Court Opinion

ID: 9752905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:43:21.737247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:25.257365
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Wright, J.:
Lord Bacon wisely said that the function of judges is jus dicere, not jus dare. I respectfully submit that the majority opinion constitutes judicial legislation. The result is that, once a township of the second class has adopted its annual budget in conformity with section 902 of the Second Class Township Code, Act of May 1, 1933, P. L. 103, as amended, 53 PS 19093-902, it is thereafter prohibited from levying a tax under Act 481 of June 25, 1947, P. L. 1145, as amended, 53 PS 2015.1 et seq. Had the legislature intended Act 481 to be thus limited it would have said so. Neither the title nor the body of the statute gives any indication whatever that such a result was contemplated. The majority opinion reads something into Act 481 which is not there.
Nor does the annual budget of a second class township possess the sacred character given it by the majority opinion. Section 902 of the Second Class Township Code expressly provides that supervisors may at any time make supplemental appropriations from funds on hand or estimated to be received “whether or not an appropriation for the same purpose was in-*300eluded in the original budget as adopted”. It should be further noted in this connection that the Second Class Township Code does not prohibit more than one tax levy in each year, as does the Public School Code.
Finally, and above all, the majority opinion completely disregards the legislative interpretation of Act 481. See section 51 of the Statutory Construction Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 1019, 46 PS §551. What better judge of legislative intention can there be than the legislature itself. Act 481 was amended by the Act of May 27, 1953, P. L. 234, as follows: “Every ordinance or resolution which imposes a tax under the authority of this Act shall... be passed or adopted, if for a school district, during the period other school taxes are required by law to be levied and assessed by such district (italics supplied)”. This amendment shows conclusively that the intention of the legislature was, and is, that political subdivisions, except school districts, may impose taxes under the statute at any time.
I would reverse the judgment of the lower court, and would here enter judgment for the appellant.