The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-03-18
THE SCRANTON TRIBUNE--MONDAY. MARCH IS, 1901.


Il is not exactly couchod in these terms, but that
Is its purport. stated in another form II Is that
the office being made elective must he hcd i,
the choice OF the people at the next municipal
election. and cannot be deferred until lator
ono An argument Is sought to be made a.
behalf u this contention by reference to the
provisions found in article T. section OF the
constitution, that where the vacancy occurs ~
any elective Office to which The governor Is en-
titled by law 20 appoint. 1t stall be filled at the
neNt succeeding yencrsl election occurring more
tian three calendar months thereafter. But this
is effectively met by the decision OF the supreme
court in Commonwealth W. Callcn, Iol Pa. 8'j.
where IL was held that this does not apply TO
municipal Officers, but only TO such officers as
ave to be chosen al a general election. that u
to sav at the election held in November oi
each year.
" To- those who are appointed by law 10 be
chosen at the municipal elections held in Feb.
mary, that is TO say a. To all officers OF cities,
horouglS and townships H. has no controlling
foicc or effect. There is nothing. therefore. IN
the constitution 10 icqurc an election Tor Tive
Office of recorder in cities Of the second class at
the municipal election IN February. l12. and
tho dcicriug Of it until the year following Is
valid Even II this were not we tail TO see
Why The present appointment would no, hold
good until the people had had opportunity
To elect which would sustain the respondent IN
Office foG nt least a year; 1t might bc Noid
for the excess beyond that aud yet br good for
the lesser and lswtnl period. BY the act of
May ~, 1874. r. y. 2Oj. the governor la, the
general power Of appointment ~ 10 all rlcan-
oies IN office not otherwise provided for and a
vacancy may occur by the new creation Of an
office AZ well as after its preceding occupancy.
Walsh vs.. Commonwealth, - Ia. 4l9
Hut We place our decision on no such narrow
ground. We hold that there Is nothing in the
constitution TO prohibit the legislature irorn
providing as they have that the ttst cucunlbent
should continue in Office until after tho mu.
| nicipll election Of lnU3. and that the appoint.
| mcnt OF the respondent Tor that term as valid.
I. The fourth objection is practically dis.
| posed Of by what has Just been said. II asserts
| that tho governor had no power to appoint with.
| out continuation 10y the senate. Counsel
| frankly admit, however, that the decision OF
| tho supreme oouit is otherwise found in
| the case OF Commonwealth vs. Callcn, l0i Pa.
! SO, already referred to, and they do not cN-
| pcct us. of course, TO overr,le it. Tie point is
| simply made to protect them to urge Al recon.
| sideration OF that decision in the higher court.
| SO tar we are concerned we have nothing
! to do but TO follow the law as so laid down
| for Ms, which we may add by the way We have
no idea will be disturbed.
POWER TO ABOLISH
4 -
the legislature had no power TO abolish the office
OF mayor when the only object TO create
another office to perform the same duties But
| that is not the law announced by the eases. In
| Commonwealth vs.. McCombs, Sc Pa. i36, it was
| deG-ircd that. As to officers which arc lcCis'
| lative only and not constitutional, the power
| which created them mag abolish or change them
| at pleasure without, infringing upon any consti.
tutionsl right of the poS,essor Of the office and
Ia. ...l.N lii.
| body"
This was repeated in Commonwealth VS.. Weir,
| l65. Pa. 2s, whereby Inc general act Of May -,
| lS93, L. l.. ll3, providing for the election OF A
| Chet burgess in the several horoughs OF the com
| monweslth. tho burgess of Indiana, chosen under
| special act relating 10 that borough, was leg.
! islated out Of whole year OF his term aul
| yet the act was sustained. That case is especial
" pertinent and goes further than VIC need to
| in the present instance because the two office.
| there were identical in name we'll as in duties.
while in both respects there is on essential dif.
| ference here.
| Lloyd vs.. Smith. 116 Pa 2l3. is equally dcci,.
i've II was there held that the act of June 81
| 1893. y. l.. a03. creating the office of county
| controller in counties containing 10000 inhabi
| tartS and aboiShinG the office Of county auditor
was not unconstitutional. This ruling is the
more remarkable in that the office disposed OF
|
ono merely created by the legislature. but tho
co,nt held that even so it was not mandatory
10 continue il.
The doctrine found in these cases might hC
enlarged upon and eyemplihcd by many others
It. is Of universal application. an obscure decision
| of the couIts of North Carolina 10 the contrary
| notwithstanding. Crenshaw vs.. United States
! l3i L. :. %; Kenny W. Iludspeth, 30 y. J.
| Law 800; People vs.. lIurlbut, 81 Mich A.
| The very constitution to which counsel appeal,
disposed OF numerous Offices throughout the coul
monwcath of which we had an example il
our midst in the adjustment Of the late mayor.
court of Scranton, and tho turning out of oifc,
Of the learned and respected recorder who wa.
| at the head OF it; and what the people in theil
sovereign capacity by the adoption Of the oou
| stitution could do their representatives. in gen
eral assembly met can also in matters as tC
| which they have not been specially prohibited
| q. II is finally urged that, "The act is unrc
public in toim and subsistence, Il fraud OIL III,
people. and not within the proper scope ant
power Of legislation being passed for the benefit
and advantage Of partisan faction and moi
| for the good Of the people" These comment,
| sound more like the echoes Of party strife thar
tl.ey do of legal argument They may have
| place in popular discussion hut they can be o
little account here. As we have taken pains I,
point out, the question IF cNpediency is mo-
before This bill may be good or bad: tun
alone will demonstrate and none Of us car
anticipate lis in lglHent. The observations Nhicl
We have been called 10 make have been addressed
10 its legal Validity cnly; docs IL offend again,
the constitution in the manner claimed hy ~
aSsalmts? That is sll we have to pass upon
n will not do to charge in vague and genera
terms that il violates the spirit OF that ins,ru