The New York herald., 1874-08-26
SALARY OF THE SUPERVISORS.

The question chat has doubtless for several
months past greatly agtated the minds of
the members OF the Board OF Supervisors
whether they, in addition to drawing pay
as members Of the Board of Aldermen were
entitled to an additional spa-y as members
of the Board OF Supervisors has at length been
brought to a judicial determination. Upon Comp.
troller Green refusing to pay them as Supervisors
claiming that the Office OF Supervisor was embraced
in that OF Alderman, and that the charter forbids
the holding of two salaried oflices at the same
time, they put their heads together, and, having
selected Mr. A. Oakey Hall as their counsel, 1t was
arranged that Alderman Monhemer bring a test
suit, the termination of his case to settle all the
others. After Mr.. Hal had won his case in the Su.
pertor Court, both at Special Term and in the Gen.
eral Term, the other side took the case into the
Court OF Common Pleas, before Judge J. +. Daily,
and precisely the same questions were raised.
Mr.. Hall moved to strike out the answer as frlvo-
lous and give Judgment TOR Mr. Mouheimer. Judge
DAILY gave his decision yesterday IN the case,
granting the motion and giving his reasons for do
ing 80 IN the following OpiniOn:-
-. OPINION OF JUDGE DAILY.
That the provisions OF the city charter (chapter
S35, Laws 1873, sections ia and ll6 90 not affect
the right OF the members OF the Board OF Aldermen
70 Draw salary as supervisors in addition to the
salary OF Alderman fixed by that act, has been de.
cided BY the Supreme Court at Special Term
1873, Judge Fancher), and that decision was
affirmed at General Term. October, 1878. The same
VlcW VI tue PROVISIONS Ol LHc CudrtCr was Cakcn Dy
this Court at Special Term case containing
similar questions. (Matter OF Recorder Hackett
vs.. Green, Common Pleas, SPECIAL fern, September,
case has therefore been disposed of by this Court
and the supreme Court adversely to the defend
ant. The pea OF payment In the answer must be
read IN connection with the other averments, and
amounts to no more than an allegation that defend
ant has paid plalntln his salary as Alderman There
Is no allegation that he has been paid what he
iOr--viz his separate salary as supervisor. There
is no salary 10r alderman OF the City Of New
York ana ex-Of1clO Supervisor OF the county Of
New YORK." but two salaries, one for Alderman
as 1Xed by the charter and one for supervisor,
Gxed BY prior, statutes Nor does the subsequent
C0ns0lida tiOn act touch the question OF the plain
tin's salary. That act does not abolish the ONCE
OF supervisor or the county o! New York. IL re-
quires the Board OF Aldermen 20 perform all duties
dev0lving upon the Board OF Supervisors; but for
the last four years, and for many years prior to
1861, the Aldermen acted as Supervisors The city
and county governments are now consolidated;
but the act recognizes the necessity for the Dre-
servattOn in iorm and IN fact, OF Board oil Super
vlsOrs for the county. Nothing Is said in the act
as to the salary which the Aldermen received up
to the passage OF the act for holding Office as Su-
pervisOrs. While the Office itself Is preserved, and
nothing Is enacted as to salary, there Is no au-
thorty for saying that the salary ceases, because
the greater part Of the separate duties OF Super
vlsors have been abolished. The incumbents Of
entitled to the salary fixed by previous statutes
for such Office. find that the Corporation Counsel
comes to the same conclusion IN his opinion to
the Board OF Supervisors OF MAY 20. 1874 fuide CitU
Record, May 20, 1874, PIP. 572 and 573). Motion
granted.