H. V. BLAXTER
ALLEN H. KERR, Collaborator
MEMBERS OF THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY BAR
To fifty-nine aldermen is taken practically all the minor litigation
of the four to five hundred thousand persons in Pittsburgh. To them
the law entrusts all the preliminary matters connected with criminal
prosecutions. To the educated public these courts are little known,
perhaps because the amounts involved in litigation are small,--never
over $300,--or because the proceedings are criminal in nature. But to
the majority of Pittsburgh's vast army of foreign born, the squire's
office is the only contact with law or justice. It is here that the
wage earner, the alien, the Slav or the Lithuanian, comes first in
criminal matters; it is here that the ignorant and illiterate enter
their civil suits. This is the court of the people, such as it is.
Viewed thus, the aldermanic system is lifted from insignificance
to rank as a vital question of municipal government. An ancient
English system supplied the model, which aimed to decide small cases
quickly and with substantial justice. But, as the system works out
in Pittsburgh to-day, it for the most part achieves no such end and
is a reproach to the community. For Pittsburgh has been a city too
busy for introspection. A crowded center echoing with the thunder of
steel mills, vast industries giving employment to alien laborers, the
insistent cry of "tonnage" and the absorbing demands of business, have
offered little opportunity for social study or civic experiment. It is
not that Pittsburgh is derelict; her charities are many and generously
supported, but Pittsburgh is busy, very busy, and the public have not
taken time to think. Nowhere is this ignorance of home conditions
more apparent than in the matter of the courts, and especially of the
aldermanic courts which are to be considered here.
Before aldermen, informations or the formal charges of crime are made.
Warrants for arrest issue from their offices. Hearings are held,
the defendant is committed to jail, or bail is allowed. Summary
convictions may be had before them, so that not only property but
personal liberty is subject to their decisions. What this means can
readily be understood when it is known that in 1908, 15,879 persons
were incarcerated in Allegheny county.
To begin with, the whole aldermanic system is an anomaly in the
growth of institutions. It is taken from the middle ages, only partly
altered, cut, and fitted to modern conditions and a freer people. The
origin of the office is obscured in antiquity. In Gothic times they
had conservators of the peace, whose duty was, as the name implies,
that of keeping the public peace; and during the troublous times
when Queen Isabel deposed her husband and put Edward the Third on
the throne, the King, fearing a general uprising, sent out writs of
peace to all the sheriffs, and Parliament ordained that good men and
true be assigned to keep the peace. At the foundation of the Colony
of Pennsylvania, the office of justice of the peace was brought
over from England, and became an integral part of our governmental
institutions. Under successive state constitutions the power of the
aldermen and justices of the peace has been gradually enlarged, and
their jurisdiction greatly widened. Aldermen are elected for a term of
five years. Formerly their jurisdiction was limited to amounts under
forty shillings, but gradually it has been increased to $300. In cases
where the amount involved is less than $5.33, the equivalent of the
old forty shillings, there is no appeal from an alderman's decision.
Litigants for so small an amount are in most instances very poor, and
a hardship is wrought when such cases are wrongly decided. Another
very radical disadvantage of this provision is that it permits the use
of such tribunals for purposes of spite and oppression. A landlord
recently refused to relet a tenement. An altercation followed which
ended in the tenant's saying that he would get even at the squire's
office. Thereupon he entered suit for five dollars for an imaginary
debt. At the hearing this debt was denied by the landlord. No proof
was offered that it existed; nevertheless the justice promptly awarded
a judgment for five dollars, and, the amount being less than the old
forty shillings, the landlord had no choice but to pay.
The very topography of Pittsburgh has influenced the growth of
aldermanic litigation. The business district is crowded into a small
triangle, hemmed in by two rivers. In consequence the aldermen in the
four wards comprising the business section get a tremendous clientele.
Furthermore the city has been redistricted and in the future there
will be but twenty-seven aldermen, one for each of the new wards,
instead of fifty-nine as heretofore. When it is known that some of the
downtown aldermen make $12,000 a year from fees, under the present
ward arrangement, an idea can be gathered of what will be the income
of the aldermanship under the new districting which throws the heart
of the business area, approximately the first four former wards, into
one new ward. Of course ward lines are important only in the election
of aldermen, for once elected their jurisdiction properly exercised
extends over the whole county. A case may be put in the hands of any
alderman whom the plaintiff may desire.
In appearance the average alderman's office is not prepossessing. A
counter flanked by a railing, a few chairs, a safe and a number of
dockets, compose the usual furniture. The floor is nearly always bare,
generally dirty, while outside the appearance of the office is much
that of any shop desiring customers. Often an electric sign or gaudy
lettering on the building, or other similar device is employed to
make the location of the office conspicuous. With few exceptions, the
offices are on the lower floors, usually opening like a store directly
on the sidewalk. Where the ward boundaries permit, they are put on
the main thoroughfares, sometimes so close together as to be within
sight of one another, which naturally results in the sharpest kind
of competition. The more progressive aldermen indulge in advertising
and it is a common sight to see blotters emblazoned with the name or
the alderman, his address and telephone numbers, distributed among the
downtown offices. Yet these are state judicial offices presiding over
subordinate courts!
Each alderman has a constable who is elected at the same time and in
such ways as makes the office largely political in complexion. In
many offices the alderman and the constable do all the work. But in
the downtown offices there are usually in addition to the alderman, a
docket clerk, a writ clerk, and perhaps two deputies. The constable
is not only the major domo, but usually the business getter of the
outfit. It is he who mingles with the people of the ward and steers
litigation in the direction of his employer. All this is to his
benefit, because, like the alderman, his income is derived from fees.
Such constables have often made as much as twenty dollars a day in the
sections of the city settled by foreigners, but this is not the rule
now, partly because the aliens are less ignorant and partly because of
the influence of many national, fraternal and charitable organizations.
However a conservative estimate of the income of the downtown
constables at the present day would be $3,000.
The business of an alderman is to get customers, try cases, prepare
informations, execute commitments and various other legal documents.
In civil cases, it follows from the very organization and jurisdiction
of aldermanic courts, and the fact that the litigant may choose his
tribunal, that the aldermen are often called upon for legal advice and
opinions even in advance of the actual litigation. Each alderman knows
that if he advises the complainant that he has no case another alderman
will be consulted. If the latter advises suit the costs will go to
him. As an alderman depends for his living on fees from litigation
instituted in his court, it is not hard to find one who will tell you
that you have a good case.
Not long ago a landlady and two boarders,--a man and his wife,--became
involved in a teapot tempest, during the course of which the landlady
pointed a revolver at her boarders. A squire was consulted, who advised
an information for surety of the peace. The proceeding under an act
of assembly for pointing firearms would perhaps have been proper, but
there was clearly no case of surety of the peace. The case came up
for hearing and after a long dissertation couched in legal verbiage
the squire pronounced his judgment that the case be discharged and
the costs divided. The plaintiff, who was represented by an attorney,
immediately refused to pay and asked the squire what he was going
to do about it (by act of assembly execution cannot issue for costs
alone). The squire was nonplussed, and called in his constable. After a
whispered consultation, he announced that he had reconsidered and that
his final judgment was that the case be discharged and the costs put on
the defendant. By this time the defendant had got her cue. She refused
to pay, and asked the squire what he was going to do about it. Another
whispered consultation followed while the squire scratched his head in
perplexity. Another reconsidered judgment was given, this time that the
case be discharged and the costs put on the county.
Not only do the aldermen give advice concerning prospective cases, but
they solicit business and it is very common for them to hold themselves
out as collecting agencies. Some aldermen who make a specialty of such
work have a printed form reading:
Claim against you for $________ has been put in my hands for
collection. Pay at once and save yourself costs.
If the claim is paid without suit a percentage charge is made for the
service; if the defendant ignores the notice the alderman will enter
suit. In short, we have here the anomaly of a state judicial officer
whose living depends on the business he can drum up, and who can be
both counsel, judge and prosecutor. From this it results that when
a case is brought in an alderman's court, the alderman, the judge,
considers himself in the employ of the plaintiff.
At a recent hearing before an alderman, who is without exception one
of the most upright and efficient in the city, the evidence of the
plaintiff was very uncertain while that of the defendant was clear and
convincing. The squire "reserved judgment," which means that he did not
wish to give his decision in the presence of both parties. The case had
been conducted by an attorney who controlled considerable aldermanic
business, and this attorney not long after reaching his office was
called to the telephone by the alderman who said in substance:
"Now look here Mr.----, if you think you ought to get that money in
that case of yours I will pay it myself, but I really cannot find
for the plaintiff because I honestly think the defendant has a good
defense." Only an incident, but what a flood of light it throws on the
attitude of the alderman toward the plaintiff.
Few cases are decided otherwise than in favor of the plaintiff. Exactly
what proportion can never be known, because our courts have decided
that the dockets of aldermen are private records and not open to
inspection by the public. One judge on the Common Pleas Bench, a man
who has wide experience in such matters, when asked if he thought that
as much as one per cent of the cases are decided other than in favor of
the plaintiff, replied, "No, not nearly." As a matter of fact judgment
is so universally given for the plaintiff that a defendant who has had
any previous experience, does not take the trouble to appear at the
hearing, but if he desires to contest the matter, takes an appeal from
the alderman's decision.
It is a wise requirement of law that a plaintiff must make out his
case affirmatively, proving all the matters essential to constitute
liability on the part of the defendant. It is a matter of common
knowledge, however, that aldermen give judgment on evidence of the
most meager kind. A copy of a bill, its correctness unsworn to,
left with the alderman is a common way of obtaining judgment for
goods sold and delivered. Suits may be entered before more than one
alderman, and in such cases although but one execution may issue, a
defendant can be harried by threats and a multiplicity of summonses.
In such cases, aldermen and their constables although legally without
power, may when in league with unscrupulous creditors, be the cause
of the greatest injustice. Cases have been known where constables,
although knowing that a levy could not be made, would, nevertheless,
frequently visit the house of the defendant, post notices of sale,
demand admittance in the middle of the night, and in many other petty
ways harass the defendant in the hope of forcing the payment of their
costs. It is well known that much hardship is done in Pittsburgh
through the instrumentality of what are known as "loan sharks," who
lend small amounts at usurious rates of interest, taking as security
assignments of future wages, bills of sale of household furniture,
and other personal belongings. The defendants in such cases, although
they are protected by law, are usually poor and ignorant, have little
knowledge of legal procedure and fall an easy prey to the threats of
such unscrupulous creditors. It can readily be understood how much such
usurers are assisted by unscrupulous aldermen and constables.
Primary in importance to the alderman is the problem of getting his
costs. Not long ago a well-to-do man residing in the residential
section bought some cider from a huckster and ordered some apples.
The cider was left in the barrel and the apples were to be brought
the following day. When they came they were refused because of their
poor quality. The huckster in a rage demanded the barrel in which he
had left the cider, although both the apples and the cider had been
paid for. He was told he could have it in a day or two, as soon as it
could be emptied. He left to seek the advice of a squire who advised
him to make an information for larceny by bailee (the technical term
meaning larceny of goods temporarily in one's possession). He did so
and a warrant was issued for the defendant's arrest. He was arrested
and appeared at the alderman's office with bondsmen. Bail was refused
by the alderman on one pretext and another and the defendant was told
that if he would pay the costs the alderman would see to it that the
whole matter was dropped. Before the hearing the squire had gone to the
defendant's business office and told him that if he would pay the costs
the matter could be fixed. Needless to say, rather than spend a night
in jail while new bail was being secured, the victim paid the costs,
preferring to be mulcted a few dollars than to incur the notoriety and
annoyance of carrying the matter to a higher court.
Under such manipulation it is not difficult to see how large a volume
of litigation may be instituted in the aldermanic courts. Of course
this case is exceptional and there are many aldermen who never seek
business or advise frivolous litigation, but even without it the
volume of business is incredibly large. Some of the downtown aldermen
have had as many as 500 civil cases brought in their courts in a
month. Of course if there is any real controversy involved the case is
appealed, but in practically all the cases the costs are paid either
on appeal or by execution, the law making costs a first lien on the
fund realized. A compilation of the costs paid in three hundred cases
shows the average costs in each case to be $3.74. Formerly these costs
had to be paid before the appeal could be taken, but by a late act an
appeal can be taken without payment of the costs, if satisfactory bail
be given for debt, interest and costs. However, the act works little
benefit, because the alderman is the judge of the sufficiency of the
bail and has it in his power to reject bondsmen until it is quicker
and easier to pay the costs than bother over the allowance of bail. So
that, as a matter of fact, the costs are always paid on appeal. Taking
the downtown aldermen's offices where the cases sometimes number 500
in a month, the income from fees would be about $1,800 a month, which
after allowance for fixed charges would leave a monthly profit to these
downtown aldermen of about $1,000 in civil suits alone.[5]
[5] The costs reckoned above are without execution, which when issued
would swell the costs by a couple of dollars, making an average of
probably six dollars.
To these fees, to form some estimate of the income derived from
some alderman-ships, should be added the costs paid in criminal
cases which an average of one hundred cases taken at random from the
criminal docket of a prominent downtown alderman show to be $4.15
in each case. In criminal cases, if the defendant is discharged the
alderman's costs are paid by the county. This procedure further adds
to the revenue of the office. In 1907 the county paid to the various
aldermen and justices of the peace the sum of $17,884.40 for costs in
such discharged criminal cases, and to sundry officers in such cases
$8,840.05, or a total of $26,724.45. To one alderman alone, having an
office in a downtown section largely settled by Negroes and the poorer
classes, $1,711.55 was paid in 1907 by the county as costs in such
discharged criminal cases brought in his office. For miscellaneous
work, criminal and otherwise, fees are paid in accordance with a
schedule set by a recent act of assembly, that of 1893. Some of the
main items are given below.