Court Opinion

ID: 9705764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:20:04.617285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:42.080902
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
These two offices are, in my judgment, undoubtedly incompatible and there are many similar situations which exist throughout Pennsylvania. The Courts can take jurisdiction, if at all,* only on the ground that a matter of public policy is involved. The law is thus expressed in Commonwealth ex rel. McCreary v. Major, 343 Pa. 355, 22 A. 2d 686, where the Court said (page 360) : “The power of the court to determine what is against public policy, in a proper case, is well recognized. We said in Mamlin v. Genoe, 340 Pa. 320, 325: ‘It is only when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it, that a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in so declaring. . . .”’
In other words, ordinarily, matters of public policy are matters for determination by the Legislature and not by the Courts, and this is especially so where it is almost impossible for a Court to draw a clear line** *248or to formulate a clear public policy in this field. For example, in numerous instances a member of tbe State Senate, and/or a member of tbe House of Representatives, bolds two incompatible offices, yet, for undisclosed reasons or for political reasons, tbe Legislature bas failed to pass appropriate legislation and tbe Courts have not assumed jurisdiction. I liope that tbis decision will awaken tíie Legislature to a realization of its responsibilities in tbis field.
I regretfully join in tbe majority opinion.

 Commonwealth ex rel. Schermer v. Franek, 311 Pa. 341, 166 A. 878; Contra: Dictum in Commonwealth ex rel. v. Snyder, 294 Pa. 555, 144 A. 748; in Commonwealth ex rel. Adams v. Holleran, 350 Pa. 461, 39 A. 2d 612; in Commonwealth ex rel. McCreary v. Major, 343 Pa., supra.

 “That there is ‘a virtual unanimity of opinion’ among all reasonable men that it is against public policy for a public official to appoint himself to another public office within his gift is beyond all question. Courts, not only of this Commonwealth, but of every other jurisdiction known to us, have uniformly held that personal interest of a public officer creates disqualification.”; Commonwealth ex rel. McCreary v. Major, 343 Pa., supra.