The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-11-17


Seems to Indicate That the Fact
That the County Has Population
of Over 10000 Will Apply as Of
Date It Was Taken in June Last
and Not the Date on Which It Will
Be Promulgated-How These May
Be Construed.
1t is now contended by many that
the Supreme court decision in the case
of Guld!n VS.. Schuylkll county. re-
garding the payNent OF fees to county
officials after n county shall have
been officially declared to have more
than 10000 inhabitants. has no bear
ing whatever upon conditions which
new exist in this county. or rather
which will exist after the newly
elected county officials take office.
Extracts from this opinion were pub
lished in the Tribune a few days ago.
1t will be remembered that IL de-
clared that an officials cmolumcnts
could not be reduced after his induc-
ton into Office without violating sec
ton IL, article III, of the constitution
of this state, which prohibits any in
crease or reduction of an officials sal
airy after his election. or, in othc"
words, that an official could not he put
on salaried basis after he ASSUMED
Office il when he assumed Office tn"
population of the county was in TIL,
eyes Of the law less than 10000.
Some tf the local attorneys contend
that this opinion has no bearing on
the question as to whether the newly
elected county officers will be entitled
to fees for the next three years or
not. Their reason for making this
contention is an ingenious one.
HE WAS CORONER.
.Guldin. who was coroner of Scluyl-
kill county, and who brought suit to
recover fees which he claimed were
due him after the county was officially
declared to have Il population of over
100000, was elected to the office Of
coroner on Nov. 4. 1882. He assumed
Office on the first Monday of January,
1890, and continued in Office until
January. 1898.
The census of 1890 was taken in
June of that year. but the result was
not announced until 1891. The Su-
rremc court decided that the popula-
tion at the time of Guldin's election
would, necessarily, in the eyes of the
law, in the absence of any official an
nouncement to the contrary, be the
population announced in the census
of 1880, or less than 10000.
The point raised by the local law
yers is that at the time of Guldin's
election. Ghe census had not been
taken and that. therefore, the latter's
contention was perfectly right and
proper. On the other hand, they claim
that when the official announcement
is made of the population Of Lacl1a-
wanna county it will be the announces
ment of its population in June, 1900,
or five months prior to the late elec-
tion.
That is to say it will be an announce
ment which will mean in effect that
when the new county officials were
elected to office the population of this
county was more than 100000 and that
they canEot therefore BE- paid fees
without violating section 13, article lIT,
of the constitution.
WILL NOT GET FEES.
II this contention is good law it
means that the newly-elected officials
will not be entitled to fees.
a case which has perhaps little
bearing OH this matter was brought
by Thomas Munroe against the county
of Lu2erne. Munroe was elected pro-
thonotary of LuZerne county in 1879
and, entering on his duties in 1880,
served for three years.
The census of 1870 had shown Lu-
zerne county to have a population Of
1896. In 1878 by an act of the legisla-
ture Lu2erne county was sub-divided,
Lackawanna county being formed out
of a portion of it, the remaining por-
tion being still known as Luzerne coun-
ty. The population of that portion OF
the county formed into Lackawanna
county was $4,000, which would leave
remaining in Luzerne county, taking
the census of 1870 as a basis, S6915 in
habitants.
The census of 1880 showed that Lu-
zerne county had a population of over
100000 and that her officials We're there
fore entitled to salaries. The county.
however, withheld from Munroe part of
his salary for 1850 on the ground that
the population of LuZerne county was
not over 100000 inhabitants.
Munroe sued to recover this portion
OF his salary contending that despite
the fact that Lackawanna county had
been formed the population of Luzerne
remained in the eyes of the law what
ii was officially declared to be in 1870,
namely. 16O,9l5.
AN APPEAL TAKEN.
The lower court rendered decision
against the plaintiff and sustaining the
county. From this decision Munroe
promptly appealed tothe Supreme court
and an opinion was handed down by
Chief Justice Mercur.
The judge pointed out that the fact
that the county of Lackawanna with
population of $4,000 was formed in 1878
from Luzerne county was controvertcd.
Therefore, he declared, it rested upon
the plaintiff to prove that between 1878
and the time he assumed office the re-
manning popula tion was increased be-
yond 10000.
This he declared the plaintiff had not
attempted to do and that therefore it
was necessary for the Supreme court
to affirm the position taken by the
lower court.
The application which may be drawn
from this case is that the Supreme
court took notice Of the fact, upon the
proper evidence being submitted, that
the county of Lackawanna was formed
from the county of Luzerne thus re-
ducing its population according TO the
census of 1870 by some $4,000. In other
words, the court in determining the