinance
and under its title would we expect to
md information as to such matters ?
We are not without authority on this
question.
The only other question left is that
the claim of the ordinance proyidinp
Tor the imprisonment for nom n-payment
of fines is illegal. We can not discuss
this question in this case, because the
record shows the imposition only of a
fine.
The parties having agreed that the
appeal in this case should be heard
before one of the judges in vacation.
after full consideration thereof, we
dismiss the appeal and direct the ap-
pellant to pay the costs"
Had the ordinance been declared ille-
gal the office of building inspector
would have been vacated and all build
ing laws subject to abuse until such
time as councils could pass new ordi-
nence.
City Solicitor Nosburg appeared in
behalf Of the ordinance, and his law
partner, c. w. Dawson, with II. NJ
Hannah, as his associate represented
the appellants.
FIFTY SECONDS REUNION.