Case ID: misc_16/html/0134-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Duumore, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Matter of an Attachment against J. Soley Cole.
    (County Court, Oneida County,
    February, 1896.)
    Municipal corporations — Investigating committees — Contempt.
    A resolution of the common council of a city ‘‘ that a. committee of three be appointed to look over all bills from the city surveyor’s department, the police and fire board, charity board, school board, City ■ Court, and all departments pertaining to the city, and be empowered, to send for persons and papers and employ counsel and experts” simply empowers the committee to look over the bills of the different departments and employ such counsel and experts as woúld enable them to do that, and does not empower them to investigate as • to whether faro tables or roulette wheels were in operation or whether unlicensed saloons were being conducted in the city, and a witness subpoenaed before them is not guilty of contémpt for refusing to • answer questions as to such subjects.
    The papers before me show that on the 7th of December, 1894, the common council of the city of Utica adopted a resolution of which the following is a copy: •
    “Alderman Hackett moved that- a committee of three be appointed to look over all bills from the city surveyor’s department and all of the departments in the city hall, and be empowered to send for persons and papers and employ ’counsel and experts.'
    “Alderman Welch moved to. amend, by including the police and fire board, charity board, school board, City Court, and all depart-, ments pertaining to the city. .. •
    
      “Alderman Hackett accepts the amendment.”
    As thus amended the resolution was adopted, ■ A committee was then appointed and entered upon its duties. J. Soléy Cole, one of the witnesses subpoenaed before the committee^ was asked the following questions, each of which he refused to answer:
    “ Q. Haven’t you seen faro tables and roulette, wheels in operation in this city — I am not intimating that you took part in any of these games?
    “ Q. Have you seen them in operation within four weeks?
    “ Q. Within five weeks?
    “ Q. Have, you ever seen them either above or below the canal bridge on Genesee street?
    “ Q. Do you know anything, Mr. C.ole, about places in town where liquor is sold, there being no license given? ” • -
    Witness stated that he had been informed that no witness is' obliged to answer any question relating to any subject in this investigation further than bills and accounts. He was asked what counsel gave him that advice, and he declined to answer that question. He said he had not been playing himself, and gave his reasons for not answering as follows: “ I am a newspaper reporter and rely on my friends and acquaintances for news, and if it is not absolutely necessary to betray any confidence, I don’t intend to do it,” .
    This is a motion to punish the witness for contempt for refusing to answer said questions under chapter 39 of the Laws of 1860.
    A. M. Beardsley, for motion.'
    JOhn E. Brandegee, opposed.
   Duumore, J.

The original resolution and amendment embraced in one resolution, all surplusage being omitted, - would read as follows: ' '

“ That a committee of three be appointed to look over all bills from the city surveyor’s department, the police and fire board, charity board, school board, City Court, and all departments pertaining to the city, and be empowered to send for persons and papers and employ counsel and experts.” ■

All the power the committee had it derived from the above resolution.' The real inquiry before me is whether the questions addressed to witness, Cole, as to his knowledge of faro tables and roulette wheels being in operation in the city, and as to his knowledge of unlicensed saloons being conducted m .the city, were within the.power conferred upon the committee by the.above resolution.

. In Briggs v. Mackellar, 2 Abb. Pr. 30, the court states the. rule applicable to such cases as follows: . “The two questions asked Webster had, reference to bis nativity, and the. witness McOann was. asked ef -what country he was a native. These questions were, .irrelevant. The committee were directed to inquire or investigate as to ;any frauds or corruptions in any branch of the police, department, and the manner in which it had been conducted, and . they were confined to that subject and could.not enter upon any other. Whether an inquiry as to the nativity of the persons composing thepqhc.e department would or would-not be an appropriate subject of inquiry on the .part of the. .common council, it is not necessary .to determine. -It is sufficient that it was not embraced in. the resolution referred to the committee.” : .

The,same rule was laid down in Van Tine v. Nins, 3 Abb. Pr. 89.

Courts have adopted' -a strict,, rather -than a liberal construction-of the powers of common councils, of cities,, and of committees appointed by them.

■Di'líon oñ Municipal Corporations, §91, states the rule as follows:

“ It is ,a well-settled rule of construction of grants by the legisla- i. ture, whether pubHc or private, that only such powers and lights can be. .exercised under them as are clearly comprehended within the words-of the act or-derived therefrom by necessary implication, regard being had to the objects of the grant. Any ambiguity or doubt arising out of the terms used by the legislature must he resolved in favor of the piibEc.”
Again, in section 89, it says: “Any fair, reasonable doubt concerning the existence of power is resolved by the courts against the ■ corporation, and the power is denied.” ■ ■ • ;

Certainly, the construction should be no less strict against- the' power of a committee of a common council than against the power of the original body from whom such committee derived it's powers. •

Applying a much more Ebera-1 rule of construction than the authorities above quoted permit, it is clear that the committee had no power to investigate as .to whether faro tables or roulette wheels . were in operation or whether unEcensed saloons were being cbnducted m the city. ■ The resolution simply empowered the committee to look over, the Mils of -the different departments and . employ such counsel and experts as would enable them-to do .that. The committee had no power except such as was clearly compre- ■ hended or necessarily implied within the words of the resolution; Certainly, • the power to inquire whether the 'gambling or excise laws were being violated was neither clearly expressed nor necessarily implied within the words of that resolution. A resolution of this kind is in the nature of a delegation of power. The resolution should be explicit as to what power is delegated and the committee should he limited to that. Whether the council had power to authorize such an investigation, or, whether it would have been a wise exercise of power, is not before me. The only question here is, did the resolution in question authorize the committee to investí-, gate the questions inquired about. The'foregoing views lead to the conclusion that it did not. The motion is, therefore, denied and the witness discharged. , , '

Motion -denied, and witness discharged.