Seventeenth street and two and forty-two hundredths (2.42) feet north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Seventeenth and Walnut streets, thence along the western line of Seventeenth street fifteen degrees and forty-five minutes, east one thousand and seventy-four and forty-two hundredths (1074.42) feet to a point one hundred and forty (140) feet south of the southern line of Fairview street, thence extending parallel with same south seventy-four degrees and fifteen minutes west, nine hundred and eighty (980) feet to a point sixty (60) feet west of the western house line of St. George street, thence parallel with the same north fifteen degrees and forty-five minutes, west ten hundred and eighty-eight and thirtyfive hundredths (1088.35) feet, to the boundary line of the City of Allentown as it was on March 23, 1906, thence extending along said boundary line north eighty-one degrees and forty-one minutes, east, one hundred ninetyseven and fifty-five hundredths (197.55) feet to a point, thence continuing along same north seventy-three degrees twenty-four minutes, east seven hundred eighty-four and two-tenths (784.2) feet to the place of beginning; containing twenty-four and seven hundred and twenty-five ten thousands (24.0725) acres of land.

Sixth:-That the United States decennial census of one thousand nine hundred was taken as of June 1, 1900, and was to be completed in two weeks in the City of Allentown, and in one month in the townships of South Whitehall and Salisbury.

Seventh: That the said census of 1900 was taken in the said townships of South Whitehall and Salisbury as of June 1, 1900, and was completed by July 1, 1900, in said townships.

Eighth: That the above mentioned and described Tracts Nos. 1 and 2 were a part of the said township of South Whitehall, and the above mentioned and described Tract No. 3, was a part of said township of Salisbury, at the time of the taking of said census of 1900.

Ninth: That said Tracts Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were annexed to the said City of Allentown since the taking of said census of 1900.

Tenth: That in each of said Tracts Nos. 1, 2 and 3, there are a number of electors who are qualified and entitled to vote at the election on November 5, 1912, for

representative in the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Eleventh:-That the townships of South Whitehall and Salisbury are a part of the said Third Representative District of the County of Lehigh.

OPINION OF COURT.

The Act of 15th February, 1906, an Act entitled: "An Act to fix the number of Representatives in the General Assembly of the State, and to apportion the State into representative districts, as provided by the Constitution" provides that the City of Allentown shall constitute the first district of the County of Lehigh and elect one member. The question before me is, do the words "City of Allentown" refer to the city as it was at that time when the census was taken, or do they mean the City of Allentown as it was on the 15th of February, 1906, the date of the passage of the Act. Ordinarily, the latter proposition would be correct; but Section 2 of the Act of 1906 provides: "The foregoing apportionment being based on the United States decennial census of one thousand nine hundred, each township, borough or ward created since the said census was taken, and not specifically named in this Act, shall form a part of the district to which, by this Act, the township, borough or ward, of which it was at that time a part, is allotted." It is evident that the legislature in passing the Act had in view the last decennial census. Their duty under the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article 2, Section 18, is immediately after each United States decennial census to apportion the State, and although the reapportionment seems to have been delayed for a long time, apparently the legislature passed the Act so that it might be conformable to conditions as they were when the census was taken. It is, however, contended that Section 2, above quoted, refers only to such cases where the township, borough or ward was created between the taking of the census and the passage of the Act, and does not refer to a case like the one before us where merely a portion of the township was annexed to some other division. Following the strict language of the Act, there is certainly room for argument in support of this position, but the whole section must be taken together. In the first place, it explicitly says the apportionment is founded on the United States decennial

census, in other words, when the City of Allentown was considered by the legislature it was considered as a city containing the population shown in the census reports. It would also be rather absurd to make the boundaries of the representative district depend upon the whim of City Councils; and we would be compelled to come to the conclusion that where the annexed territory was created into a separate ward, such new ward would still continue to be outside the limits of the city so far as the representative district was concerned; whilst if said same territory were included in already existing ward or wards, it would become a portion of the representative district comprising the city. This could hardly have been the intention of the legislature, and it is more consistent with the whole section to take the view that when the legislature referred to the fact that each township, borough or ward created since the last census had been taken and not specifically named in the Act, should form a part of the district to which by this Act the township, borough or ward, of what it was at the time of the taking of the census a part, includes a change made of the portion of a township, borough or ward by a transfer into another representative district; and that notwithstanding such a change a portion of the township, borough or ward remained under the same political division as it was at the time of the taking of the census. Harry I. Koch, the candidate for Representative of the Allentown District has asked to intervene in the matter and alleges that a decision in favor of the relator would render him ineligible to the office for which he is running, as by such decision he no longer would be a resident of the City of Allentown so far as the representative district of the City of Allentown is concerned. We cannot consider the effect of our decision so far as Harry I. Koch is concerned. We do not pass upon his eligibility as a candidate, that is not before us. If he should be elected and his title to the office would be questioned, it would be in a different proceeding; the Court sitting in that case might take a different view of the Act than I do. However, I must follow my own opinion in the matter. There are no cases which have been brought to my attention in which this Section of the Act of 1906 has been construed. As I read the Act, the prayer of the petition must be granted.

The counsel for the relator may prepare a decree in accordance with this opinion.

STEWART CONTRACTING CO. vs. COUNTY OF LEHIGH.

Constitutional Law-Special Session of Legislature-Governor's Proclamation-Bridges-Act of March 5, 1906, P. L. 75.

The Act of March 5, 1906, P. L. 75, regulating the building of county bridges and the letting of contracts therefor, etc., is unconstitutional, it not being embraced within the Governor's proclamation, calling a special session of the legislature, "to designate the amount to be expended each year in the erection of county bridges and to take such other measures in regard to them as safety may require."

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. No. 66, April Term, 1912. The R. T. & C. D. Stewart Contracting Company vs. The County of Lehigh. Assumpsit. Demurrer to Plaintiff's Statement.

Reeder & Coffin and Morris Hoats, for Plaintiff.
M. S. Erdman and Claude T. Reno, for Defendant.

Trexler, P. J. November 28, 1912. It was stated at the argument that plaintiff's case is dependent upon the view that the Act of March 5, 1906, P. L. 75, is unconstitutional. This act was passed at a special session of the legislature.

Among the subjects indicated in the call for the special session was "Sixth. To designate the amount to be expended each year in the erection of county bridges and to take such other measures in regard to them as safety may require.'

The Act of March 5, 1906, P. L. 75, is an Act "Regulating the building of county bridges and the letting of contracts therefor, authorizing the borrowing of money to pay the same and providing for the punishing of persons who combine or conspire to stifle competition in bidding."

Article 3, Sect. 25 of the State Constitution provides, "When the general Assembly shall be convened in special session there shall be no legislation upon subjects other than those designated in the proclamation of the governor calling such session."

The call in its sixth clause authorized the legislature to pass laws in regard to the amount to be expended each year in the erection of county bridges, and to take measures as to their safety. The Act of 1906 does neither.

To argue that the regulation of the building of county bridges and the letting of contracts for the same has to do with their safety is far fetched, when we read the body of the act and find no reference to the safety of such structures or any reference to anything pertaining to that subject. The proclamation of the governor, it is true, need not be worded with the same particularity as a title to a statute, Liken's Petition, 223 Pa. 456-but the difficulty that presents itself here is that the purpose of the sixth section of the call is particularly stated, and therefore by its terms is limited in its scope.

The courts of Fayette and of Crawford counties have declared the Act of 1906 unconstitutional. Fayette Co. vs. County Commissioners, 18 Dist. Rep. 216, French Creek Bridge 39 Co. C. Rep. 67. I am of the same opinion.

Now, October 28, 1912, the demurrer is overruled with leave to the defendant to further plead as if plaintiff's statement had been served as of the above date.

COMMONWEALTH vs. KURTZ.

Justice of the Peace-Summary Conviction-Sunday-Act of April 22, 1794, 3 Sm. 179.

In summary conviction on the charge of circulating a petition on Sunday, the judgment will be reversed, where the record fails to show the nature of the petition, that the act was committed within the county, or the substance of the testimony. Such a record must charge an illegal offense, that the work done was not within the excepted class, and that the procedings were instituted within seventy-two hours of the commission of the offence.

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. No. 33 September Term, 1912. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant in error and plaintiff below, vs. Harvey C. Kurtz, plaintiff in error and defendant below.

E. H. Stine, for Commonwealth.

W. H. Schneller, for Defendant Below.