The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-07-13


Gilman from the Ninth, elected to sue
ceed Mr.. Tewkesbury, resigned, was
sworn in last night. Council was in
session an hour and half and most
of that time was devoted to matters
pertaining to the Providence and ABB
ington turnpike. Not a word came
from Mr.. Paine during the whole
evening except a mo" on a motion to
go from one order of business to an
other in which the purpose was to
have a consideration of the ordinance
approprating money for clerk hire in
the controllers office.
The regular business was opened
with the reading of the following re-
port of the special committee on ABB
ington turnpike.
President and Members Of Common Council
Herewith we submit, as part Of report,
the city solicitors opinion in reference to the
Providence and Abingdon Turnpike company
which will explain the legal status Of the CON
tract.
Your committee drove over this road and found
more than onc.haf Of Il, in the city limits, in
very bad condition, and should be repaired at
once
From the city solicitors opinion, we believe
that this road should be treated the same as any
On account of this being the only road through
the Notch and north Of the mountains, there is
a great deal Of trale which is naturally very
hard on the road. We believe il will require
from 81, 900 to 1850 per year to keep this road
in repair.
We also find from the city controllers hooks
that the city has spent, during the term OF this
contract or since 1Ss9 the sum Of S6,473.27, to
which must be added g., ,2OO. 40, Judgment award.
ed the turnpike company by the court, making
total of SS,673.7G, or an average Of s7ss.52 per
year, since the city entered into the contract to
keep this part Of the turnpike in repair.
There is a question about the city spending
money on a street that it does not control abso
lutely. This seems TO be good objection but
II the city owned the street it would have to
keep il in repair.
There seems to be only one way for the city
to get absolute ownership Of the road and that
is, suggested by the city solicitor namely
by condemnation proceedings. This should be
done on the part Of the county and should be
done in the interest Of the public at large, be-
cause the days Of tol.gates past.
We recommend that the city repair this road
at once.
Luther Keller, A. Harvey, D. II, Reese.
SOLICITORS OPINION.
Scranton, Pa, July c. 1900.
Iuthcr Keller, ESQ.,, Chairman Street and Bridge
Committee, Common Council, the Members of
Said Committee, and the Common Council.
Gentlemen: Your inquiry as to the present
legal status Of the city of Scranton and the
Providence and Arlington Turnpike company,
has received my careful consideration. The con
tract between the city and this company having
been construed by the Supreme court, in Turn
pike company vs. Scranton, 175 Pa. 200 we have
positive guide as TO its legal effect, so far as
that decision goes. In that case the following
points were decided:
First-That the contract was valid.
Second-1hat before the making Of the con.
tract, the Turnpike company had legal right
to erect toll.gate6 and collect tolls, its road
within the city of Scranton.
Third-That under the terms Of the contract,
the city was bound to keep that part Of the
turnpike which was within the city limits, in
repair.
Fourth--That ii the city neglected to keep
this part of the turnpike in repair, and the
Turnpike company did the necessary work TO
put it in repair, then the city was legally bound
TO pay the company the reasonable expense of
so doing.
Fifth--That the city had the right, under the
act OF 1874, TO acquire by purchase, or by con.
demnation proceedings, the franchises OF the
company.
Ii the city of Scranton should prevent the COM
pany from working the turnpike within :he
city limits, then Of course the company would
forccment of the contract, in which event the
court would determine whether or not the city
had kept the road in such reasonable repair
as was contemplated by the contract. In other
words, in case of a dispute, the question as 10
whether the city has or has not, at any particu-
lar time. carried out the terms Of the contract,
is one for the courts to decide, and not for the
company or the city to pass upon. The only
way by which the city, as a municipality, can
directly condemn this turnpike, is by pro-
ceedings to appropriate il for public use, making
compensation therefor; but Of course. the city
could bear the expense Of condemnation proceed
ings which might be instituted on petition of
citizens of the county, and the city solicitor
could be instructed to assist in such proceedings
In case the turnpike should be condemned in
proceedings instituted by citizens, the damages
would be paid by the county and not by the
city. II condemnation proceedings were inst.
tutcd by citizens Of the county the Turnpike
company would have a right TO surrender its
charter and transfer It's franchises TO 4 Boule-
ward company, under the provisions of the act
Of Goth June. 1875, =. l.. 3S2; but in such case
| the contract between the city and the Turn.
pike company would he ahrogtted, and the city
relieved from further liability. Such action on
the part Of the Turnpike company in selling or
leasing its road TO Boulevard company, would
! probably operate as stay Of condemnation pro.
cccdings, il any were pending
Hoping that | have satisfactorily covered the
| points raised by your inquiry, | remain
| Very truly yours,
A. A. Voshurs, City Solicitor.
on motion of Mr.. Keller the report
was received and it's recommendation
adopted.
The ordinance providing for the
| transfer of $1,000 from the appropria-