Northumberland County v. Zimmerman
| Decision Date | 11 May 1874 |
| Parties | Northumberland County <I>versus</I> Zimmerman. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, and GORDON, JJ. WILLIAMS, J., at Nisi Prius
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland county: No. 16, to September Term 1873.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
W. A. Sober and J. B. Packer (with whom were S. Malick and G. W. Ziegler), for plaintiffs in error: on the question of the constitutionality of the act cited Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 9 Harris 167; Washington Avenue, 19 P. F. Smith 352; Kelly v. Marshall, Id. 319; Durach's Appeal, 12 Id. 491; Hammett v. Philadelphia, 15 Id. 146. Counties possess no legislative powers: Kittanning Academy v. Brown, 5 Wright 269; Lehigh Co. v. Kleckner, 5 W. & S. 181; Vankirk v. Clark, 16 S. & R. 286; Act of April 15th 1834, sect. 3, Pamph. L. 538, 1 Br. Purd. 295, pl. 3. As to power of counties to contract, &c.: Comm'th v. Philadelphia, 2 S. & R. 193; Cooper v. Lampeter Township, 8 Watts 125; County v. Bridenhart, 4 Harris 458; Raush v. Ward, 8 Wright 389; Curtis v. Allegheny, 1 Phila. R. 237; Commissioners of Lycoming v. Lycoming County, 10 Wright 496.
L. H. Kase and S. P. Wolverton, for defendant in error: as to the constitutionality of the law cited Durach's Appeal, 12 P. F. Smith 493; Burns v. Clarion Co., Id. 425; Sharpless v. Mayor of Philadelphia, 9 Harris 172. The payment of the expenses for the special protection of a municipality is properly to be made by it: Philadelphia v. Field, 8 P. F. Smith 325; Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend. 65; Norwich v. Com'rs of Hampshire, 13 Pick. 60; Hingham & Q. Bridge Co. v. Norfolk County, 6 Allen 353; Sedgwick on Const. 554; Kirby v. Shaw, 7 Harris 260; Erie v. Erie Canal, 9 P. F. Smith 176. A law to be invalid must be clearly forbidden: Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Peters 380; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386; Norris v. Clymer, 2 Barr 285; Comm'th v. McCloskey, 2 Rawle 374.
There are eight assignments of error, but the questions involved in the decision of the case are so much intermixed in these assignments that it will not be convenient to discuss them seriatim but rather to consider these questions: They are, first: Was the Act of Assembly entitled "An act for the better protection of person, property and life in the mining region of this Commonwealth," approved April 12th 1867, Pamph. L. 76, so far as it provides for the appointment of police officers to preserve the peace, and for their payment at the rate of compensation fixed by the governor out of the county treasury, a constitutional exercise of legislative power? We limit the question in this way, because in this case, which is an action by one of the police officers against the county to recover the compensation fixed for his services, we have nothing to do with the legality of all the powers conferred upon the police officers by the act. Some of these powers may be unconstitutional. In an action of trespass against the officers for the exercise of such unconstitutional powers, that question might arise. But surely if in any aspect the officers were legal they are entitled to compensation. Certainly the preservation of the peace is the great object of government. The Constitution provided for a sheriff, coroner, &c., in each county. These officers were to be selected by the people. But the creation of other peace officers was not expressedly or impliedly prohibited, and no one has ever supposed that it was not entirely competent for the legislature to create such officers and to provide for their appointment in any manner they might deem proper, and to fix their compensation and provide for their payment, either by salaries or fees. Constables were not provided for in the Constitution, nor the deputies and bailiffs of the sheriffs, yet unquestionably they are peace officers. The Constitution nowhere declared the sheriff to be the only officer who could call out the posse comitatus to suppress a riot. Beyond all question the governor could do so as the supreme executive magistrate. He was commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the Commonwealth and of the militia, and when the posse comitatus of any particular county was insufficient for the purpose he could command the military power of the state to suppress disturbance and maintain order and law in any particular district. No one has ever hinted that it was not in the constitutional power of the legislature to invest the municipal authorities of cities and boroughs with the right to appoint police officers, with all the powers pertaining to preservation of the peace. The learned judge below in his charge to the jury disposed of this question in the most simple and conclusive manner. The legislature has the same right to provide for the payment of special peace officers by a county as it has to provide for the payment of constables, or expenses incurred in trying and punishing offenders by process in the Quarter Sessions. We have never heard it urged as a reason why a county should not be liable to defray such expenses because the offence was committed in a township especially interested in bringing the offender to punishment. That the powers confided to the governor to appoint these officers and to determine their compensation might be abused is not a valid argument against the powers themselves. To invalidate them some clause of the Constitution must be pointed out with which they conflict; and this the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error has failed to do.
The second question is, was the evidence adduced competent to go to the jury to show that the case provided for by the act had arisen and that the governor had exercised the powers confided to him? The act declares that "it shall be lawful for the governor of this Commonwealth, on the petition of one hundred citizens of any county in the mining region of this state, verified by the affidavits of at least twenty such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinn v. Cumberland County
...Luzerne, 84 Pa. 55; Speer v. School Directors, 50 Pa. 150; Weister v. Hade, 52 Pa. 474; Hilbish v. Catherman, 64 Pa. 154; Northumberland County v. Zimmerman, 75 Pa. 26; v. Shaw, 19 Pa. 258. The local act was not repealed by the act of May 11, 1893: Brown v. County Commissioners, 21 Pa. 43; ......