The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-03-15

has been household word In Pitts
burg for more than four years. 1t Is
irrelevant to the case at bar and as
may be judged, distasteful to the
court to go into this matter as Mr.
Burns essayed, but as n matter of the
history of the case 1t might not be
amiss 30 say that the change is made
necessary by the fact that the law
as IL formerly stood centralized power
i'm somebody who wasn't responsible
to anybody. Vt had that vice of mix
ing Legislative and executive functions.
It's vice was shown by the fact that
one man, who had no direct conncc-
ton with the government OF the city,
controlled its government.
The Supreme court has declared. In
the McAskic appeal. that the legisla-
turc is the sole Judge of the necessity
Of classification and that all legisla-
tion applicable to a whole class Is gem
oral and not special legislation. 1t is
irresistible that " is not special when
it. embraces whole class. In com
monwealth against Gilligan. Justice
Mitchell says: Necessity Is public con-
venicnce. and the legislature is the
judge of the necessity" The law APP
pointing recorder for Scranton does
not relate to less than a class of sub
itCts. The law presumcs an official
win do his DUTY. and we are TO pre-
sumo the governor will appoint re-
coidors for Pittsburp and Allegheny
before the thirty days limit has ex-
lir,d
Some time in the future the courts
may have to deal with the question
of what particular laws are repeated
by the repeating clause of the Muchl.
brornpr act. but it is not now before
this court
Has Been Done.
A. 10 lcgislating man out of Office,
it might be appropriately called to
mind that the late Judge Ward was
lcgislated out of the Office of city regis
ter. or Judge Of the mayors court. by
a. clause i'm the schedule of the state
constitution. The constitution itself
had ripper" attachment.
The act of 1889 relating to second
class cities in article vi, section >, has
a clause reading: THE terms of may
ors, controllers. etc, shall cease and
determine" The present ripper is.
therefore, not Il new idea in legisla-
ton: the state has previously legis
lated men out of office to inaugurate a
new form of government.
If this act should have provided,
simply, that the Office of recorder
the legislature at the next session
made it elective. who would have
questioned the proceeding? The re-
4 l,,g Il
he the result of the act and amend
ment just suggested.
EX-Judge Knapp made specific reply
to Mr. Burns contention that there
was more than one subject in the act
said he:
1t is claimed that the repeating
clause in this act is a second subject
This is unfounded. The repeal is ex-
acty gcrmane to the act. 1t deals
with The government of cities of the
second class Unless you point out the
clause of the constitution forbidding a
| thirg. you cannot say the thing is un-
| constitutional
All powef is in the people and the
pee pie have vested that power in the
| Legislature. Tho city of Scranton is
| simply a creature of the state. Its
! power as municipality Is merely q
| delegated power. 1t has no rights as
| against the sovereign power of the
| state, except those vested in it by the
| constitution. The mayor and Other
city officials are not constitutional of.
| tiCers. They are not elected at a gen
| cral election. The whole argument ot
| the other side seems to be based or
| the false premise that a vested right
| to office lies in an officer of a city