The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-09-06
ALDERMEN ENTITLED TO PAY AS
SUPERVISORS.

Another Result or laundering iLe0isla-
tlon-Comptroller Green Completely
Routed-Important Decision by Judge
Fanchcr.
There was published quite fully a few days ago in
the HERALD the points raised by ex-Mayor A.
Oakley Hall on a motion before Judge Fancher, in
Supreme Court, Chambers, for q mandamus
directing the Comptroller to pay Alder.
man Joseph A. Monheimer his salary as
one Of the Board Of Supervisors of this
county. The motion was really, however, this
being brought forward as a test case on behalf of
all the Aldermen, TO decide a question raised by
the Comptroller as to whether, In addition to their
salary OF 81, 900 as Aldermen under the new char
ter, they were entitled to salary OF 81, 900 SUI
pervisors under the two per cent act OF 1871. Its
Importance VIII at once ne seen, as IL involves
men as to whether they shall receive extra CON-
pensation for their services as Supervisors, and
cts Of our tax-paying citizens. Judge Fancher
gave his decision yesterday In the matter, and.
successful in all his points The opinion embody.
ing the decision is quite lengthy, but the gst OF 1t
JUDGE FANcHER's OPINION.
Judge Fancher begins by reciting the act Of 1873,
providing salary or a. 900 to the Aldermen in full
county in any capacity whatever, and providing
also that no person shall hold two city or county
Offices except as ex-onfcio,'' and that he shall
then draw no salary for such second ONCE. lie
also cites the law OF June in the same year. making
the Aldermen Supervisors and the laws OF 1857
and 1870 constituting previous Boards, and the law
under which reator claims, that the act OF 1871
giving the Supervisors $1,000 a year salary. He
says the letter OF the law OF 1873 is sufficient sus-
tain the Comptroller, but then the question arises
whether, as the .relator contends, the sections
relied on are unconstitutional. The title OF
the act Is "An Act to ReOrganize the Local Govern
ment OF the city OF New York, sin which there is
nothing to indicate that IL relates to the
affairs Of the county, whereas when acts have
been passed relating to aairs OF the county, IL has
been customary TO express such subjects IN the
title. He enumerates various decisions showing
the difference between the city and county, though
they are terrtorially identical; he declares that
the title OF the act being limited to government OF
the Municipal Corporation, only matters cOmpre-
hended IN the junction OF the corporation can come
INTO the GILL; because OF its title and local charac-
ter Alter reyie wing the history OF the corpora
tlon IN us legal aspect, ne concludes his opinion
1ouows-"lt Is clear that several provisions in the
charter OF 1873, which abolish the salaries OF the
Supervlsors OF the county OF New York. relate to
another subject than the 'local government OF the
city Oh New YORK." and according to repeated adj
quotations cannot be sustained. But ii is unit
versal rule that where part OF statute il uncon-
stltutonal the remainder Is not void unless the
whole is so connected IN subject matter meaning
or purpose that IL cannot be presumed tho Legisla.
ture would have passed the one without the other
think the compensation OF the Supervisors OF The
county OF New York remains as IL was authorized
by law before the new charter OF the city and that
the provisions OF that act which abolish such com
pensation are unconstitutional and void. The mo-
lion Tor mandamus must be granted.