The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-01-31
CLAUSE FROM NEW CHARTER.

city treasurer shall give bonds 10 cover his dl.
ties collector OF delinquent taxes He gave
such bond and proceeded TO collect the taxes.
CLAUSE FROM NEW CHARTER.
The part Of Article II. section l. of the act
OF 1901, P. L. 20, applicable to this case, is gs
follows:
NO department shall be created other tlln
those herein enumerated, but councils may, hy
ordinance provide that person may be ap.
pointed director OF public safety and the depart.
ment of charities and corrections, and that the
city treasurer may be appointed collector OF de
linquent taxes
The question 10 be answered is: Which effect
did the pa sage OF the ordinance Of April >, 1901,
have upon the office Of the delinquent tax col.
lector already filed by an appointment? In
Rsccrtaining the answer to this question, two
facts must be kept in mind, viz, that at the
time the ordinance WAS passed the office OF city
treasurer was elective, and that the plaintiff had
already been appointed delinquent tax collector.
A later act of assembly passed by the same
legislature, gives the recorder the power TO APP
point the city treasurer.
It is contended on the part Of the city that
the moment the ordinance in question was ap.
proved the two departments Of city treasurer
and collector Of delinquent taxes were conso:-
dated; that the city treasurer ipsc facto became
collector cf delinquent taxes without any act n
on the part Of the recorder; that ii the Office
Of collector had an incumbent, the approval Of
the ordinance on April end in effect lcgis!ale0
him out of his Office because the law gave
this power to the councils, and that, therefore,
taking the most favorable view OF the plaintiff 8
case, the plaintiff held his office for one day
only.
The plaintiff contends, first, that although tic
councils should consolidate the two departments
by ordinance, the recorder could not he COM
PEELED to appoint the city treasurer to the office
&c dali tln ,l.r
alone having the power of appointment 10 fl!
that Office, and, second that the whole tenor
and spirit Of the act OF 1901 is to centraizc the
executive function, OF the city government and
place them in the hands of the recorder, taking
away from the legislative branch much of The
power previously exercised by the councils when
Scranton WAS Il city OF the third class.
In our disposition Of this case we shall cn.
leavor to harmonic the provisions OF the act ot
1901, relating 10 the matter in dispute, so As to
preserve the authority OF the councils as we'll as
the prcrogativc of the recorder as the appointing
power.
ONE DAY AT LEAST
l. It is clear that the plaintiff was the dcli,.
ouent tax collector on April 1, 1901. The ra-
cordcr unquestionaby had the powe", under The
law, to make the appointment, The ordnance
of April End had no legislative existence when
the appointment WAS made, II can make no dii.
terence in thcrinterprcatlon OF the law whether
a person has been in office one day or one year.
The plaintiffs appointment on April lst was lust
as valid as ii the ordinance had been passed 1T
a much later period and he had been collecting
the delinquent taxes during that time, What
ever effect the passage OF the ordinance had on
the Office OF collector, il could have no effect
on the validity OF the appointment made by the
nc, ,oTder on April |.
2. The law Of 1901. Under section ! o: Ari,
Gle II, already quoted, the councils may, by
ordinance provide that one person may be up
pointed director OF public safety and the depart.
ment Of charities and corrections" II these were
the departments concerned in this case, there
could he no controversy as to the power OF the
recorder 10 appoint the director, because the
right Of appointment 10 each of the departments
is lodged in the recorder alone. Eat the Office
Of city treasurer was electivei therefore, there
Is a necessary chanse in the plras?ology whcn
this office aad That OF the collector Of de!n-
auent taxes are referred 10. Councils may Iy
ordinance, provide that the city treasurer may
be appointed collector OF delinquent taxes"
Appointed by whom? The recorder is the only
person WHO can fiji the Office of collector. This
power Is expressly given to Him Can the coun'
cils Ly ordinance take away from him the
right? Is It not more reasonable 10 hold that
the law and the ordinance are only limitation
and not destruction OF the recorders power II
Council for the city contends that
Il the recorder has the right to appoint, although
his choice Is limited TO the city treasurer, AMI
fails or refuses 10 - so, the purpose Of the act
OF assembly in providing for the conSo!idat'sn
of the departments is defeated. Or, again, II
the recorder is bound to appoint the city treas-
urer after the ordinance is passed, the appoint
ment would be an act OF supeFerogation.
Al first we were impressed by this contcn.
tion, but, on further consideration, W. think
this position Is untenabe. Ii loses sight OF
several facts; "a The recorder under the law,
has the sole power OF appointing the collectors
(2) the act provides that the city treasurer may
be appointed collector; (3) the Interpretation
OF the act should be in harmony with its spirit
aud intention. without violating the letter OF IT.
We think there is no difficulty IN giving fun
force and effect to the provision Of the act re.