PENNSYLVANIA. 



717 



snry, the shares, capital, and profits of such 

 banks shall be exempt from all other tax- 

 ation. 



The expectation that ex-President Grant 

 would during the summer arrive at San Fran- 

 cisco on his return from an extensive tour in 

 Europe and Asia, led to the adoption of a reso- 

 lution for the appointment of a joint commit- 

 tee of ten Senators and fifteen Representatives 

 to act in conjunction with the Governor, Lieu- 

 tenant-Governor, and Speakers of the Senate 

 and House of Representatives, for the purpose 

 of welcoming him upon his arrival in this 

 country, in the name of the Commonwealth of 

 Pennsylvania, provided that there should be 

 no expense to the State. It was passed in the 

 House by a strict party vote, 79 yeas and 73 

 nays; also in the Senate by yeas 26, nays 12. 



A bill was introduced in the House to ap- 

 point a commission to ascertain and adjust the 

 losses caused by the riots of July, 1877, and to 

 provide for their payment. It was referred to 

 the Committee of Ways and Means, and re- 

 ported back with amendments which were 

 adopted. The bill thus amended appropriated 

 $4,000,000, or as much thereof as might be re- 

 quired to pay the losses. One fourth of the 

 amount of the loss was to be paid into the 

 State Treasury by the county of Allegheny. 

 The Governor was authorized to appoint three 

 commissioners to ascertain the value of the 

 property lost by the respective claimants, and 

 the method was prescribed in which the requi- 

 site proofs should be presented. After all 

 claimants were heard the commissioners were 

 required to file with the State Treasurer their 

 report, which should contain the names of all 

 the claimants whose property was destroyed 

 or injured, and the amount of loss suffered by 

 each. If the county of Allegheny failed to 

 pay the twenty-five per cent, of the losses 

 within a certain time after the assessment, 

 claimants were to receive out of the appropri- 

 ation by the State but seventy-five per cent, of 

 the amount of their claims, and the county 

 should remain liable to the claimants for the 

 balance. When the report of the commission- 

 ers was filed in the office of the State Trea- 

 surer, that official was to issue to each claim- 

 ant a certificate setting forth the ajnount ad- 

 judicated in his favor. Upon presentation of 

 this certificate to the Governor he should issue 

 a warrant for the amount payable to the holder 

 or his assignee, who should immediately pre- 

 sent it to the State Treasurer. If there were 

 no funds in the Treasury for payment, the 

 State Treasurer should mark the date of pres- 

 entation, and by publication inform the holder 

 when funds were in the Treasury for payment. 

 The members of the commission were each to 

 receive ten dollars a day for every day occu- 

 pied in their duties, with their necessary ex- 

 penses, including clerk-hire. 



This bill caused more excitement than any 

 other subject which was brought forward. 

 The question of the liability of the State for 



damages caused by riots and the violence of a 

 mob was extensively discussed. The advocates 

 of the bill urged that Allegheny County was 

 not liable for the losses under the laws of 1841 

 and 1849, which make cities and counties lia- 

 ble for riotous losses, on the ground that these 

 disturbances of 1877 were general and not 

 local, and that the State was constitutionally 

 liable for the restitution of property lost 

 through general riot and mob violence. A de- 

 cision was cited, proving that any property 

 damaged or destroyed while being used as a 

 barracks or while in possession of State or 

 national authorities, and destroyed by the ene- 

 my, should be paid for by the State or nation. 

 The Pittsburgh round-house was an exactly 

 parallel case. It was further urged that it was 

 no riot, but an insurrection, brought about by 

 suffering from depression occasioned by the 

 panic. As soon as the proclamation of the 

 Governor was issued calling out the troops to 

 suppress the insurrection, the State assumed 

 control and responsibility, and this was done 

 before a shot was fired or a torch was lighted. 

 The State was therefore liable in equity, and 

 was morally bound to pay for the damage oc- 

 casioned by the mob at that time. In 1864 a 

 law was passed commanding the State militia 

 to suppress any invasion or insurrection that 

 might occur within its borders. This was car- 

 ried into effect by the military acting under the 

 command embodied in the Governor's message. 

 This proved clearly the responsibility of the 

 State for the losses occasioned by said insur- 

 rection. 



In reply it was said that the Government did 

 not become a general insurance company for 

 the restitution of property destroyed by incen- 

 diarism or lawlessness ; it was only responsi- 

 ble for the punishment of the incendiary or 

 rioter. The Government only protected prop- 

 erty ; it did not pay for it when destroyed. 

 The State is not responsible in any case. Riots 

 are always local in their character. New 

 York, New Jersey, Maryland, Missouri, Cali- 

 fornia, and Wisconsin place the responsibility 

 on cities and counties. Maine, Massachusetts, 

 New Hampshire, Kansas, and South Carolina 

 place the responsibility on cities and towns. 

 Local disturbances, as a general thing, are al- 

 ways the cause of riots. No county should 

 seek to evade the law which makes it respon- 

 sible for these damages. The law making Al- 

 legheny County responsible for damages oc- 

 casioned through riots was asked for by the 

 members from Allegheny County, backed up 

 with petitions from tho citizens of that county, 

 in 1849. The people of Allegheny County 

 were now endeavoring to be freed from the 

 liability imposed by a law for which they had 

 asked. The advocates of the bill then strength- 

 ened their position by urging that there was 

 involved a principle of equity in the case. It 

 was asserted that the State, which draws five 

 sevenths of her revenues from the taxation of 

 private corporations, should afford them pro- 



