The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-02-07
SCRANTON WILL
BE Protected

was pointed out as a serious defect.
He objected to electing selectmen at
large because of the hardship that
would be imposed on candidates In
ompelling them to make canvass OF
The whole city and because thickly
populated wards could deprive the
smaller wards of representatives.
Stated meetings were unwise, he con-
tended, because the needs of the city
crop out daily. The sinking fund com
mission he characterized as an un-
necessary expense.
AS again it the proposition to elect
The treasurer controller and assessors
by the people, he said 1t was advisable
to keep these officials as far as possi-
BILE away from the people. particularly
the assessors. He also wanted the Of
fees Of delinquent tax collector and
police magistrates preserved. In con-
clusion he pleaded with the committee
not to apply the drastic rod of cor
rection to Allegheny. as was proposed
to do by passing the Muehlbronner
act.
MI. Vosburg's Arguments.
Mr.. Nosburg. in his characteristic
concise and pointed way. next stated
Scranton's position. Scranton did not
come before the committee with any
concern for factional or partisan mat
ters. 1t came of necessity. The pres
ent act is not sufficient for Scranton's
needs. The Muehlbronner act is equal
ly inadequate in its present form. 1t
is mooted question whether or not
scranton can retain any third class
laws to supply the deficiencies that
now exist or others that would be
made to exist by the Muehlbronner
bill. The latter act does not give a
city corporate powers. Unless this
deficiency was supplied Scranton could
not levy or collect taxes or enter the
courts. 1t also contains many things
not adapted to Scranton's needs,
Scranton is in favor of the mayor max
ing appointments and select council
confirming them, just as Is done in the
federal and state governments. Stat
ed meetings are practical impossi
bility in Scranton. AS to representa-
tion in councils. it favored one mem
Der of each kind from each ward and
as many more common councilmen as
the councils should decide upon. The
one act could not regulate Pittsburg
and Scranton in this respect. The city
solicitor, Mr.. Fosburg argued, should
not be left at the mercy of the mayor.
No reputable lawyer would accept a
position where he would be called up
on to make his opinion confirm with
the views of the mayor, if he wanted
to retain his job. He also declared
that Scranton favored having the city
treasurer act also as receiver of taxes
and have the treasurer controller and
assessors elected by the people and not
by a mayor or by the councils, be-
cause of the tendency of a creature to
be subservient to his creator.
In conclusion he asked that it be
borne in mind that If the amendments
he pleaded for were not allowed Scran-
ton would be legislated off the map.
Burleigh Against the Ripper"
Common Councilman w. A. Ma Ae,
brother of Senator c. L. Magee, in ,ro-
duced City Attorney Burleigh to speak
for Pittsburg. Mr.. Burleigh made a
strong and convincing argument
against the Ripper" characterizng it
as unconstitutional and un-American
for the legislature to go down into
the city OF Pittsburg and say to the
people there that the ballot box was
closed to them till 1903, as far as
choosing their municipal rulers was
concerned. He said Pittsburg objected
to the whole bill for many reasons. but
particularly because 1T was singular
ly incomplete, wonderfully unsatisfac-
tory and absolutely unconstitutional"
1t is unsatisfactory because the coun-
ellis would be too cumbersome: ii re-
peals all previous second-class laws
without attempting to supply needed
substitutes: ii fails to fix time or
method Of determining councilmanic
representations: 1t works an injustice
TO small wards by attaching them to
large wards In councimanic elections
and depriving them of representation.
1t Is unconstitutional because II un-
dertakes to appoint mayor for three
years when the constitution says the
governor can only appoint till the next
spring election and because 1t makes
no provision for filling vacancy that
might be caused by the death of the
governors appointee.
Mr.. Burleigh said that as far as
Pittsburg was concerned it's people do
not propose to be deprived of the rfeht
of suffrage no matter what the legis-
lature should attempt to do. He
characterized the Ripper" as nafar-
ious and said il was the final and des-
perate resort of Office seekers who had
been turned down by the people.
Pittsburg was willing, Mr. Burleigl
said, to agree that the mayor should
appoint the heads of departments in
stead Of councils electing them as a,
present. The best way to affect this
he said. was to amend the present
charter.
Cities Do Not Want It.
In conclusion he said: "Pittsbure
does not want the proposed new act
Allegheny does not want it and Scran-
ton does not want ii. If none of the
affected cities want it what is il here
for? Why pass it?"
During the course of his remarks Mr.
Burleigh defended the present charter
and government of Pittsburg and We.
hemently denounced these who would
defame their city by unwarranted ac-
cusations for the sole purpose OF fur.
thering their own political ends.
His purpose in this was made evi.
dent when the east end board of trade
men took the floor. Their energies
were almost wholly given to an effort
to show the need Of the ripper
clause by telling how the city OF
Pittsburg is at present misgoverned
They claim that forty out of every
fifty men in Pittsburg wanted a
change in charter, and a ripper
clause TO make the change effective.
One of the speakers, Mr.. Crawford
made some very tart references tC
he Tina N hal s.,A . l.