The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-12-15

On November II, The Tribune in
treating Of the question of compensa-
tion for the county officials. made ref
erence to the case Of McCleary. appel
liant, against the County of Allegheny.
1863 Pa, as one of several in which de-
cisions were made by the Supreme
court that would tend to show that the
census figures are to apply to the time
of the taking of the census, rather than
to the time of the announcement. NThe
Tribune's article read as follows:
The plaintiff was sheriff OF Allegheny county.
He was elected Nov. 4. 1890, and entered upon
his duties the first Monday Of January, 1891.
The office had been receiving fees. but the
shcrihs share Of the fees was less than the
amount OF salary, $4,000 per annuin. which the
| act Of 1888 allowed for counties having popt-
lation Of over 100000.
Acting on the assumption that his county had
more than 100000 population, the sheriff re-
Trained from taking the fees. as had been the
wont Of his predecessors, but instead turned
| them to the county treasurer, and then
made demand from the county commissioners,
monthly, for one-twelfth of the yearly salary
Of $4,000. In July, 1891 he brought suit Tor
seven months salary.
While admitting the Office was salaried one.
the county denied that the amount Of the sal
ary was fixed for Allegheny county by the act
OF 1885, but instead, alleged that it was fixed
by special act of 1872, passed for Allegheny
county before the adoption OF the new coist!-
tuition BY this special act the shcrif's rcln-
pcnsation was $1,000 and mileage.
l. THE MAIN QUESTION.
The only question raised in the case i, whether
the general act of 1888 supersedcs by implication
the special Allegheny act of 1872. The supreme
court held that it did, and decided that the
| sheriff entitled to the $4,000 salary, in
stead of salary Of $4,000 and fees fot mileage,
providing it was shown that the $4,000 did not
exceed the total amount OF fees collected by or
for the sheriff, limitation prescribed by the
new constitution.
1t is to he inferred from the fact that the
sheriff. suit was brought for seven months
salary, that the census of the county was not an
nounced until July, 1891. II this inference is
| correct, there is question but that the SUI
preme court has decided. at least. indirectly,
| that the census figures to be applied TO the
| time ot the census taking rather than to the
time of the announcement. When we recall how
late the announcements Of the 1870 censls
werc in coming. it is fair to presume that Al
| legheny connty's population was not announced
until some time well along in 1s0l and prob
! ably somewhere about in July.
| While in Pittsburg I made inquiries
regarding this case and learned posi-
| lively that the question of the time the
census figures would apply did not en-
| ter into it in any way. The informa
tion was gained from President Judge
| Stowe. of Allegheny county, who tried
| the case. The only question raised and
the only one decided expressly or by
imputation, he said was as to whether
! the general law or special act should
prevail.
| When asked for an opinion on the
Lackawanna county difficulty Judge
| Stowe said that While he proba bly,
ought not to give an opinion oft-handed
on such mooted proposition. he would
permit himself to say that it seemed
| to him that we would have nothing
before us till tha census was officially
| announced and that the figures could
not be made retroactive. In other
words the official population of Lack
awannu county would not be deter
mined until the official announcement
came and that when it did come it
would be for the ten years between it's
announcement and the announcement
| of the next census
FEES WILL CONTINUE.
If this view of Judge Stowe prevails
the new officials will be permitted to
| enjoy fees.
! An effort was made to secure an
| opinion on the same matter from ID.
II. Watson, Pittsburg's celebrated bar
rister, who, it will be remembered re-
Gently declined a supreme court ap-
pointment, and who was one Of the at
torneys in the McCleary case, but he
was out of the city and would not re-
turn for several weeks.
1t was then learned unauthoritative-
ly, however, that a body of Lacka-
wanna county taxpayers had sought
and secured a lengthy opinion from Mr..
Watson on the compensation question
and that he advised them the nAw ON
cials will have to accept salaries.
The identity and purposes OF the body