The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-07-26

Common Councilman Gurrell believes
there was some juggling with the as
SCISSORS return Of resident taxables
upon which the apportionment OF
common CounCilmCn is made, and
when the apportonment committee met
last night to do their computing, he
and Commoners Calvin and Clarke, the
other two Democrats, voted to ad-
journ for two weeks to give opportun-
fly for verifying the return. Select
men Clemons and Oliver, the Repub-
licans on the committee, protested that
the committees only duty is to make
the apportionment and that 1t can not
go behind the return of the assessors.
The Democrats, however held other
wise, and. being in the majority cf-
fected the adjournment.
Mr.. Gurrelrs ground for his alleEa-
ton Is based on a comparison of the
hastily made and since discarded re-
turns, compiled last January under eX-
Recorder Moirs direction on last years
assessment. and the return made this
month on the new triennial assessment.
lie points out that the January re-
turn would give the sixth ward Demo
cratic) two members and the fifteenth
ward Rcpublicam one member, while
the newer return cuts the Sixth down
to one member and boosts the Fif-
tccnth up to two.
FIGURES At VARIANCE.
As further evidence in support of his
allegation he cites his own ward, the
Fourteenth, which. according to the
january return, was only twenty shy of
enough resident taXables 10 give it two
members, while the July return widens
the margin To 10. Mr.. Gurrell says
fl stands to reason that the Fourteenth
ward has not lost ninety resident tax
abcs i'm six months, hut instead has
more likely gained that many. At all
events. he claims, the discrepancy is
So wide that an investigation should
be made, and before he will agree to
sign the apportionment report, he will
have tn satisfy himself that it was
tho January and not the July return
that is incorrect.
The computations had been concud
ed and the apportionment made in ac-
cordanCC herewith before Mr.. Gurrell
made his objection, and while there
was formal signing or otherwise pro-
batting of the report, it was construct
lively, at least, agreed that the appor-
tionmcnt was made and made cor
rectly, if the assessors return was cor
rect. This being so, Mr.. Clemons and
Mr. Oliver contend. the work of the
committee is at AN end, as there is
nothing in the law giving the commit
tee authority To revise or even question
the assessors return.
1t may be that the purpose of the
Democrats in putting over the report
of the committee for two weeks is to
defeat the apportionment and the con-
scquent expanding of the council. The
law under which the apportionmcnt is
made reads as follows:
WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
Hereafter the ratio Of representation in com
mon councils in cities Of the second class shall
he h\cd and determined As follows: In tire
month Of July, preceding the next regular ma.
ncipdl election, alter the passage of this act
and every fourth year thereafter, the members
ot common council shall be appouioncd in the
following manner: II shall he the duty of the
as'cs,or- Of each ward, TO return, under OATH
true and exact return OF resident taNahcs TO
the president Of the common council. on or
before the first day of July in each year when
an apporliOnmCnt is to bc made, and at the first
meeting ot the councils Thereafter. a Joint COM
hnllcC OF hNC, two from the select and three
from the common council, shall he appointed,
who shall examine the said returns and divide
the whole number ot tayablcs by forty and the
uuoticnt shall he tho ratio of representation for
members ot common council: Provided That
should any ward have an excess of tlrcc-hftbs
more than the ratio of taNahlCS IL shall be en-.
titled to an additional member: And provided
further. That each wand shall have at least one
member ot common council.
1t may he that the Democrats are
wholly innocent of any intention of
playing sharp, but the fact is that they
put over. or attempted to nut over.
until August the task of making the
apportonment, which the law un-
nquivocdlly states shall be made in
the month of July.
If such intention does prcyau If is
very likely of no moment because tho
courts would, it is safe TO say. decide
that the law as regards the time for
making the appOrtiOnment is directory
and not mandatory, and that. in this
particular case, the apportionment
was made before the committee de-
cidcd To adjourn beyond July, as
Mcssrs. Clemons and Oliver contend
THE ALLOTMENT.
The computations made last night al
lot thrty-eight common counCilmen
to the twenty-one wards. as follows:
First, 3; Second, 4; Third /; Fourth.
:; Firth, 3; Sixth, !; Seventh, /: Eighth,
!; Ninth, ,; Tenth, l; Eleventh, .:
Twelfth, /; Thirteenth, .: Fourteenth,
], Fifteenth, >; Sixteenth, !; Seven
teonth. .; Eighteenth. /: Nineteenth, 3.
Twentieth, >; Twenty-frst, /.
Ihe quolient obtained by dividing