The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-08-15
POOR DIRECTOR
AN ELECTIVE OFFICE


we are constrained so to treat this
question as not to Obliterate from our
statute book large number of acts
under which important and costly inn
prOvemcnts have been commenced, ana
rights have been vested. The con-
struction now claimed Tor this clause
OF the Constitution. If adopted by TINS
court. would unsettle the business OF
the state to an extent beyond the ca
pacity of any one to define. That we
are not bound to do so is sufficiently
clear both upon reason and authority
Another authority especially appli-
cable in the present case Is that In Re.
Pottstown borough. III Pa, 5SS, where
the subject lis fully discussed. The
latest case on this question Is Rodgers
Appeal. a. W. n. G.. 21j.
AS already set forth the Act OF 1862
is entitled IAN Act to authorize the
erection of a poor house by the bor-
ough OF Dunmore," etc. Does not this
title give such notice of the subject
Uf the act as would reasonably lead
a person Interested to an inquiry into
the body of the bilf? What would he
expect to find? 1t is within common
reason that he would expect TO md
provisions for the erection Of buildings,
for the election or appointment of poor
directors. for the filling Of vacancies
in the various offices and for many
eminent and regulation of poor
house. We are clearly Of the opinion
that the title Is sufficient. and that the
supplementary act of 1866, containing
a provision in sectioW2 as to the filling
nf vacancies. which provision Is prop
erly gPrmane to the subject of the
original act is not unconstitutional.
THE POWER TO APPOINT.
The second question to be considered
involves the right of the president
judge Of the court of common pleas
of LaCkaWanna county to appoint "a
poor director when there is a vacancy
The act of 1862 lodged this power in
the court of quarter sessions of Luz
zerne county. The supplement of 1866
made change i'm this particular and
authorized the president judge of the
common pleas of Luzerne county to
fill vacancies. The relator contends
shat the president judge of the court
of Luzerne county should continue to
exercise this right if the supplement
tary act is constitutional. and that all
appointments made by the president
judge in our county are void.
This contention is not well founded.
A slight examination will show that
the proposition is without reason to
sustain it, Territory or men once
made the objects of legislation, remain
subject to the laws imposed however
the manner by which they are desig-
mated, may be changed: Parsons VS..
Winslow. / Grant. lG0. When the sup
plcment of 1865 was passed LaCkawan-
ma as now territOrially constituted,
was a part Of LuZerne county. The
aUbseQuent formation of Lackawanna
county did not operate to repeal special
laws in force in Lu2erne. The chang
irg of the name of the municipality
which covered the territory in the
new county did not abrOgate the laws
applicable to this territory: Lack
awanna county VS.. Stevens, 105 Pa,
465. Whatever the law said must be
done by the court or judges of Lu-
zerne county is bound to be done by
the courts or judges Of LaCkawanna
county after the formation of the lat
ter county as to matters within its
territorial limits. And other conclu-
sion would lead to endless confusion
Our own court excepting the writer
Of this opiniOn) is on record on this
question. It is fully discussed by Gun
Ster, j.. in the case of the Appeal of
John Gibbons, ct. al, Directors, etc,
No. 523 April Term, 1898. 1t there
fore appears manifest to uS that the
president Judge of Luzerne county has
no power to fill a vacancy in the Office
Of poor director of the Scranton Poor
District. 1t is well known that Judge
Rice exercised the power very unwill-
ingly and only by general consent and
with the expectation of remedial leg
islation relating to the poor district.
He finally refused to make any ap-
pointments. Since then the appoint
ments have been made by the presi-
dent judge of our own court, who un-
dOubtedly has the power under the
supplement of 1866 to fill all vacancies
In the poor board.
INTERPRETATION OF ACT.
The third question relates to the in
depreciation of the second section of the
supplementary Act of 1866. 1t provides
for an appointment to fill any vacancy
whether such vacancy occur by the eX-
piration of the term of office or other
wise" Respondents counsel claims that
this provision wipes out the provision
for the election of poor directors by
the people of the several districts for
regular terms as provided i'm the original
act and substitutes the appointive for
the elective system. The supplement
nf 1866 has a repeating clause. The
.xHmRe> THE TORCH TO POWDER.