The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-06-21

The petition for temporary injunc-
tion to restrain City Treasurer Robin
son from selling properties on which
the city and school taxes for the years
1890 to 1898 inclusive have not yet
been paid, was yesterday afternoon ar
gued before the full bench by Corne-
Illus Comegys for the petitioner, Mrs.
Catherine McDonough and City Solicit
tor Vosburg for the city. At the same
time that the arguments were being
heard, the sale in question was being
conducted in the municipal building.
This is the first time since the pas
sage of the act empowering the city
treasurer to sell such properties that
an attempt has been made to do So
The act of 1899 provides that the city
treasurer, after a reasonable period
of time has elapsed, may advertise
and cause to be sold all properties
within the city limits on which taxes
have not been paid, providing that an
ordinance authorizing such sale is
duly passed by the councils and signed
by the mayor.
The purchaser must pay the taxes
and all costs, and if at the end of two
years the former owner has not paid
such taxes with an added penalty of
five per cent. and another of one per
cent. per month, the deed is to revert
to him. If the former owner of the
property does pay the taxes and added
penalties within the two years, the
money paid over by the purchaser Is
to be returned to him with the PEN
atty of one per cent per month added.
SOME FURTHER CONVENTIONS.
Mr.. Comegys in his argument con-
tended that the act is unconstitutional,
inasmuch as it provides n remedy for
one city and not for another. In eX-
planning this contention he pointed
out that no city can take advantage
of the provisions of the act until that
city has passed an ordinance author
izing the sale. The councils in Scran-
ton might pass an ordinance this year
and the councils of some other third
class city not until next year, thus
having the sales at different times.
He also claimed that it is unconsti-
tutional inasmuch as it is special or
local legislation, applying as it does
to third class cities only. Another ar
gument he advanced against the act
was that it involved the practice of
the courts of common pleas, which
must not be thus indirectly done, un-
der the constitution.
Mr.. Vosburs in his argument con-
tended that the collection of taxes is
strictly a municipal function, even
more so than the collection of sewer
or paving assessments, as the collec-
ton of taxes is necessary for the ben
lection of assessments for municipal
benefits only a particular locality.
In the case of White against the city
of Scranton, the Supreme court held
that the act OF 1889 is constitutional as
far as the collection of assessments
for municipal improvements is con-
cernCd, hence, argued Mr.. Nosburg, bv
the same line of reasoning ii must
also be constitutional as regards the
collection of city taxes.
MR.. COMEGYS' ARGUMENTS.
He further contended that the leg
islature l as the right 10 delegate the
tax collecting power to the munich
pality, and if the municipality has
such power and is unable to enforce
it, by approprlatlng remedies. it is
the act of 1898 provides a complete
system by the creating of lien. This
lien is necessarily worthless unless it
can be enforced. hence the insertion
of that clause in the act permitting
the city treasurer to sell properties for
unpaid taxes.
Court took the papers in the case,
and an opinion is expected in the near
future.
The sale was conducted yesterday af-
ternoon by City Treasurer Robinson
in the select council chamber, and was
just about as spiritless a proceeding
as one could wish to see. There were
only about ten persons in the room
and there was no competitive bidding.
except in one or two instances. In
nearly every case the properties were
sold for just the bare amount of the
taxes and costs.
Whenever there would be no bid
Assistant City Solicitor Davis would
buy the property in for the city. The