The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-03-18


The "ripper" is constitutional ana
Recorder Muir's right to exercise the
functions of chief executive of Scran-
lun is established
In an extensive opinion handed down
saturday afternoon. Judge Archibald,
for the Lackawanna court, declared
the Mu"hlbronnrr act unasSaildbl"
from constitutional standpoint, ana
entered Judgment for the respondent
on the demurrer in the quo warranto
proceedings Instituted by ex-senator
Mcdonald.
Tho case viii be at once carried 10
rhe supreme court. ana an early hear
ing will likely be had. Appended is
the opinion in full:
The responder, hl, been called upon 10y tlr
commonwealth, by the writ which IVA, been issued
al thc suggestion oi the attorney general IN TINS
cssc. TO show can,c h, what authority he under
take, iu act aS recorder 81 the city uG scranton.
Jlc iu.tihns his assumption ot that oih," tN
Nrpc 1t iu appointment received from the gov
.ruor ut tie state hN which he has been com
Iui~sion,d tu act until tn" m- Monday ot Aprli,
IuW,. under ihc provision, OF the act OF March .,
1901, relating 10 ctic~ OF the second class. OF
which tho city oi scranton i now oho. The
COMMONWEALTH ttlunlN 10 Ili' suHliliNS W IN
susvcr ou the ground that the act rcicrrcd
to j. in many RESPECTS unconstitutional and void
aud in an amended bill of suggestions the pas
ticulJr objection, relied upon are summarized,
which tor tho -t 80 ot convenience we will oh
serve in the discussion which follow.
The principal one. or At least the ono on
which ia ,ariou, ruihcdt'rn> especial stress
seems to 10, laid. j. that the act is local ana
special, and therefore o1cnds against the we'll
known prohibition of the fundamental law
against municipal legislation of that character
In an extended argument before the tnll bench
conducted 10y learned and able counsel Of our
har. assisted hy others nom abroad representing
another o the cities affected, the specific reasons
WHY it j., claimed the statute bears this cbjcc.
rouiblc character has been pointed ont to ne
in dotail These reasons arc many but after a
careful consideration ot our and all ~ them We
src not able 10 soc thai they have been in any
Ir.pcct sustained.
NOT \ SPECIAL LAW.
l. IS To- the act being local and special. 1t j.
said that relating as it docs To q part only Of
the citic. or the state, to wit. those dcnoninatcd
second rld,.. il bears on its face its own con.
,irmuatiou a, local law unless 1t can in some
-'ly he iustihod This argument loses sight,
however OF th" authorities both in this and other
etatos- and notably the case Of Wheeler v. Phil.
adrlphiI, :, Pa, %3S-whioh decides that claS,iH-
mouwclth tor tho purposes OF municipal lcGisla.
tion is entirely Justified. Indefinite classification,
il is true, has been trowncd upon (\yrcs Appeal.
- Pa 2GO, hut the right of tho Legislature
L. establish three classes Ia, been sustained. In
pursuance OF thi, the act Of Juno p, 1875. +. l..
20, was passed, making those cities which have
population of million the first class. those
having ono hundred thousand aud less than a
million the second class and those having under
hundred thDU~lud the third class
The act before rs undertake. to lc2iSJtc for
enc OF the classes So established, TO wit toI
those OF the second or intermediate class, aud
'lunot in doing he charged with being spc'
cial legislation prohibited by tn" constitution.
provided it concerns itself with what arc lcgiti.
mate municipal affairs. Inc,S We are not con,
Nincrd that it goes beyond this limit sc are
hound 10 pronounce it valid and constitutional
legislation free from the charges TO the contrary
which are made. TO coutCut ourselves, however
with this general answer, while IL might cttCc
lively dispose ui the case, would not do justice
10 the argument which has been pressed upoI
~, and we shall, Therefore, take up aud conSide,
the different points which have been specially
urged and which may he regarded as details o
the general contention that it j. 4 local AM
special law.
Ouc ot these j. that it introduces unusual anC
unnecessary provisions for the government q
cities of the second class not justified by an,
difference in conditions between these and othe
cities: particularly in that it, Iboli,hcs the time
honorcd Office oi mayor and substitutes 4 nov
and unknown chicf executive called 4 recorder
VINO is vested with extraordinary, ii not dictl
1oridl. powc, But this argument loses sigh
ol the very purpose OF classification, which Is I,
rhc place Tor different legislation inr each class
il all must bc provide for alike there would h
need Tor any whatever. Population, more
over. j. recognized a. the basis, aud. in TACT
tl, ,,,,l, l.,-i ,liy ~, 9 IL
The largest elite, by tho very oirc'mslanc
ot their having q great number OF people hcin.
presumed 10 require government al 4 dincren
character nom those which have less. gTca
commercial metropolis like Philadelphia. witt
over l,"m,mu inhabitants, cannot be govcrnC
aud doe, not want To hc. like rit,,burg, Ale
ghcnv or Scranton. which have population
ranging from halt 70 twelfth ~ much Nor
uu the other hand. !, u scheme oi goNcmrucn
adapted to these populouS and tuiviug center
likely 10 prove acceptable or suitable 10 the rc
naming cities ut the state which have material
ly less. Tlr law recognizes thi, aud the lcgi,li
tur", acting upon ii in the cScrci>c of their lis
erection, have established three classes Of ci,c.
with the limits which have been named.
NOT oPEN TO QUESTION.
.rhi, is not open To- question, whatever migl
once have been said OF il, and Is to be CONSTANT
horne in mind in the present discussion. Du
'ltNNlHtUlluN NtNE iNlUhlNrl ana ulUtlcntcN 1
condition thereby Intentionally provided for,
follows as matter u1 course that there shaI
hc different legislation Tor different classes ooycl
ing different schemes of city government. Cite
ui the first class may have one system, citic
81 the second class another, aud cities Of tn
third class ,lll a third. There would be y
need for classification it they did not. IN pu,
Iuancc Of this there may, therefore, be one SC
of officers for one and another Tor another, an
the powers aud function, OF each may ylly. The
are not an obliged to have q mayor any MOI
than they are TO have i treasurer or coutlollC
or collector OF delinquent taxes, however muc
1t may be necessary to lodge the duties ol the,
well known city officials somewhere
No doubt there must be q chict executive ,
some SORT aud some one TO handle and he +,
sponsible for the city funds or supervise and col
rol the accounts But names amount To hu
little, and we may have these several muncip.
functions separated and distributed among nun
her OF new created officers or consolidated an
conferred upon one or mote without occasionin
comment or calling the other in question.
All these are municipal matters, and SO Ion
as an act is passed TO apply TO any one OF II
three established classes OF cities confines itse
20 dealing with affairs OF that character, il u
more ofends against the constitution than If
had TO do with all the cities Of the state withol
distinction. This is a settled law Of the Ian
laid down in all cases to which have been r.
feIred by the counsel Tor the commonwealth
sustain their assault upon the statute before II
In Phila. vs.. lIaddington Church, ll5 IA. 29l
Mcinman VS.. Railway Co., lis Pa. l02; Ruan :
lS2 Pa. 257, and Safe Deposit Co. VI. Friclu
lj3 Pa. 23l, il was solely because the legisatio