The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-05-01

Accounts without Remuneration
Other Than That Allowed Him by
Councils-Act of 1874 Declared
Valid.
The board of twenty-one school con.
trollers triumph over the board of six
and further it can require the city
controller to act as its auditor with
out pay.
Such was the decision of the su-
preme court, yesterday when 1t re-
versed the lower court in the two
school board cases: Commonwealth
ex rel. John r. Jones, district attor-
ney of Lackawanna county. appellee,
against George II. Shires and others,
appellants, and commonwealth ex rel.
Frank Washburn and others. appel
lants, against Esdras Howell, control
Ter of the city of Scranton, appellee.
In the first case, it was attempted
to Gust the board of twenty-one on
the ground that the act of 1874, under
which it was organized was unconsti-
tutional in that it's title was defective,
and further that 1t was special legis-
lation. The second case was brought
to test the city controllers right to
compensation for supervising the ac-
counts of the school board
The local court decided against the
board of twenty-one by declaring the
act of 1874 unconstitutional, and sus-
tained the contention OF City Control
Ter Howell that he could not be re-
quired to act as school district auditor
without compensation. In both in
stances the supreme court took the
opposite view.
The attempt to oust the board of
twenty-one was instigated by John
Jermyn Nov. 10, 1897, when through
the district attorney. as specified by
the law, he had Attorney l. Fl. Burns
petition for quo warranto to compel
them to show by what right they held
their offices.
JUDGMENT AGAINST BOARD.
The case went through the usual
stages, and on March IA, 1898, Judge
Archibald entered judgment against
the board of twenty-one, holding that
the act of May %. 1874, under which
they organized was unconstitutional
because it contained more than one
subject and was local and class legiss
lation, in that it legislated for cities
of the third class to the exclusion of
all other municipalities.
A board of six had been elected un-
der the provisions of the old Act of
1851, which legislated for AL school
districts alike but they had not shown
| their right to the office and the judg-
ment against the board of twenty -one
was made subject to further order of
court.
To guard against the execution of
! the judgment. the board of twenty y-one
applied for and secured from the SUI
| preme court a writ of supersedeas
staying all proceedings till an appeal
could be taken and adjudicated.
The appeal was duly taken, and in
February, 1899, during Lackawanna
week. the case was argued before the
supreme court. d. j. Reedy, the school
district solicitor, representing the
| board of twenty-one, and |. H. Burns
the relator, which by this time was
practically the board of six.
In the following April, during Lu.
zerne week at the Supreme court, the
| question was again argued in the cas-,
arising in Pittston. which was in every
way similar to the Scranton case, ex
cept in that Judge Bennett in the cour
of first instance had decided in favo
of the board of six as well as agains
the board of twenty-one.
Justice Williams death left the Su
preme bench with six members AM
they became deadlocked on the ques
ton, three favoring the board of TWEEN
| ty-One and three the board of six
Chief Justice Sterrtt retired Januar.
| l. 1900, and the two vacancies Wer
filled by the election of Justices Brown
and MestreZat. The bench now hav
ing full representation, the question
was once more taken up. For tn
benefit of the new justices a reargu
ment was ordered. and it took plac
January 30, last After another della,
of a quarter of a year. the Suprem
justices finally reached a decision, an
when they resumed their sessions yes
terday in Philadelphia, made it known
THE LAST ARGUMENT.
At the last argument six attorney
were heard, three on either side MI
Reedy led for the board of twenty-on,
and was followed by T.. w. Edgar
school district solicitor of Easton, VIII
enlisted his services because the decis
ion would affect his, as well as ever
other of the twenty-four third-c elias
cities, and a. f. Sisson, of Erie, who's
school board was defending the claus
of the Act of 1874, providing that til
. city assessment shall be used in MAX
ing the school tax levy. /. II. Burn
) led for the opposition, and was fo
lowed by eX-Attorney General II. "
Dol
, of Pittston, and Democratic Stat
Chairman Riling, of Erie, who had III
opposite side of the question argued b
Mr.. Sisson.
The Act of 1874 was accepted h
Scranton in 1873, when the old chartc
was surrendered. Previously thei
+ were four school districts i'm the cit
. The Act of 1874 provides that in thirC
| class cities the school district shall b
co-terminous with the citv and tend
? to stioulate that it shall be a part
: the city government.
. The title of the act reads as follow
5 AN act dividing all the cities Of tn
~ state into three classes regulating II
| | passage of ordinances, provi ling q
| contracts for supplies for WORK (,
said cities, AUTHORIZING the increasir
of indebtedness and the creation of
= sinking fund to redeem the same, d
g filming and Furnishing certain offenc
i in all said cities. and providing for II
!. incorporation and government of citi
= of the third class"
- The amendatory act of 1891 is el
+ PEOPLE WHO DRINK TIE