The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-07-23

One of the members of the Allegheny
county bench, Judge r. S. Fraser,
handed down an opinion last week in
a case on all fours with that of Saul
against the city of Scranton, in which
is reached a conclusion diametrically
opposite to that found by Judge r. w.
Archibald, and other jurlsts throughout
the state and which, in consequence,
is in direct conflict with the advices
given councils on this question by City
Solicitor Vosburg.
A copy of the PittsburG Leader con-
tanning the full text of the opinion
was received by Mayor Moir in Satur-
day mornings mail. lie hastened to
show it to Solicitor NoSburg, expect
ing possibly that the solicitor would
change his views of the matter. Mr..
NosburE read it over saw-what he
considers--its glaring defects, and in
formed His Honor that he was ready
to stake his reputation as a lawyer
that the opinion of Judge Fraser was
unconstitutional and not worth the pa
per it was written on. Despite this
emphatic declaration, the mayor con-
tinued in the views antagonistic to
the Archibald opinion, and had the
Fraser opinion furnished to the local
papers.
The Fraser opinion, of course, has
no effect here. The only possible eff
feet it could have had was to change
City Solicitor Vosburg's views. Hav-
ing failed in this, it is as good as un-
written as far as any bearing on the
Spellman and Jones cases are con-
cerned. Judge Fraser is a common
pleas judge in Pittsburg, a second
class city. Judge Archibald is a COM
mon pleas judge in Scranton, a third
class city. The question involves third
class city law.
A McKEESPORT CASE.
The Fraser opinion deals with a case
arising in McKeesport. Upon assum-
ing the Office of mayor on the first
Monday of April this year. r. ].
Black dismissed eleven police officers
after select council had failed to ap-
prove their removal by confirming
those whom he nominated as their
suCce ssors. The dismissed officers
sought by mandamus proceedings to
compel the mayor to reinstate them.
Judge Fraser decided the mayor in a
third class city has power to remove
n noIico oacor without tho CONSENT Of
a,i,,aiI, ar,d ais,,,issed tt,o ,,,a,,aar,,,s
""N -,
proceedings al 'Ne cosI VI 'he Pet'-
tloherS'
The main reasoning on which this
conclusion was based was this:
"Tbo logisl,ture having imnoscd unon tho
,o,,oTs Of tbc cities Of the third class the dury
~ nrotoctirg tho norsons and nroperiv of s,,cb
cities, it is not unreasonable to assume that 1t
tbc oeiccrs mon whom tbcv must rcIy 10 a very
| great extent for the execution and carrying out
| of their orders.
"A fair and reasonable construction OF the
act, we think, is that each mayor may make
choice OF his poHce otlceL'' su ieot to the
rlSh' OF sc!ctt 'oulIli 20 I,i"Se no 1o permit AT,
aha aIoiso n tho "ct nt rao,irira o,n,r,,,
| tion nv soIcct council is 10 nrcvcnt moyor
from appointing improper or unfit persons as
policemen.
1t certainly was not made part Of the act
| for the purpose OF making possible the reten'
uoh IN once ot incompetent o'hccrs, Who'
aIous" po,'.I". - ',mat ,',,,, rl ",,-nt 1e ~,
select conncn 70 nrcycnt That hodv from con'
senting TO their dismissal.
ANY other construction Of that clause Of the
act would bring it into conflict with article
| ]. section 4, of tho constitution, which de-