Daily new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1897-1906, 1901-05-28
THE RIPPER LEGAL.
The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court Sustained
the Act.
DEAN sToRMILY DIssENTs.
He Is Backed Up by MccoIIum and
Mestrezat-Mitehel Delivered the
opinion-Sustane by Fell, Brown
and Potter-Effects Three Cities.


and Potter-Effects Three Cities.
Philadelphia. May 2S.--ln an ex.
haustive opinion handed down by
Justice Mitchell, the supreme court OF
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
coneurred in by Justice McCoilum
and Justice MestreZat.
The act took out OF office the mayor
and other municipal officials and gave
the governor the right TO appoint re
corderss for the three cities, to serve
until 1908. 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
it is this decision that the supreme
court has sustained.
Have No Vested Rights.
Justice Mitehells 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 inn
posed limits upon the legislative
power it must be considered as prac.
tically absolute whether lL 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 provis-
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 SOW
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 it violates.
Justice Mitchell admits that the act
has manifest imperfections, but says
that they do not make 1t unconstitu-
tional, and adds: THE effect may be
to leave the affairs of the cities in
a state of very regretable confusion,
but it has not been shown that the
municipal government cannot be adj
ministered, notwithstanding =
This Legislative Question.
To the objection that the act makes
improper classification in the method
of filing 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 classified
ton: 1T 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 self government
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
fined closely and exclusively to the
constitution.
"a further objection made is that
the act removes an elected officer the
mayor, from ofice during the term
for which he was elected. by a mere
change in tie name Of the office The
right to grant a new charter to the
city, imposing 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 If the ap
pointment of a recorder were valid
a. 81 49, oPoiHAiHSil vi the respond
ent is void for want Of confirmation
by the senate. Is based on section 3
of article " Of the constitution. and
it is sufficient to say that the section
has no application to municipal off
GERS.
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
rs authorize the courts to declare the
act void for conflict with the consti-
tuition. but must be addressed only to
the legislature and their constitu-
encies.'