The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-07-19

|
from the councils by bribery. Th
criminal charge of bribery against Gen
eral Manager Silliman of the Scranton
HaliWay company, tried some months
| ago ana resulting in an acuuttal wa.
an outsrowth of this same transaction
Inc opinion of Judge Edwards follows
Ihc plaintiffs bill of complaint attacks
| tne right of the defendant company t,
| construct and operate street railwa,
III the borough of Old Forge, Lackawann;
county. Several grounds of attack ar,
set forth In the BILL but the evidence o,
| tne 1inal hearing relates mainly to tn,
charge that the ordinance giving the com
pany the authority to construct the sait
street railway was procured fraudulent,
ana corruptly by means of bribes ant
Sllts distributed to the councilmen of thu
| borough of Old Forge by the agents o.
| the defendant company.
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND.
| After the evidence on both sides wa,
| closed, plaintiffs counsel moved to amend
the bill and the record of the case b,
| adding the name of the Scranton Rail
way company as a defendant, and by in
Guiding the ordinance of August 2Sth
1899. Defendant objected and we held the
| motion under advisement, reserving oul
| ruling. The petition praying for the
amendment was not supported by affida
Wit nor was there accompanying it, either
! orally or In writing, any explanation o1
| the delay in presenting 1t. the subject.
| matter of the amendment being evidently
known to the plaintiffs counsel since 1899
| especially after the several hearings or
the rule to continue the preliminary in.
Junction, had before the late Judge Gun.
ster. Under the equity rules and under
all the decisions, the motion for the
amendment was too late and was objec.
| tionable also because it was not sup.
| ported by affidavit.
But subsequently, at the argument OF
the case before me, the argument having
been postponed for the convenience OF
court and counsel. defendants counse
agreed that the bill be amended so as tc
cover and include the ordinance of Au.
gust 2S. 1890, although still objecting tc
| the addition of the Scranton Railway
| company as defendant. This agreement
| in my Judgment, amounted to a waiver
| Of any informalty in the petition tc
amend, as well as of the delay in pre-.
senting it. l am, therefore, disposed tc
allow the amendment as prayed for. And
| this action is highly desirable in this
| case, because it brings upon the record
the whole subject of controversy. as well
as all the parties in interest. An excep-
ton to this ruling is here noted for the
defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
Counsel on both sides have presented
| numerous requests for findings of fact. ]
shall answer each request specifically in
the proper place. 1t will not be neces-
sary. therefore, to repeat here all the
details set forth in the requests and in
the answers thereto. 1t may be stated in
| broad and general way that one speci-
tic finding of fact controls and determines
fhn troN l1t,r, tl,~
this case. Was the passage of the second
ordinance, the ordinance of August 2Sth
| 1892 procured through bribery? All other
questions in the case are incidental to
this main inquiry.
l. The first ordinance giving the Pitts
ton and Scranton Street Railway COM
pany the right to construct q street rail-
way in the borough of Old Forge was
passed June 5, 1899. This is the ordinance
attacked in plaintiffs bill While the or
dnance was pending in the council, the
company's agent distributed passes to all
the councilmen. The passes were books
each containing tickets for one hundred
tive-cent rides. After the passage of the
ordinance and while the defendant COM
pany, through its agents, was preparing
to build the road. the plaintiffs, on July
IS, filed their bill in this case and secured
preliminary Injunction restraining the
defendant from proceeding with the con-
struction OF the railway. At the hearing
of the rule to continue the preliminary
Injunction before Judge Gunster the evil
dence as to the distribution of the passes
to the counclmen was substantially the
same as at the final hearing. Judge
Gunster held that the giving of the
passes to the councilmen, under the cir
cumstances. was sufficient proof of brib-
cry to invaldate the ordinance, and he
therefore continued the injunction.
take the same view of the matter as my
late learned colleague did. and / adopt
his finding, which was In substance that
the ordinance of June 5, 1899, was pro-
cured through corrupt means. But 1t is
immaterial now what the influences were
that secured the passage of the ordinance
in question, because 1t was repealed by
the council on August il, 1899. and the
defendant company acquiesced In the ac-
ton of council repeating the ordinance by
presenting the subsequent ordinance of
August rs, 1899, to Judge Gunster, and
asking for Il modification of the iniunc-
tion, on the ground that this second or
dinance was free from all taint of bri-
berry. Therefore the ordinance of June 5
is a dead letter, from whichever point of
view it may be considered.
THE ORDINANCE.
Q. This brings us to the consideration
of the ordinance of August 2S, 1899, here
matter, for convenience, called the sec
ond ordinance. 1t was under this ordi-
nance the street railway was constructed
The plaintiffs claim that the second ordi-
nance Is void, like the first and for the
same reason; that the two ordinances are
substantially alike; that they We're passed
by the same counclmen; that the in
fuences which secured the passage of the
first ordinance continued to operate in
connection with the second and that the
repeal of one ordinance and the subse-
quent passage of another was only sub
terfuge. 10 substantiate the plaintiffs
contention, certain evidence has been Of
fered. which will now be considered.
A.-The distribution OF the free passes
to the councilmen while the first ordi.
nance was pending. 1t appears that af-
ter Judge Gunster condemned this prac-
tice, the passes were called in by the
company and surrendered by the coun-
cimen when the tickets had only been
partly used, This was done some time
before the introduction of the second or
dnance.
B.-The payment of fifty dollars to
Councilman Kllcoyne This money was
paid by L. w. Gallagher claim agent of
the Scranton Railway company. 1t is
not clear when this money was paid.
kilcoyne says it was paid after the pas
sage of the second ordinance. p W. Gal
lagher is the main witness upon whom
the plaintiffs rely to prove the payment
of money TO councilmen for the purpose
OF Influencing their official action in con-
neetion with the ordinance. But Gala
CHER himself testifies that the money was
paid for expenses. Gallagher says: ~
want TO state that didn't enter into any
arrangement with kilcoyne at all for the