The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-05-31
Pennsylvania Supreme
Court Sustains Act.
STORMILY DISSENTS
Dean IL Backed UP by MeCol-
ium and Mestrezat--Justice
Mitchell Delivered the
y. Opinion.

Justice Mitchell, the supreme court Oh
Pennsylvania sustains the constitu.
tionality of the famous second-class
city ripper" which completely
changes the form OF government
In Pittsburg, Allegheny and Scranton.
Justice Mitchell Is sustained In his
stand by Justices Fell. Brown and
Potter, but stormy dissenting opin-
ion was filed by Justice Dean and
concurred in by Justice McCollum
and Justice Mestrezat.
The act took out of office the mayor
and other municipal officials anu gave
the governor the right to appoint re
corders" for the three cities, to serve
until 1903. Mayor -Moir, of Scranton,
was promptly named as recorder for
his CITY, and at once began amicable
proceedings in the Lackawanna court
to test the constitutionality of the
act That court decided in favor of
the governors right to appoint, and
1t is this decision that the supreme
court has sustained.
Have No Vested Rights.
Justice Mitchell's opinion holds that
municipal corporations have no vest
ed rights in their offices, their cor
porate powers, their charters or
their corporate existence. They are
created, governed, and the extent of
their powers" he declares, ARE de-
termined by the legislature and are
subject to change. repeal or total
abolition at its will"
Justice Mitchell continued:
''The fact that the action of the
state towards its municipal agents Is
unwise,' unjust, oppressive or viola
tive of the natural or political rights
Of their citizens is not one which can
be made the basis Of action by the
Judiciary. The rule of the law upon
this subject appears to be that ex-
cept where the constitution has i'm
posed limits upon the legislative
power. 1t must be considered as prac.
tically absolute, whether 1t operates
according to natural justice or not in
any particular case.
"The courts are not the guardians
Of the rights of the people of the
state, except as those rights are Sc
cured by some constitutional provts-
ion which comes within the judicial
cognizance. The protection against
unwise and oppressive legislation
within constitutional bounds is by an
appeal to the justice and patriotism
OF the representatives of the people.
II this fail the people in their sov-
ereign capacity can correct the evil,
but the courts canot assume their
rights"
Regarding the constitutionality of
the act under consideration the opin-
ion says the only power of the court
Is to discover what, If any, provision
of the constitution 1t violates.
.IuStica MftphQ11 nd limits fhat Tho "a
has manifest imperfections, but says
that they do not make it unconstitu-
tional, and adds: "The effect may be
to leave the affairs Of the cities In
q state Of very regretable confusion,
but 1t has not been shown that the
municipal government cannot be ad-
ministered, Notwithstanding"
This a Legislative Question.
To the objection that the act makes
improper classification in the method
Of flling municipal Offices, the court
holds that this is legislative and not
a judicial question, and further says
regarding the danger of interfering
with existing methods of classifica-
tion: ut Is urged that this act vio-
lates the spirit Of the constitution n
those provisions, and that general in
tent which preserves to the people
the right Of local selfgovernment.
The objection is serious, and there
can be no denial that some of the pro-.
visions Of the schedule infringe upon
what the citizens generally are ac-
customed to regard as their political
rights. But our view must be con-
nned closely and exclusively to the
constitution.
"a 10 Il,
the act removes an elected officer, the
mayor, from Office during the term
for which he was elected, by a mere
change in the name of the office. The
right to grant new charter to the
city, imposing a new form of govern.
ment, Is conceded, even though the
effect Is to abolish the Office and to
deprive the officer of his place. =
The objection that even IL the ap-
pointment OF recorder were valid
at all, the appointment of the respond
ent is void for want of confirmation
by the senate, is based on section
OF article Nv OF the constitution, and
IL Is sufficient to say that the section
has no application to municipal off.
cors.
Not For Courts to Declare.
THE most earnest consideration of
the objections to the act OF 1901 has
convinced us that they are not such
IS authorize the courts to declare the
set void for conflict with the consti.
tuition, but must be addressed only to
the legislature and their constitu.
encies.'
The dissenting opinion filed by JUS
tice Dean and concurred In by Jus.
tlces McCallum and Mestrezat SAYS
In part:
"If this act were not clearly in con-
fict with the fundamental law, or IL
the consequences to which the judg-
ment may lead were not deplorablo.
or II 1t Sfected only the immediate
parties TO IT, anG would not serve as
precedent for future cases. I would
aos feel myself cal a 1p-u to dissent
~ <sA "a all