Haus, Dr. William J., estate of, relief of, Hawkers and yeddlers, Home for Aged and Infirm Colored Persons, appropriation, Hurst, Jacob, peusion to, Insurance against damage by lightning, storms, &c., 137 157 170 167 167 226 43 73 71 Johnstown Hospital, appropriation,... 165 Judgment and mortgages, satisfaction of... 117 Koonce, iliram, relief of, ... 142 Lackawanna Hospital in the city of Scranton, appropriation, Penn Asylum for Widows and Indigent Single Women, appropriation,. 170 Pennsylvania Oral School for Deaf Mutes, appropriation,.. 166 166 62 Ramsey, George M., to refund collateral inheritance tax paid by, fees in counties containing over five hundred thousand inhabitants,. 147 Smull's Legislative Hand-Book,. .6, 68 Soldiers' and sailors' burial, 9 Soldier or sailor, suits by, against county, borough, or township,.. 78 State Agricultural Society, relief of,..... 155 State Hospital for Injured Persons of the Anthracite Coal Regions, appropriation, 227 87 Taxation, act to provide revenue by, a further supplement to,. VETOES. BILLS RETURNED TO THE LEGISLATURE BY THE ENDING ON JUNE 12, A. D. 1885. No. 1. A SUPPLEMENT To an act entitled "An act relative to the establishment and jurisdiction of magistrates' courts in the city of Philadelphia," approved February fifth, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. WHEREAS, The Constitution of this Commonwealth requires that in Philadelphia there shall be established for each thirty thousand inhabitants one court not of record of police and civil causes with jurisdiction not exceeding one hundred dollars; And whereas, There are eight hundred and forty-six thousand nine hundred and eighty inhabitants in the said city, as appears by the United States census of one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and there should therefore be established twenty-eight such courts therein, and there are at present established but twenty-four; Now, therefore, SECTION 1. Be it enacted, &c., That there are hereby established in Philadelphia four additional courts not of record of police and civil causes, with jurisdiction not exceeding one hundred dollars; each of such courts shall be held by one magistrate whose term of office shall be five years. SECTION 2. The four additional magistrates to preside over the said four additional courts shall be elected at the next municipal election, on general ticket with such other magistrates as are to be then elected, and shall hold their offices for the term of five years from the first Monday of April next succeeding their election. SECTION 3. The said four additional magistrates shall be paid by the said city for their services the same salary now paid to the other magistrates thereof and in the same way. SECTION 4. The said four additional magistrates shall draw lots for their courts with the magistrates elected and to be elected to preside over the twenty-four courts heretofore established, so that the magistrate securing the first choice shall select from the twenty-eight courts. JAMES L. GRAHAM, Speaker of the House of Representatives. CHAUNCEY F. BLACK, President of the Senate. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, OFFICE OF THE Governor, HARRISBURG, January 30, 1885. To the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: GENTLEMEN: I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 1, entitled "A supplement to an act entitled 'An act relative to the establishment and jurisdiction of magistrates' courts in the city of Philadelphia, approved February 5, 1875."" As far as I have been able to ascertain, the sentiment of the people of Philadelphia is opposed to the enactment of this bill. The four additional magistrates' courts created by the bill for Philadelphia are not desired by that community. The citizens almost unanimously regard them as an unnecessary and expensive burden. The bill, therefore, should be disapproved as creating unnecessary offices, and as legislation in defiance of the sentiment of the people of the locality affected, unless there is some other unanswerable reason demanding its enactment. Such a reason is attempted to be set forth in the preamble to the bill, which alleges a constitutional command that the four additional courts created by the bill shall be established. The argument upon which the bill is based is as follows: Section twelve of article five of the Constitution provides that in Philadelphia there shall be established for each thirty thousand inhabitants one court not of record of police and civil The population of Philadelphia at the time of the adoption of this provision was such as, at the rate of one court for every thirty thousand, to require the establishment of twenty-four courts. Accordingly, the act of May 5, 1875, was passed, establishing that number of courts. causes. It is now maintained by the friends of the bill that the population of Philadelphia is at least one hundred and twenty thousand more than it was in 1875, and that, therefore, the claim of the Constitution above re ferred to requires that four more courts shall be established because of the increased population. I am obliged to dissent from this interpretation of the law. Section twelve of article five is not in its language a continuing command, and, considered analogously with other parts of the Constitution, it was not intended to be. The command of this section relates only to the first establishment of magistrates' courts. It does not require the establishing of courts from time to time at the rate of one for every thirty thousand of population, but, having abolished the office of alderman, it commands that there shall be at once established in place thereof magistrate courts to the number of one for every thirty thousand of population. This required twenty-four courts, and no more, and the Constitution might have used that number instead of the ratio of population. Had the definite number instead of the ratio been used, no one would have doubted the meaning of the section; but the ratio is only a method of ascertaining the number, and cannot of itself give a continuing effect to language that otherwise would have no such meaning. In other parts of the Constitution, where the legislation was made to depend on the increase or decrease of population from time to time, language is used that leaves no doubt of the intention to make a continuing provision; as, for instance, the command that the State shall be apportioned into the legislative districts immediately after each decennial census, and the provision of section five of the judiciary article, that wherever a county shall contain forty thousand inhabitants it shall constitute a separate judicial district. These clauses are both obviously clear and undoubted commands of continuing force. Moreover, the debates in the Constitutional Convention upon the clause as to magistrate courts, though repeatedly referring to the number of courts to be first established, do not allude to any possibility of an increase in their number from time to time by virtue of any provision of the section. (See Debates of Convention, volume IV, 277, 278, 291, 292, 302.) It seems to me, therefore, that there is no reason to give to the section any other meaning than what its language plainly conveys on its face. It was a di rection to establish one magistrate court for every thirty thousand of its population then and there. This the Legislature did by the act of 1875, and the force of the command ceased with the legislative obedience. Besides, there was no need for the framers of the Constitution to do more than provide for the immediate requirements of the city of Philadelphia as to magistrate courts, the judiciary article containing elsewhere ample authority to make provision for any necessities that might arise for additional courts without inserting in the Constitution an inflexible and continuing rule requiring new courts to be constantly established with each increase of thirty thousand in population. There is, therefore, no reason either in the language of the section or in the necessities of the subject requiring a continuing effect to be given to the command to establish a given number of courts. Believing that there is no constitutional command re quiring the passage of this bill, and that the offices created by it are needless and not desired by the people, I would for these reasons alone withhold my approval. There are other reasons, however, which induce me to decline signing this bill. The Constitution, in section seven of Article III, prohibits absolutely the passage of certain kinds of special legislation. Among others, it prohibits the passing of any local or special law "regulating the affairs of counties, cities, townships, wards, boroughs, or school-districts, and creating offices or prescribing the powers and duties of officers in counties, cities, boroughs, townships, election or school-districts," The bill herewith returned is undoubtedly a local and special law, and if it is true that there is no constitutional command requiring its passage, then it is clearly prohibited by the section above quoted. It seems to me beyond dispute that, in the absence of any such peremptory command, this bill could not be lawfully passed under any circumstances. Suppose, however, that such a command exists-does that command exempt the bill from the necessity of previous publication required for all forms of special legislation by section 8 of Article III? This may well be doubted. Section 8 provides that no local or special laws shall be passed without publication. Notice of the intention to apply for the passage of this bill was not published. What immunity has it from the provisions governing all other special bills? Section 8 contains no such exemption. I confess a doubt, however, whether a clear command of the organic law for the passage of an enactment is not equivalent or superior to notice by publica tion-whether it is not of itself publication. Another objection suggests itself as to the manner in which this bill underwent the preliminary stages of passage. The 2nd Section of Article III provides that no bill shall be considered unless referred to a committee, returned therefrom, and printed for the use of the members. The journals of the Legislature show that when this bill was introduced in the House it was referred for consideration to the members from Philadelphia and in the Senate to the Senators from that city. This action took place before the presiding officers had announced the committees of the two Houses. Was this a compliance with the section of the Constitution last quoted? That section recognizes the committees of the two bodies as a necessary part of their organization, with specified functions. Is a reference to a delegation or a part of a delegation a reference to a committee within the meaning of the Constitution? The bill throughout its passage was subjected to phenomenal haste, and in one of the Houses, at least, not more than fifteen minutes elapsed from its reference to its first reading, and this before a complete organization was effected. As establishing a precedent for future imitation this unwonted speed should be subjected to careful scrutiny. Moreover, suppose all the objections suggested should be determined in favor of the bill, what evidence is there that the present population of Philadelphia entitles it to the four additional courts created? The preamble to the bill bases the right to these courts upon the census of 1880. Since then over four years have elapsed, and a decrease of but six thousand nine hundred and eighty-one inhabitants would make this bill unlawful upon the theory on which it is founded. Two Legislatures have been in session since the census of 1880, and neither of them seem to have regarded the population of the city as sufficient to call for an increase of courts. Are these two Legislatures to be charged with a failure to perform their bounden duty in this respect, or is their inaction to be taken as a legislative declaration that the population of the city was insufficient to justify an addition to the number of magistrates? Is not the Executive bound, when so tardy an assertion of right is made, to inquire carefully upon what it is now based? As a matter of fact, I question whether the population of 1880 is now maintained, and the preamble to the bill studiously abstains from de claring that the population is now what it was in 1880. In this respect the preamble lacks completeness, and I feel obliged to regard the failure to assert a necessary fact as evidence that such fact could not be truthfully asserted. For the four reasons above set forth I withhold my approval. If I have been solicitous to discover objections to this legislation, it is because of my unhesitating belief that the measure is op posed by an overwhelming majority of the people of Philadelphia, and because it imposes on that community a needless and expensive burden. I would be gratified to cooperate with the Legislature in the prompt passage of all the legislation commanded by the Constitution, of which there is much of the most important nature that has for a decade remained unenacted. The bill now returned, however, I do not believe to come within that description. ROBT. E. PATTISON. |