The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-07-01
fHB CROTON AQUEDUCP CONTROVERSY.
The Old Commissioners sustsfned-Ths
Power OF Removing Heads or Depart-
mcnts not Vested I'm the BOARD OF
Aldermen.

The Old Com sfoners sustafned-Tho
Power OF Removing Heads OF Depart-
mcnts not Vested I'm the BOARD OF
Aldermen.
SUPREME coURr-0HAMBERs.
Before Judge Leonard
JUNE 30-The Croton Aqueduct injunction cas, in
which the Board Of Aldermen and politicians generally
have taken such interest," decided day in favor
OF the old Commissioner Messn Darrsgh and stephens
Judge Leonard held that the Board Of Aldermen had
right 70 remove the OLD Commissioner and that the
power Of removing heads of departments from onhce
was vested in the Governor alone Annexed D the
opinion
These actions prosecuted determine the title Of
the respective claimants to certain oces In the Croton
Aqueduct Department. The relator Stephens held tho
expired the 10Th Of April 1885 unless was lawfully
extended BY an act OF the Leaslature passed April g.
1858 which declared that the then chief officers u the
Croton Aqueduct Board should continue 10 hold their
offices for four years from tn date Of the appointment Of
the then Assistant Commissioners. (sess. L., 1888.
ONCE any vacancy existed after April r.
1885. The reetoT DaFrah appointed Assistant Com
missioner Decs%bsr 3 iso2 and bis term Of once had
passed resolution removing him from ofce, claiming
% exercss the power Of removal under the charter Of
then appointed to all the vacancy created Mr. Oar
rah was lawfully removed and Mr.. Jeremiah appointed
n ns b place. unless tn: power Of removal was taken
before referred TO- The provision Of that act
relating % this removal, declares that the
thereafter DO removed only for the and in the
manner provided by law for the removal Of tho Comp
validity o Il. Of n.
Of the Legislature before mentioned Mr.. Giles has
been duly appointed and qualified a. President Com
missioner and Mr. Jeremiah Assistant Commissioner.
II the term OF Mr.. stephens In tho one case had ex
PRED, and in the other II vacancy existed upon tho
behalf OF Mr. Gilea n m "A
Of 1869 Ia direct invasion Of tho second section Of
the tenth article Of the constitution Of this State That
OF county city town and village ofhcers by local cleo
tors or authorities where provision Is made by the
oss declare ali oSr Whose
appointment Is not provided for BY the constitution and
all ofcers whose Offices may be hereafter created BY
Ts. not denied q the
argument that these officers were created by
law in is4o Since the adoption Of the constitu-
laws the fact appears 70 bs Within tho decision Of
the Court Of Appeals in the Of the People against
saS
suitable Of all ofncsra local Or general whose olces
were ,herssiss. created y law hpi that decision
poptmsnt to Office BY tho Legislature although It's Ian
e6g6 Appears to be broad enough TO embrace such an
act Such case was not then before that court and the
validity Of legislative appointment not considered
The validity Of the law extending the term OF once Of
Mr. Stephens claimed to he upheld by section three Of
tno tontn acie OF inc conSttuton wnether tno once
local not and Independently Of tho time Of it's crea
ton whether before after tho constitution OF 1916
That section authorizes the Legislature 70 declare oy the
law the duration OF any once not provided oy tue cons.
tuition This provision speaks only OF declaring the du
ration Of an oce; not the duration Of the torn Of an
ocer already elected or appointed 70 an ONCE the dura
ton OF which has been declared BY previous law
The act Of 1858 declares two things viz the duration
Of an ofoe and also the duration Of the term OF an
incumbent. The fret % cleaSy within the con-
sthsr .u, tn, Of the gu, while the
Appeals would appear to be clearly without sanction
The case OF the People againt Bachelor, 20 NJ r,
137, 10 controlling authority on the subject and, a.
member Q! subordinate tribunal must follow y q au
thor Tho act of the Legislature extending Bachelors
term OF once was apparently the precedent for the
law under consideration II was also urged by the
10 the popery OF the Corporation OF the city Of New
YORK. ana that 40 Tar a. relates 10 this property the city
v strictya private corporation Without referring to
inc stsrnng doctrine iron which must decidedly ais
sent promulgated In the opinions Of the Court Of Appeals
IN the late cases OF The People against Kerr Brothers, q
n. r., 49, and Darlington against The Mayor, &c,
decided at the present term in relation to the powor Of
the Legislature over the city property which point
edy adverse 70 the position OF the counsel his argument
cannot DO sustained The chief ofcers OF tho Croton
Aqueduct Department are appointed 70 public ooaces
created by the Legislature which may In like manner
abolish them. Other public duties also devove upon
theeo ofcorB, connected with regulating, con-
structng and repairing the streets and scwcrs OF
tho city Of New York. They are no less public
ofcers than the other heads OF departnentshe Comp
tr0ller for example, who II the financial ocer OF the
CITY, and has in great measure the management Of tho
income OF the perz, wharvee and other property OF
like character which has heretofore been considered a.
03cors a. conceive, while performing The duties OF
President and Assistant Commissions OF tho Croton
Aquedct bocAuo that groas work was constructed by
taxation upon sod The public credit q no cy u nv
ration for the public purpose Of supplying the city With