Court Opinion

ID: 9638525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:46:13.844433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:07.505615
License: Public Domain

*617Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Roberts:
The General Assembly has enacted a law requiring all third class cities to pay certain minimum salaries to their policemen and firemen. The majority holds that under its charter the City of Bradford (a third class city) may provide for lower compensation than that required by this act of the legislature. I think this decision is incorrect.
I believe that section 305 of the Optional Third Class City Charter Law controls the disposition of this case. That provision provides that “. . . no city shall exercise powers contrary to or in limitation or enlargement of powers granted to the city by acts of the General Assembly which are . . . Applicable to all the cities of the Commonwealth.” (Emphasis supplied.) In my view, this language compels a result contrary to that reached by the majority. Under the result reached by the majority, section 305 becomes meaningless.
It seems to strain the bounds of logical reasoning to contend that the city regulations enacted under the enabling act can ignore a provision of the same act. The purpose of the legislature was to grant broad and expansive powers of self government upon third class cities; but section 305 graphically illustrates that the General Assembly intended there to be some limitations on these powers.
Our Court has previously held that local laws promulgated under the Home Rule Charter of Philadelphia must give way to “powers granted by acts of the General Assembly applicable in every part of the Commonwealth or to all the cities of the Commonwealth.” Lennox v. Clark, 372 Pa. 355, 378, 93 A. 2d 834, 845 (1953). This, of course, does not mean that every city which elects to become a first, second, or third class city under State-wide enabling legislation is deprived of all local powers. “The limitations of power referred *618to in Section 18 [of the Home Rule Charter, which is almost exactly the same as Section 305 of the Optional Third Class City Law] concerns only laws in relation to substantive matters of State-wide concern,* such as the health, safety ,* security * and general welfare of all* the inhabitants of the State, and not to matters affecting merely the personnel** and administration** of the offices local to Philadelphia and which are of no concern to citizens elsewhere.” Lennox, supra, at 379, 93 A. 2d at 845.
The Legislature’s concern in establishing minimum salaries for policeman and firemen clearly emphasizes the State-wide concern for the safety and security of the general populace of this Commonwealth.
The majority relies upon the case of Ebald v. Philadelphia, 387 Pa. 407, 128 A. 2d 352 (1957). I am not persuaded by that case.
I would reverse the Judgment of the Court below.
Mr. Chief Justice Bell joins in this Dissenting Opinion.

 Emphasis supplied.

 Emphasis in original.