Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1901-03-21
Philadelphia. March 17.-While the

ments are already being made to take
it there. the constitutionality Of the So
called ripper" bill has been favorably
passed upon by unanimous opinion
of three judges on the Lackawanna
county bench. The matter came before
them on a test case in Scranton and
all the objections made by the Finn
men were presented in the arguments
before this court.
So elated are the reformers in Alle-
gheny county over this decision that
they are already preparing plans to as
sumo the management of the municipal
affairs in Pittsburg and Allegheny
City,
OPINION OF THE COURT.
Judge Archibald, president Judge.
filed the opinion of the Lackawanna
court.
1t will be remembered that the case
here arose upon a writ of quo war
ranto commanding James Moir to show
by what right he exercised the Office
of city recorder of Scranton. Court
says that the principal contention upon
which the claim that the act was un-
constitutional was based that 1t was
local and special. Extended reasons
were presented in support of this claim,
but the judges could not find that they
were in any respect sustained Such
a claim loses sight Of decision by the
courts of this state, and notably the
case of Wheeler VS.. Philadelphia (77
Pa 1857, which declares that classifi
cation by population of the cities Of
the commonwealth is entirely justified.
CITY CLASSIFICATION is PROPER.
The court refers to the fact that one
of the objections to the ripper" act
was that it introduces unusual and un-
necessary provisions for the govern
ment of cities of the second class not
justified by any difference in condition
between these and other cities. par
ticularly in that it abolishes the time
honored Office of mayor and substitutes
a new and unknown chief executive
called recorder, who is vested with
extraordinary if not dictatorial pow
ers. But, says the court, this argu-
ment loses sight of the very purpose Of
classification. which is to give place for
different legislation for each class.
Population, moreover, is recognized
as the basis, and in fact, the only basis
for a division in case of cities, the
larger cities by the very circumstance
of their having a greater number of
people presumed to require a govern
ment of a different character from
those which have less. A great COM
mercial metropolis like Philadelphia,
with over 100000 inhabitants, cannot
be governed and does not want to be
like Pittsburg, Allegheny or Scranton,
which have population ranging from
n half to twelfth as much. Nor, on
the other hand, is scheme of govern
ment adapted to these populous and
thriving centers likely to prove ac-
eeptable or suitable to the remaining
cities Of the state which have material
iy less. The law recognizes this and
the legislature, acting upon it in the
exercise of their discretion, have es-
tablished three classes of cities with
the limits which have been named.
This is not open to question, the court
says.
NOT OBLIGED TO HAVE A MAYOR.
In pursuance of this there may,
therefore, be one set of officers for one
and another for another, and the DOW
ors and functions of each may vary.
They are not obliged to have a mayor
any more than they are to have a
treasurer or controller or collector of
delinquent taxes. however much 1t may
he necessary to lodge the duties usually
performed by these well known city
officials somewhere. No doubt there
must be chief executive of some sort,
and some one to handle and be re-
sponsible for the city funds or SUPER
wise and control the accounts But
names amount to but little, and we
may have these several municipal
functions separated and distributed
among number of newly elected Of
tcers or consolidated and conferred
ppon one or more without occasioning
comment or calling the other In Ques-
lion. All these are municipal mat
tera. and so long as an act is passed
10 apply to any one of three established
classes of cities confines itself to deal
lag with affairs of that character, 1t
no more offends against the constitu-
tion than II it had to do with all the
cities of the state without distinction.
POWER OF LEGISLATURE ABSO-
Lutte.
Continuing this line of argument at
considerable length. the court says that
in view of the decision cited the only
question with regard to city class leg
islation is whether the subjects en-
braced are municipal. II they are, It
cannot be disturbed, however peculiar
or distinctive. The power of the legis-
lature within this limit Ia absolute.
They may give one system OF govern
ment. as they have here. to one class
and another to another. and II Is not
for the courts to inquire whether
either is adapted to the peculiarities OF
condition To which IL Is made to apply.
And the subjects embraced In the rip
per act are declared municipal.
The court dismisses as somewhat
trifing the contentious that the act
understakes 10 deal specially with the
powers and procedures Of the courts.
and Is therefore as special law" and
regarding the provisions In the bill
concerning policemen and fremen.
Coming under the head of the argu-
ment also that Is special and local Log
lslation 10 the attack made on the pow