Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1916-07-14
WILKES-BARRE'S
MAYOR HITS BACK
Declares That Clark Act Made
Whole New Scheme of Third
Class City Law

Mayor John V. Kosek, of Wilkes
Barre yesterday met the charge in quo
warranto proceedings before Deputy
Attorney General w. NJ. largest to
test his right to succeed himself by
asserting that the Clark commission
government act gave to the third-class
cities of Pennsylvania an entirely new
scheme of municipal government and
contended that the question of
whether he received enough votes to
be sole nominee by claim that it
should be raised by direct contest.
This section, the result of a petition
by William Leslie, of Wilkes-Barre,
for the use of the name of the State
to inquire by what warrant Mayor
kosek held office, interested twenty
eight cities of the State and possibly
million people. Mr.. Hargest took
the papers and will render a decision
later on.
Thomas D. Shea and F. NJ. Macklin,
counsel for Leslie, contended that 1t
was not the intention of the Legisia-
tCre TO allow mayors of third-claSs
cities to succeed themselves and that
Mr. Kosek had been interested in
getting through the last Legislature a
bill to permit them to do so, but that
| 1t was vetoed.
1t was contended that Kosek was
mayor in defiance of the law and that
he did not have the votes TO make him
sole nominee. When reference was
, made to the decisions of the Luzerne
court in the cases Mr.. Hargest in
CURED why tn epetitioner had waited
siN months to start the proceeding.
John T. Lenahan, who represented
xryif h lal, E.Iy
this city, answered that the mayor and
Leslie had been friends but that they
broke because the mayor did not give
Leslie an appointment
Attention was then called to the
fact that the district attorney had re-
fused to take up the matter, Mr.. Lena
han making stateme ent about it prior
for third-class cities;" that Mayor
asserted that the Clark act by express
provision and implication repeals the
act of 1889, that it creates "a new
anc complete system of government
for third class cities" that Mayor
Kosek received the vote required, but
whether he got 1t or not Is not within
the province of quo warranto pro-
ceedings, but for direct contest; the
four judges had held thay the Clark
act was a substitute for the previous
thlrd-class city acts; that the Clark
act in section one of article twelve
pIONluSS lndI any QudlHeQ eleCtOr may
be elected mayor, which he held was
an express repeal of the prohibition
OF mayor to succeed himself, finally
that the mayor, under the law, will
hold office until his successor qualities, |
which would mean 1917 at least, and
that therefore there could be no real
custer of the present mayor.
These points were discussed by Mr.
Lenahan and much debated by Mr..
Shea, who held that if Jucge Fuller
had the right to use the legislative
intent in his opinion in the case the
petitioner in this proceeding had a
right to make use of the Dill which
was vetoed and in which ne harged
the mayor was most interested. The
Clark act, insisted Mr.. Shea, is not a
complete system of city government,
taking issue with Judge Fuller's opin-
ion. He said it was not correct ac-
cording to his lights in some features
and that the subject was a proper
one for the attorney general THE
prohibition of mayors 70 succeed
themselves stands" he declared with
emphasis. The Clark act does not re-
peal portions contended Mr.. Lenanan.