*1 Allegheny County Authority Tranter et al. *3 Before Argued May 23, 1934. C. J., Simpson, Frazer, Drew JJ. Kephart, Schaffer, Maxey, Linn, *4 plaintiff. B. for Cordon, B. and John Clarence Nixon, Ralph them Chas. C. H. Frank, Dimock and with E. J. Longfellow, & P. and Fife, Hawkins, J. Fowler, Delafield for defendants. 13, 1934:
Opinion Mr. June Justice Linn, jurisdiction Original taken in this case on the was plaintiff stating petition joint defendants of and im- unusual at issue were such the questions decision hearing an earlier and justify portance if the begun could be obtained were proceedings than immediate hearing, common want pleas; that, “probably value would great benefits contemplated lost.” and altogether prevented [be] enjoin filed a class bill to a taxpayer, The plaintiff, and a County public corporation, Allegheny Authority, members of the corporation, Reed and Trees, Dowler, the Act to the provisions from proceeding pursuant P. L. Session, 1933-1934, of December 27, 1933, Special County was Allegheny under which On their joint filed Defendants answer. incorporated. petitions, Allegheny County, intervention separate of Pittsburgh and the were City City McKeesport case heard on defendant. The bill, made parties Relief is asked on the ground and replication. answer Constitution repugnant statute in the con- and that a certain provision Pennsylvania, and the to be executed corporation tract proposed County in conflict the General United States is Law. “An Act for the crea- providing title of the act is Authorities’ counties of second of public
tion to enter into agree- Authorities’ authorizing class; such the United States, par- the Government of ments with Re- relate to the National Industrial ticularly they and supplements thereto, Act and amendment covery sub- and Pennsylvania political the Commonwealth others; and with municipalities thereof, divisions dissolu- for the organization defining providing certain conferring rights, of such Authorities’; tion their immunities them and upon duties powers, the conditions upon members; prescribing officers and en- exercise their powers; Authorities’ *5 of eminent do- right Authorities’ with dowing such to finance projects and the power with main, Authori- authorizing such bonds; and sale of issuance cer- repealing receive appropriations; ties’ to make and parts of and tain acts and acts inconsistent herewith; purposes.” for other provides county in
Section article “That each I, hereby the second class of this there is Commonwealth, body corporate politic created and a be known 'Authority’ county (hereafter said in this act 'Authority’); provided, called the however, such 'Authority’ any operative shall not become nor transact county until business and unless the board of commis- county sioners which it created shall, proper appoint its declare and resolution, creation, and designate the members this act herein thereof, 'Authority’ prescribed. public Such shall constitute a body corporate politic county and of said for the purposes herein set forth and shall exercise an essential governmental effectuating purposes, function in 'Authority’ to that said be shall endowed end, with and, hereby following granted, powers, and is to wit: “ (a) operate bridges, To maintain and tun- construct, highways, traffic distribution nels, streets, traf- centers, parts any projects, fic of said circles,......and and improvements thereof additions and and to thereto, charge charges and collect rentals and fees, tolls, any projects, or connection with all said structures, any improvements, parts and additions all thereof; proceeds purpose therefrom to be for used maintaining operating repaying and same and the United States Government, others, may all and interest monies, have been thereon, which purposes therefrom connection borrowed 'Authority’ which said as same due created, payable.” powers. Additional clauses confer other prescribes county II Article shall be done what incorporation. commissioners to obtain certificate of provides Article “The 'Author- III, ity’ shall consist of three all of shall be members, whom citizens of this and of the Commonwealth 'Authority’ up, which said is created and set who *6 by designated appointed shall be and com- All members continue to hold office missioners. shall appointed quali- respective their until successors are and fied.” right property. acquire confers to
Article IY (section 501), provides inter “Not- Article Y alia: any ‘Authority’ withstanding provisions of this act, power pledge to credit of the Common- have no shall any county, Pennsylvania or the credit of wealth township municipality city, borough, or other of said any or to of said Common- create debt Commonwealth, borough municipality, county, city, or or of wealth such ‘Authority’ township, and bonds and debts said upon payable solely lien and from the assets shall ” ‘Authority.’ revenues said and (section provides 601), Article YI that “The ‘Author- ity’ hereby rules authorized to make and enforce such levy (or regulations, and and collect to establish, and by otherwise, lease or to authorize, contract, franchise, of) levying collection such tolls, establishment, charges and other in connection with fees rents, rates, may acquire, any properties construct, erect, which it operate necessary, prop- or control deem as own, rents, which said desirable and er, reasonable, tolls, chargеs be at least sufficient other shall fees and rates, including expenses the cost of main- thereof, to meet the sinking operation interest and thereof and tenance and ‘Authority’ charges; and the or fund amortization pledge hereby empowered such tolls, authorized and any part thereof, or fees and other revenues, rates, rents, presently future, received received or to be either security repayment, interest and for the or both, any any, it or advanced if borrowed monies taxes, security purposes, any and as it for of its authorized obligation any other assumed the satisfaction loans or advances.” it in connection with provides “The Commonwealth Article YII political municipalities Pennsylvania, sub- all long bonds other securities so thereof, divisions obligations ‘Authority’ outstanding remain unpaid, adequate provision until and unless and is made protection advancing money law for the of those upon impair obligations, shall not diminish or ‘Authority’ operate proper- or control its own, *7 levy to ties and and collect faсilities, establish, tolls, charges other fees and connection rents, rates, with properties or facilities.” exemption prop- confers Article VIII from taxation of by erty obligations held the and the issued it. provisions
Article IX “The declares that of this act are severable......” pursuant county bill avers to that, the the statute, Allegheny County of
commissioners obtained a certifi incorporation authority of cate for the and named Reed and Dowler, also as the mem Trees, defendants, property bers. sets forth the assessed value taxable county, in the the net and in debt, that the to county, the debt crease of the the without consent present is limited at the time to electors, an increase Plaintiff avers unless $12,659,851.24. that, restrained, County Authority Allegheny execute certain will a loan agreement (a copy agree with the States United of the part bill), is ment made of the without which, corporation consent of the electors, will issue its principal bonds amount of $24,000,000.001 4% and sell them to the United under States terms a (also part bill), trust indenture made and will еxpend together proceeds, money, with a sum of to exceed to be donated $6,000,000.00, the United public highways in the States, construction certain highway improvements. carry and It is averred to that, agreement, necessary out the terms be will county grant convey commissioners and to Alle gheny County Authority (power convey to is conferred
1 They increasing years begin mature amounts in successive ning concluding and in 1964. 401) property “certain of
by the real of said County already public which devoted use, wit, public proposed in connection with the or im work provement Liberty known as and Plaza,” Tube furnish ing Liberty means of entrance and exit from to and' public highway, corporation pro and Tunnel, poses upon improve to enter said land make certain purpose improving enlarg ments thereon ing highway. of said use It is also averred that the grant convey commissioners intend to corporation property, defendant certain other de now proposed voted to use connection with existing bridges, specified and described in the bill, bridges replaced are to be modern and more adequate municipal structures. The bill avers that the city Pittsburgh grant authorities of the will and con *8 vey corporation rights to the defendant certain in and public highways domain control and over certain in the city, purpose widening, improv for the of and otherwise ing including city a from same, wharf which the Mononga on now receives the north bank of the tolls, designated hela River between termini. specifically charged
It is in the bill that the statute provisions is in conflict certain of the constitution opinion. to referred to in be later this The averments of fact the bill are admitted in the specific defendants make answer, and, aver- addition, concerning property conveyed proposed ments to be highways bridges corporation, to that the and now “inadequate project, and included in use, are to safety serve with and convenience the of traffic volume using daily bridges that the same”; now are inade- quate expenditure require and unsafe and for excessive property conveyed that of the all maintenance; part system city highways of the of in the and require improvement. and that all Defendants also by aver the terms of the “after the cost contract, that, public improvements all and con- works to be by Authority fully structed defendant shall have been Authority by paid defendant out of the revenues received City property of said con- from the then all of the same, veyed become will revert and to defendant improved by County Allegheny property of the public improvements thereon constructed works and by Authority, either to the said cost defendant without County City or and then and Allegheny, will public of the resi- thereafter dedicated to use, be taxpayers well City Pittsburgh as of the of the dents and public generally.” replication
The the facts averred the answer. admits agreement provides money received The loan construction, the Borrower shall be “used repair conversion, extension additions of, to, alteration, following improvement of the described collectively improvements (herein called the works and project specified ‘Project’)......” are Details separate comprise include cer- items which twelve highways. bridges, In a and other short, tain tunnels, highway system proposed great improvement in the improvement Authority, plain- this the defendant enjoined for the reasons stated. tiff seeks have highways inquiry, deals with the then, subject governmental pub- that is Commonwealth, note those contrast, lic in we character; govern- activity local subdivisions classes proprietary private character, ment conduct their *9 of this record; in not involved our consideration are Casey, 174, 231 170, v. Pa. see Com. distinction, seq., et A. 78. 80 bridges highways, the Com streets
“The roads, ownership apart private turn from such as monwealth, may property pike companies, of the it State; are the agency up any control and maintain to administer, set Public Serv etc. Co. v. Westmoreland Chemical them.” see, 144 A. 294 Pa. 407, 409; ice 451, 456, Commission, County, Superior 48 Pa. Cumberland Jamison v. also, 137, Garr 286 Pa. Fuls, 234 Pa. v. 621; Ct. 32, affirmed, Blainesburg-West Road, A. Brownsville 150; 143, 293 Pa. A. Greene Co. v. Center 173, 319; Twp., 305 Pa. 157 A. Com. ex v. 305 Pa. rel. 79, Walker, 340. In 156 A. the exercise of its the over involved in the highways the limited project, purposes necessary to its the State authorized execution, the transfer the the con- municipalities of the in the control of the cerned, State, neces- property, to execute the sary project.
Defendants the deny that statute is unconstitutional loan and that the is in conflict agreement with the Gen eral In Law. the County dealing objections the it is validity necessary in mind statute, keep the in Sharpless stated rule, Mayor Philadelphia, 21 Pa. and frequently “that 147, 164, repeated we since, can an Act declare it Assembly vio only when void, lates the constitution and in clearly, palpably, plainly; as to no manner leave doubt or hesitation our minds.” In Com. ex rel. v. Reeder, 505, 513, A. it was said: “whatever the people have not, their restrained constitution, themselves from doing, through their they, the representatives legislature, do. This latter may body their represents just will a constitutional completely as all matters convention, left constitution. open by grants written Certain set very sрecifically were made power, forth, states to the United and these cannot States, be revoked then by state disregarded legislation; come the spe cific our imposed by restraints own constitution upon our these must be but in legislature; own respected; domain not included either wide these bounda ries the right people through legislature enact such laws as is absolute. Of use they choose, make this unrestrained it is people power, not the of the courts to inquire. peruse business We of their exam will then expressions statute; if ine constitution ascertain this instrument if no shalt find then inhibition, ‘Thou and we not,’ says, because is the simply statute is law will *10 not because it is or unwise.” wise people 76 objections in to deal with these convenient will present in both briefs them.
the order which
violates article II,
first
that the statute
It is
said
1.
vesting legislative power in the General As-
section 1,
county
by empowering
sembly
commissioners
; that,
steps necessary to
the charter for
obtain
to take
legislative
County
power
Allegheny
Authority,
dele-
was
permitting
legislature
gated. Thе
has
the law
made
corporation
organization
in
certain circumstances.
delegated
power
to the
No
to make the law was
to
that remained
them
all
was
commissioners;
do,
they should determine
to find a fact from which
whether
it
desirable to take ad-
not,
to
i.
was
act
whether
e.,
vantage
provisions.
If
accord with
law
its
necessary
they
it
then
to
decided
was
affirmative,
bring
corporation
comply
into
to
with the statute
by plaintiff
in-
on
are not
The cases relied
existence.
their facts are so different
with this view;
consistent
why
clearly
to illustrate
from those
this
record,
repugnant
question.
is not
section
statute
Pittsburgh’s
138 Pa.
21 A.
In
Petition,
430,
757,
401,
city
it
condemned because
authorized the
statute was
legislate by creating
departments
new
in the
councils to
city government
powers,
their
define
matters
say
legislature
required
were
“the
must
which we
In
American Fire
O’Neilv.
Insurance Co.,
settle......”
30 A.
166 Pa.
statute
invalid because
943,
72,
delegated
legislative
commissioner the
the insurance
prescribing
in-
terms and conditions must
to in order to
and insurers
submit
make
sured
Plaintiff’s contention must be
contract
insurance.
rejected
principle applied
Appeal,
on the
Locke’s
Superior
Pa.
15 Pa.
167,
Middletown
Ct.
491;
Road,
Reading
Savage, 16 A.
v.
Pa.
Com.
788;
174;
328,
Twp.
Woodring,
A.
289 Pa.
Baldwin
437,
Superior Ct.
affirmed
Pa.
Annexation,
77
It is
or school districts.”
boroughs
wards,
townships,
county
one
only
at the moment
as there is
that,
said
intended for that
legislation
class,
the second
The contention
local or special.
therefore,
county
is,
amendment
the constitutional
with
inconsistent
is
“The
It declares that
III.
34 of article
section
now
cities,
to classify counties,
have power
shall
legislature
according
and townships
districts
school
boroughs,
to each class
relating
passed
and all
laws
population
legislation
deemed
within
general
be
......shall
of Act
The provisions
Constitution.”
of this
meaning
to all counties
second
and apply
No. 30 are general
legislature pursuant
classified
class as
of popu
It is immaterial
accident
amendment.
for the
in the
class
one
second
county
but
placed
lation
Pa.
395, 406,
Sambor v.
being:
Hadley,
time
criticism that
no ground
plaintiff’s
347. There is
A.
number
a limited
only
local
because
the statute
law
to do
be entitled
so
would
those counties which
the result con
themselves of its application,
avail
Here
122 Pa.
A. 782.
417, 15
demned
Frost v. Cherry,
not to
in the class,
to all the counties
applies
law
in the
there
more than one
were
only (assuming
act
determine
locally
whether
class)
should
In
Coal
Lehigh Valley
in the
re
county:
apply
should
289 Pa.
Com. v.
Woodring,
30 A.
Co.,
By 1873, the convention engaged was prepar the ing had public opinion recognized the constitution, economic mistake taking from certain municipalities them powers conferring on commis independent at sions, the same the while, time, requiring municipal ity to the pay bills incurred the commission by without any voice in the restraining expenditure. separa tion of the to incur from debts the duty provid for their ing payment by taxation, produced the princi pal mischief of and complained which it was sought prevent. Notorious the Public examples were Buildings created to build the Commission, city hall Philadel Act of August 5, 1871 P. phia, 1870, L. 1548 (Perkins v. Pa. 86 v. Slack, 270; Perkins 156 Pa. 27 Phila., 554, A. 356) and the Penn ; Avenue operat Commissioners, in the ing City April Act Pittsburgh, P. L. 1870, 2, 21 (Mellor P. L. J. (O. S.) Pittsburgh, 185). The subject considered the by convention with particu lar reference the experience of these two cities (De volume bates, 697 et page and that seq.), 2, experience the illustrates character of legislative interference with local government that was intended to prevented. be cannot be said that the creation of a public corporation as a state take over agency for public highways limited purpose improving them, paying for the im out provement of revenues collected for their use, then them to returning the local political subdivisions to which had been they formerly entrusted state, is a special sense in commission, which those used in the words were constitution, either substance hardly or it need be added that designed spirit. And, 2 cannot include “private corporation” use of the words “ a of said body corporate politic county,” public thing under the rule that the one excludes exрression Com. Pa. expressed. what v. McAfee, As A. 85. See Wheeler v. 345. Phila., public corporations corporations excluded when were were cannot be being word association spoken of, held to include a corporation. then, Allegheny County
Concluding,
is not
or asso
special commission, private
corporation
but
objection
ciation,
might
dismissed,
be
also
added that
no supervision
authorizes
statute
improvements, money,
interference with municipal
effects in the sense contemplated by
property
agent
constitution.
as the
Allegheny
Authority,
County
deals not
State,
created
purpose
high
owned
but with
property
municipality,
as to
as we
system
which,
Commonwealth
way
*13
have
the
of the
is
repeatedly held,
supreme,
state
it
that
under
trustee,
and this makes
immaterial
the
Trust
indenture,
the trust
Colonial
Company
tolls
enter for the
Pittsburgh,
collecting
may
purpose
Authority.
the
or
in the event
default by
otherwise
Sec
112
80
levy
v.
can
no taxes. Cases like Porter
200
Shields,
Pa.
4. Plaintiff
contends that
act
within
proclamation
governor convening
special
ses-
required
Among
article
section
sion,
III,
25.
subjects
proclamation,
mentioned in the
fоr considera-
following:
Assembly,
tion
the General
were
“Re-
covery legislation,
including cooperation with the
Recovery
National
Administration and other Federal
agencies;......authority
to the Governor and other state
apply
necessary
officers
and meet the conditions
grants,
to receive Federal
advances or loans to the State
self-liquidating projects;......authority
or for
to mu-
nicipalities
public
apply
to construct
for and
works,
accept
grants
Federal
and loans and to issue revenue
of ‘Authorities’
bonds;......establishment
for the con-
struction of
works......” Under the
rule,
settled
the statute is
the call:
within
Likins’s
Petition,
Pa.
Liveright,
72 A.
seq.,
Com. v.
56 et
5. The next reliance on article IX, 7, which *14 provides Assembly that “The General shall not author- city, county, borough, township incorporated ize or any company, district become a stockholder in asso- corporation, appropriate ciation or or to obtain or money any corporation, toor loan its credit for, to, as- or institution In sociation, individual.” their brief, plaintiff frankly express for counsel the doubt whethеr provision is in conflict statute with this of the con- constitutionality stitution. mere doubt of As is not
81
sufficient
v.
234 Pa.
(Gottschall
83
Campbell,
347, 363,
objection
A.
be dismissed
fur
286),
might
without
ther discussion. Plaintiff
suggests
by giving
that,
up,
during the trust
the use of free
period
indenture,
toll
substituting
highways
highways,
are
to the Au
municipalities
appropriating money
The
must be
thority.
suggestion
rejected. Tolls for the
use
a
are not taxes: Ruler York
highway
v.
County,
Pa.
A.
290
139
nor
they
can
be considered an
427,
136;
The con
appropriation
money by
municipality.
stitution
no
contains
on
exercise
prohibition
State
to collect the cost of the
highway by
direct
to the users. The
charge
history
purpose
the section
been
have
so often stated that
need not be
they
no
again .repeated. Defendant
has
stock
corporation
holders
it is not a
or
;
private corporation,
business as
sociation
for
and is not
;
organized
within
profit,
the evil intended to
this section of
prevented
constitution.
See Wheeler v.
77 Pa.
Phila.,
355;
338,
Brooke v.
162 Pa.
29
Phila.,
A.
Com.
123, 126, 134,
387;
v.
182 Pa.
38 A.
v.
373, 376,
790;
Phila.,
Brode
Walton,
230 Pa.
A.
Sambor
659;
v.
Pa.
Hadley,
A.
Erie School
347; Downing v.
297 Pa.
District,
A.
Wentz
474, 479,
Phila.,
261, 274,
6. next is that the act complaint repugnant article section IX, 10, providing “Any township, county, district other municipality school in- incurring any at or debtedness before the time of shall, so doing, pro- vide the collection of an tax annual sufficient to pay the interest and also the thereof principal within thirty years.” Plaintiff contends that the is a mu- corporation nicipality. Dillon, Municipal 5th Corporations, edition, says: “We define may, a therefore, municipal in its historical and to be the corporation strict sense by the incorporation, authority government, inhabitants particular place district, them in authorizing their corporate capacity exercise' *15 82 regula- and legislation powers specified
subordinate
concerns.
internal
local and
to their
respect
tion with
pur-
the distinctive
is
of local government
This power
cor-
of a municipal
feature
distinguishing
and the
pose
corporation’
‘municipal
The phrase
proper.
poration
sense
strict and proper
general
used
us
broader
it is used
a
but sometimes
mentioned;
just
quasi corporations,
or
that includes also public
sense
an instrumen-
creation is as
of whose
purpose
principal
the local
regulation
not for the
and
State,
tality
See also
community.”
compact
affairs of a
and special
Pittsburgh’s
169 at 180;
64 Pa.
v.
Philadelphia
Fox,
Ct. 210, 219, affirmed,
32
Superior
Pa.
Petition,
207
nom. Hunter v. Pittsburgh,
66 A.
and sub
348,
227,
169 A.
Pa.
Lancaster,
U. S.
Shirk v.
for considering
no reason
suggested
has
557. Plaintiff
the con-
the terms of
within
municipality
defendant a
cer-
“municipality”
The word
provisions.
stitutional
the voters as
understood
could
have been
tainly
like defendant: Keller
corporation
a
including
Long
ex rel. v. Powell, supra;
Com.
supra;
v. Scranton,
debt of the to levy is denied the power which public corporation 1 (r). or section and section (i) taxes assessments: money conferred in section borrow (i), The power, or other secured obligations to issue its bonds limited by necessarily trust mortgage deed, “to denying corporation expressly or of mu- debt said Commonwealth create [pro- borough township, nicipаlity, county, city, debts of said shall ‘Authority’ the bonds and viding that] from the assets and solely lien upon payable be a ” As the credit of the coun- ‘Authority.’ of said revenues cannot be municipalities high- and the pledged, ty constitute the project improvements ways for the debt Authority, though be taken cannot *16 may they be controlled for such limited time and extent necessary pay to the debt out of the revenues received, accordance terms the trust in- denture. provides
7. Plaintiff contends
as the
that,
statute
appointment
Authority
the members of the
county commissioners, instead of for their
election,
statute is
provid
invalid under article
section
XIY,
2,
ing “County
:
municipal
officers shall be elected at the
elections and
hold
shall
their
for the
offices
term four
years, beginning
Monday
January
on the first
next
after their
and until
election,
their successors shall be
duly qualified......”
The contention is that “since the
jurisdiction
Authority
of the
jur
is coextensive with the
County,
isdiction and territorial
of the
limits
and since
Authority
perform purely
gov
has been created to
County,
ernmental functions in the
thе members of the
Authority
county
are
fact
officers and should be
appointed.”
elected rather than
But mere coincidence
boundary
duty performed
or character of
is not suffi
county
recog
cient to make them
officers, as has been
analogous
Mayor
nized in
instances: The
of Philadel
phia
supra; Poor
v.
Melvin
Fox,
Directors,
v. Summer
Nissley
County,
210Pa.
59 A.
ville,
41,
v.
483;
Lancaster
215 Pa.
64 A. v.
562,
Commonwealth
Sharetts,
Pa.
8. Article “No debt XV, shall be liability by any municipal contracted or incurred com- except pursuance appropriation previ- of an mission, ously municipal government.” made therefor designed prevent This restriction is one of those experienced prior recurrence of the evils result- ing separation from the to contract debts duty municipality pay from to raise funds to (Perkins supra). appears, them As it from Slack, already has been that defendant said, what municipal govern- municipal is not commission or a spending and is not the funds either of ment, nothing municipalities or of the more involved, need be A. 552. said. See Saltzmаn v. Olds, next on. It includes 9. Article relied IX, section 8, borough, any county, city, following: “The debt municipality township, or in- or other school district, provided corporated except herein, district, never exceed section fifteen of this shall seven article, (7) per upon centum of the taxable the assessed value property any municipality therein,......nor shall incur or increase its indebted- district new debt, exceeding (2) per upon centum two ness an amount the consent property, *17 such assessed valuation without public in man- the at election electors thereof a proposed provided by If the ner be as shall law......” pro- bonded a debt within that indebtedness constitutes plaintiff’s In bill be sustained. vision, course, must, argument plaintiff point, at his this contends that the designed Authority to “creation of the is a fiction evade on the indebtedness of mu- constitutional limitations nicipalities” Authority the is the “debt that the debt of ; Allegheny County”; taxpayers that the bonds of the the considered as “in effect should illegal county.” to It is never an evasion debt accomplish in disсov- a desired lawful itself, result, way ering legal ob- do it.3 We cannot consider the a to ligation county, it is a debt of the unless debt required county agreed pay to or can be has pay. in Keller v. said Scran- understand, to If as was we supra, and indebtedness that the “debt at words ton, question technical not used in the are general meaning way, of all contrac- but in their broad obligation pay in for the future considerations tual to plain- present,” for in the there is no foundation received prom- only county position, not has because, tiff’s by implication, expressly pay, or but either ised only clearly provides method the method and the statute only obtaining payment. Not true, but, 3. Isham, Co., U. S. v. A. Gaw v. R.R. 496. Wall. the statute denies the
addition, power pledge credit of the county (section 501 supra). This section of article IX, together with sections 7 and 10, already referred to, among were provisions inserted in the constitution to prevent municipal extravagance such as had been theretofore suffered in the absence of restric- tion.4 We are here dealing with the construction of a purely public The self-liquidating project. denial of to incur on liability the credit of the county of any municipality is notice to prospective pur- chasers bonds that their and their security only source of will be payment revenues derived from users of the improved facilities: Moore highway see 276 U. The City S. 536. Nampa, bondholders cannot call upon the treasuries to no contribute; can be taken for the municipal property because debt, the bondholders have to look to agreed fund special to be payment raised the manner provided. be the will duty defendant corporation provide charges. tolls and adequate highways These cannot be on sold execution. cases relied on by two plaintiff point way. *18 him. In Lesser Warren
against v. '237 Pa. Borough, 85 A. the 501, borough’s bonds to be 839, were secured, not alone the revenue from the by water works proposed to be the but if it purchased, by water works itself; for the the mortgaged payment was obli- bonds, a debt and that asset gation municipal borough was liable tо be taken We adhere to payment. was what decided in that In was case. Schuldice v. Pittsburgh, 251 Pa. 95 A. the under to 28, 938, city, authority pur- chase a all the bridge, acquired by buying capital of the owning bridge (notwith- stock the corporation of the Constitution, section 7 article standing IX, on the debt secured held that bonded supra). the must the time the bridge city purchased stock, the at 4 Phila., Scranton, supra. supra; v. Brooke Keller v.
86
municipal
paid,
unless it was
for,
be considered a
debt,
property.
plaintiff
city
But
in this
would lose
point
property that
or mu-
to no
case can
nicipalities
trust
lose.
It is true
would
that,
and collect
if
trustee
enter
indenture,
tolls,
Authority
paid in
but when the debt is
defaults,
way,
trustee and the
property
public
authorities
reverts
ended,
formerly
it for
difference be-
held
the State. This
pledge
pledge
property
a
a
of income mere-
tween
ly,
distinguish
to
has been said
a transaction which
debt
a
the constitutional limitation from
creates
within
creating
City
Bowling
one
a debt not
it:
within
Ky.
Special
Kirby,
In re California creating statute a Pac. action under a bridge authority a toll San Fran- to construct between challenged, conflicting cisco and Oakland was prohibiting provision creation a debt constitutional people. a vote excess without $300,000.00 provision appears sub- contained a statute have supra. stantially effect section 501 In the same sustaining opinion the statute, Waste, of his course 302) overwhelming weight (at page “The : C. said J., *19 judicial country opinion effect this obligation states, or other forms of issued bonds, agencies public political or counties, subdivisions, cities, by legislative particular authority, if such sanction and only obligations payable or bonds are secured 87 from the revenues to be realized from a util- particular or ity5 acquired with the of the bonds property, proceeds do not constitute obligations, debts the particular political state, public subdivision, agency issuing within definition of ‘debts’ as used in the con- them, stitutional provisions the states having limitations as incurring indebtedness. decisions we shall cite presently establish that to be clearly so.
“While this court has had little occasion to consider the ‘revenue bonds’ method of financing utilities there structures, is some precedent state, this and' are not we without from other ample authority sections of the where on re country, question has, peated engaged the attention of other occasions, courts of last resort, West Ala notably, New York, Virginia, bama, and Arkansas. We Kentucky deem neces only sary, support conclusion have we reached, from the quote opinions courts those states, and from our own decisions.” See, Toll also, California Bridge v. 218 Cal. 21 Kelly, Pac. (2d) (1933); Bates State Bridge 109 W. Commission, Va. 153 S. E. 305; Alabama State Bridge Com. v. 217 Ala. Smith, S. Estes v. 311, 116 State Highway Com., Ky. S. W. 583. (2d) Under this plaintiff also contends heading, that “the bonds of the be Authority should considered inas effect the debt of Allegheny because: County (1) The county owns beneficial in the Authority’s interest property and controls it through and re- appoint move Authority’s members; (2) county property, transferred to the Authority without present payment of its fair value, pledged a debt of the Authority; (3) the has contracted to maintain the improve- ments.”
Under the as has been statute, said, county is discussion, As was said at the outset our we exclude from our consideration all proprietary activities within the' class of business municipalities. conducted *20 is not immunity
and cannot be made
and this
liable,
the commissioners appoint
removed
the accident that
by
or that
the
county,
the members of the Authority,
the
benefit
by
improvement.
the rest
public,
The
the
such
convey
prop-
statute authorizes
for
and
as is
the
construction
erty
necessary
highway
the
as the
improvements contemplated by
but,
project,
held
highway system belongs
and was
state,
the counties and
for the account of the
municipalities
the
cited
there is no
under
decisions
state,
question,
the state to au-
earlier
the
this opinion,
thorize the transfer
for the purpose contemplated.
contains
agreement
(Exhibit M)
maintenance
“AND
the
the said
following provision:
FURTHER,
covenants and
from
County hereby
agrees
will,
the
and after
of the Public Works
completion
any
and
the
and so
Improvements constituting
System,
long
Agree-
Bonds
said Loan
contemplated by
ment shall be
at the
outstanding,
County’s
expense
own
and without cost to the
provide
pay
and
Authority,
all costs of
and maintenance of said
repair
operation,
System
the Fort
Tunnel
the
(including
Duquesne
and
other
Liberty Tunnel)
than the cost of
and
supervision
collection
Author-
of tolls and the overhead costs of the
but
but without
limitation
including specifically
ity,
the costs
County agrees
and will provide
for and
pay,
cost
all
whether main-
insurance,
tained
all
County,
lighting,
sweeping,
snow from structures
cleaning,
removing
of each
every
of said
approaches,
part
System
(including the Fort
Tunnel and the
Duquesne
Liberty
and the cost of
Tunnel),
policing
same
otherwise
provided for and paid by
City
Pittsburgh,
City of
other
McKeesport
municipalities,
and/or
parties
An
on
objection
grounds
interest.”
similar
made
rejected
Avas
in California Toll
Au-
Bridge
thority
Kelly,
(2d)
218 Cal.
Pac.
425. It is said
in the brief that
“that
cost to the
parties agree
County
Agreement
will be
performing
well with-
in its annual current
on that
revenues”;
understanding
we sustain
the costs of
re-
agreement;
operation,
*21
and
pairs
maintenance described above can
exceed
never
the annual current
revenues
The
applicable thereto.
state
may require local subdivisions
its government
to maintain
The
to
highways.
power
appropriate money
to the
pension fund
police
association was sustained
in Com. ex rel. v.
to the abolition of
Walton, supra;
railroad and
Brooke
highway grade crossings:
v. Phila.,
Chew v.
et
supra;
Phila.
257 Pa.
101 A.
al.,
589,
915;
to a Firemen’s Relief Association: Com. v.
211
Barker,
A.
Pa.
61
to the
610,
253;
Sesqui-Centennial Association
in Sambor v.
to the
Hadley, supra;
purchase of land,
an
part
was in
for an air-
adjoining county
in Wentz v.
port
Philadelphia,
a school
supra;
district
to
insure its school
permitted
a mu-
buildings with
tual fire insurance company: Downing v. Erie School
supra.
Shirk v.
District,
See, also,
Lancaster City,
page
at
and the Act
P.
supra,
July
L.
164,
9, 1919,
for the construction of
814, providing
the Delaware
River
If
bridge.
these annual
are made
expenditures
out of current
revenues,
to make them is
obligation
not a debt within the constitutional
sense: see Appeal
91
City
Pa.
Old
Forge
Erie,
Borough cases,
309
73 et
10. last objection The pro- twofold: certain visions in the Loan proposed Agreement (a) conflict with section 402 of the (b) and with article statute, section of7, the Constitution. III, (a) Section 402 “All contracts provides shall be let made purchases ‘Authority’ the manner provided by now law contracts and relating purchases commissioners in by county second class.” counties Plaintiff Law, that, contends as the General County 1929 P. 704, L. article section 16 1278, IX, 704, PS pro- “to the purchases vides that contracts must be let tbe loan and, agreement responsible bidder,” lowest But is illegal. other contract imposes prоvisions, be considered cannot be read alone. must other related of the statute parts (Lindenmuth with A. so Com. 312 when and, Pa. 789), no position. leaves support plaintiff’s construed, notice to be gives empowered title United the Government to make “agreements In- they relate National States, particularly confers (a) dustrial Act......” Section Recovery charge certain and to improvements, to construct the revenues “for the purpose for their use and apply and of repaying the same maintaining operating Government, others, United States *22 In and interest thereon......” section and all monies, to from conferred borrow power “specifically, is (i), con- United States......for the Government maintenance and operation projects. struction, up for the (s) provides winding ......” Section those to the United including States, the debts, when defendant Further, points out, been paid. shall have for annual the affairs audits “provides section are to be inter which Authority, copies given, Administration of Public to Federal Emergency alia, and is creаted exists only which Works, agency an II 201 of Title of the National Indus- virtue Act.” Recovery trial June Recovery approved
The National Industrial Act, in section “(a) 48 Stat. 206: provides let for construction and all loans projects All contracts this title to shall contain such grants and pursuant no con- necessary (1) are to insure that provisions on (2) be such employed any project; labor shall vict and administrative, super- (except executive, no and feasible, so far as visory positions), practicable on shall any project such directly employed individual in any than hours thii*ty to work more permitted be be shall week; employees paid just that all (3) one wages compensation and reasonable shall be suf- provide, ficient to for the hours of labor as limited, living decency (4) standard and that in comfort; employment of labor in connection with project, preference given, they quali- shall where are dependents, to ex-service men fied, following then in the and (A) order: To of the United citizens States and aliens who have dеclared their intention of becom- ing political who are fide citizens, bona residents of the subdivision in which the is to be work and/or (B) performed, and to citizens of the United States becoming and aliens who have declared their intention of are who bona fide Terri- citizens, residents State, tory, performed: of District which the work is to be preferences apply only That these Provided, shall where qualified perform such labor available to the work employment (5) to which the relates; maximum of human labor shall be used lieu of ma- chinery practicable wherever and consistent with sound economy public advantage.”
Pursuant conferred on the President promulgated same works administrator act, regulations6 (as rules and understand with which we parties agree) provisions agree- the loan comply. Assembly presumed ment General legislation, have been familiar with this federal *23 regulations pursuant enacting made to it, when containing important legislative the statute references to it. It have been intended must, therefore, where that, funds are obtained from the Government of the United competitive bidding provisions County of the States, subject apply, quali- Law referred shall to the further comply fication that all to be must bids, considered, provisions Recovery with the the National Industrial complying pro- Act. In not bidders cases, with 6 (Given as, 2, I-C, P. A. tbe brief W. Bulletin No. C. H. Regulation Service, pw. 2181.) Trade Federal be be must deemed not to regarding
visions labor, etc., within this act. “responsible” There is no (b) plaintiff’s complaint basis to “that of Article agreement repugnant the loan part section of the Constitution which prohibits spe- III, cial legislation regulating labor, mining manu- trade, legislation. The is not facturing.” agreement Consideration of the constitutional objections urged the statute has been confined to the against necessarily effect of the action as related proposed to the contem- plated highway constitutes the improvement proj- ect disclosed this record. bill
The is dismissed at costs. plaintiff’s Dissenting Opinion Simpson Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Schaffer:
We case, from the decree in dissent this but in do- so bе ing supposed must not of the complain opinion far majority. So as it the latter little goes, leaves to be in our desired, but, judgment, does not far go Its as enough. error, we view the consists matter, reviewing only particular matters argued orally in the briefs.
Article
III,
state Constitution pro-
vides that “No bill,
general
except
appropriation
bills,
shall be
more
passed
than one
containing
subject, which
be
clearly
shall
its title.” The
expressed
purpose
this
been
provision has
many times stated by us. Be-
least
far
ginning at
back as Dorsey’s
Appeal,
said: “The
we
title should be so
192,195,
certain
not
mislead.
language
amendment
is ‘one sub-
shall
ject which
be
clearly expressed
the title.’
‘To
expressed’
clearly
certainly does
mean anything
which is
and therefore is not
dubious,
clearly expressed.”
This
quoted
Provident
T.
approval
L. &
v.Co.
Turning now to the Act December 27, 1933, the title also has at the end thereof the consideration, “and for other For reason already words purposes.” nothing those must be considered as given adding words scope statute. So far as are how- aware, we in the title to a purely superfluous words statute, ever, have never been held to hence do destroy we act; not think should be that effect here. they given
There an earlier of the title is, however, provision which is to article Con- repugnant III, the statute should fall. being this stitution, and, vital, “An The title states that it is Act providing in creation of ‘Authorities’ counties of the second in the title class” etc. Nowhere does what etc., appear and those as attempted authorities” “public are, words, to be are and have always explained dеfendants, Do alien to our and customs. been laws government, for “counties of the denote a class officials they new in or in class”? Are whole they supersede second if existing county so, some part officials, and, Or are to be given of them? new they powers entirely sepa- duties in counties class, second from those vested rate and distinct now other cognate questions official? These and numerous the title alone is considered as, at once arise when under consid- of the constitutional light provision objection it must be. that this suggested was eration, because other states there unavailing “public were authorities” like that referred to this before act, our statute but this does not What passed, help. are does at all the title to they appear were *25 statute, nothing and appertaining this thereto “clearly is therein. So far expressed” as we have been able to dis- there no in the cover is of uniformity character the authorities” “public save the fact elsewhere, for are substitutes other they officials in the per- of formance some If the public duties. title had been “An Act for the creation of providing public [corpora- tions under title of the Authorities counties the of] class” the etc., first balance of the etc., this, with title, have sufficed possibly respects would as that which was actually the but does not enacted; title, is, “clearly the one of subject the and express” act, hence fatally bad.
The next clause the title is also anything but “clear.” is: “authorizing such ‘Authorities’ enter agreements into the with Government of the United States, particularly they relate to Agreements?] [the National the Industrial Act Recovery and amend- and ments supplements thereto, Commonwealth Pennsylvania and subdivisions and political municipali- ties and others.” thereof, What class of “others”? Public Noseitur private? a soeiis? The title fur- no nishes answer. is one
There other seems matter, great which to us and hence should be referred to. import specially At- tached the bill as an signed exhibit, by county commissioners and Allegheny County Authority, an agreement by county agrees at its “own and cost to the expense without to provide Authority, for and all costs of pay and operation, repair mainte- nance said the Fort System [including Tun- Duquesne nel and other Liberty than the cost of Tunnel] and collection of tolls and the supervision overhead costs but but Authority, including specifically, without limitation the costs which the to and County agrees will the cost of provide pay, Insurance, all maintained County, whether all from lighting, sweeping, cleaning removing snow structures of each and approaches, every part System said Fort [including Tunnel Duquesne the Liberty and the cost of Tunnel], the same policing not otherwise for and provided paid City Pitts- burgh, City McKeesport, the other munici- and/or To parties interest.” palities, plaintiff’s complaint that this result in the debt increasing *26 beyond the constitutional the an- limitations, majority swer that “It is said the briefs that the parties agree ‘that the cost of county performing Agree- such ment will be well within its annual current revenues. On that understanding sustain the we the agreement; of costs operation, repairs and maintenance above de- scribed never can exceed the annual current income applicable thereto...... If these annual expenditures are made out of current the to revenues, obligation make them is debt not a within the constitutional sense.” It of that if the conceded, course, any year expense referred together all other to, expenses properly chargeable against current do not exceed revenues, the total both be therefrom the may paid debt thereof, not will be increased. agreement itself does not refer to the current but is an out revenues, however, and out to under and all promise pay any circumstances. be that on may ordinarily expenses the this account not exceed the would the current surplus revenues, but it is that at some time equally possible they would too for be instance in case a after com- great, bridge, to but before turned over the plete construction, being destroyed should from cause. county, wholly What then? Under this if sustained the by contract, to to money thе have county pay would borrow courts, then for the question the reconstruction, limitation debt at once arise. constitutional would The Act of December There difficulty. is another that the does not provide under consideration, 27,1933, mainte- or shall pay contract such pay shall county the not refer matter does and expenses, nance —indeed referred to no other statute we have been at all; liability county. appears placing the on So far as such a emergency agreement prepared federal not which referred to works, administration given any authority place Act county. expenditure on an authority can be If there found somewhere an to make then, commissioners such a contract, authority necessarily be limited will course, regarding provision the maximum the constitutional county’s question amount of and the consti- debt, tutionality important. at once To us it becomes is clear compliance far so with the contract does may violate constitutional inhibition contract apрear figures must fall. Where it does what a public corporation’s liability possible may proj- be in a ect it seeks to but enter terms into, where, beyond undertaking, of its its debt be increased possibility constitutional such an in- limit, *27 must be taken into account court crease in de- termining thereby may whether the constitution be expenditures violated, here, ultimate where, county, may under the exceed the debt contract, duty project possible it is our to halt that limit, so infringement may place. constitutional not take thought pres- If it be should not do we this objection specifically ent because this not re- case, against ferred to relief there not bill, specifically prayed to all for, then, fairness those they be who are interested, should advised open right is at least this an both as to the matter, possibility to make such a and as to contract, being applied. constitutional inhibition Act Since the provide of 1933 does that should make payments out the current revenues otherwise, agreement providing the maintenance therefor would afterthought any legislative an seem to be without action to support illegal. it and hence