Year: 1879

judgment were had In favor OF the plaintiff
and the defendants have removed the
record to this Court lor review. The
questions 1t presents are OF grave impor
tance. The plaintiffs have no remedy In
common law. They must recover II Ut ali
BY virtue Of the act OF May 81, lS4l, P. l.
4l5." The law Is here reCited.


The decision says:


ave are charged with no duty Of vindi.
eating the wisdom OF this Legislation. Il
is proper to say, however, that the princi.
pie embodied in the act is not new"


a full recital OF similar acts Of the Eng.
lish Parliament follows, and the Court
takes up the argument Of the county that
under the new Constitution OF this State,
adopted in 1874, the law Of ls4l is inoper.
ative. This point, after full consideration,
is decided against the county, the Court
holding that the new Constitution was not
intended as an entirely new instrument,
but simply an alteration and modification
Of the old Constitution to suit the progress
OF the age, and change OF the laws where
deemed essential to the welfare OF the
State. The Court decides that until such
time as the Legislature may change, modi.
fy or repeal it, the law OF lS4l under ali
decisions is operative and able to stand,


The court then reviews the liability OF
the county under this act. The point hay.
ing been made by Allegheny county that
the present case was not such as were con-
templated by the trainers Of the law. That
It amounted 10 an insurrection spreading
through several States, and further that
tho IamaOa oil onnn rrad f1ar th "A ;a.o.ao..
tion Of the State authorities. The court
says: "The argument upon this branch
Of the case has failed to point out
just what kind of riots were contemplated
BY the trainers Of the act OF IS4l. We are
left to infer, however, that the act was
intended to apply only to riots where the
number engaged is small and the damage
inconsiderable. But where is this line 10
be drawn and by whom? Is the act to
apply to mobS of ten persons and not 10
those OF hundred, or to mobs OF a hum
dred and not 10 those OF thousaudP Is
compensation to be made for a broken
window and denied where the entire
building is sacked and burned? We have
been furnished with no answers to these
grave questions which confront US Instant
ly upon any attempt to give the act OF lS4l
the narrow construction claimed for it.


AS regards the Intervention OF State
military, the Court says: 1--WE see no
evidence of any serious attempt upon the
part OF the local authorities to suppress II
at the time OF its commencement. A
feeble attempt was made by the Sheriff,
resulting In the enrolment OF some half
dozen deputies. But there was no procla.
nation calling upon the body ofthe coun-
ty to come TO his assistance In preserving
the public peace. No one doubts at this
day that II proper effort had been
made at the proper time the mob
could have been held In check. No doubt
1t would have been had the citizens OF the
county realized that they were responsible
for the loss; but this act OF Assembly,
folded away among the pamphlet laws, was
probably forgotten or overlooked even by
those who knew Of its existence. In the
end the mob that had defied the military
power was put down in the main by the
civil authorities after the citizens had been
aroused by a sense Of common DANGER"


The law will not tolerate the spectacle
OF great city looking on with indlfIer.
ence while the property to the value Of
millions is being destroyed by mob. To
prevent just such occurrences was one OF
the objects OF the act OF lS4l. The fact
that the State when called upon rendered
assistance and sent a portion OF It's mill.
tary TO the scene did not absolye the coun.
" from its implied obligations to preserve
the peace nor from It's responsibility for a
neglect OF that duty. We're 1t otherwise,
1t might he TO the interest OF the munich.
,pality to increase the size OF the mob,


1t was further objected that where an
insurreCtion is by reason OF It's nature and
extent beyond the power OF the local au.
thorities 10 anticipate or subdue, county
cannot be held liable for the loss OF prop.
erty destroyed during and in consequence
oft. The court decides the word ''insur.
rection" as inapplicable here. It was a
mob and nothing more. 1t is provided by
the eighth section OF the Law Of lS4l tha,
mo person or persons shall be entitled to
the benefits OF this act II 1t shall appear
that the destruction OF his or their prop.
erty was caused by his or their illegal OF
improper conduct"


The Court reviews this point OF the
county at length: ut Is not pretended
that the losers did any improper act
They were hundreds OF miles away, and
knew nothing Of the destruction OF theil
property until 1t was accomplished. Blu,
It Is said they are responsible for the act o.
the Pennsylvania Railroad Company
theiI bailees. Conceding this to be- SO
for the purposes OF this case, what act O
the company was illegal or improper with
in the meaning OF the statute? 1t was sale
the mob was fred upon. Granted, but b,
whom? Not by the Pennsylvania Rail
road Company, but by the military sen


there by the Governor Of the State in re
sponse to a telegram from the Sheriff o


Allegheny county, asking for troops TO as


sist him IL. quelling the riot. Whethe


the firing was iudicious under the circum


stances we are not called upon to say.


Is no part Of this case. It Is enough 70


US 70 know that whether judicious o


otherwise 1t was an act for which neIthe


the company nor the plaintiffs are re


sponsible.


BUTT Is said that the company reduce


the wages OF their employees, and in III


face Of the dissatisfaction produced there


by endeayored 10 move their trains, Il
L. II .