New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-07-24
THE COURTS.
THE PUBLIC BURDENS BILL.


roNAL-- HOW 1T AFFECTS HENRY J. DupLEf.
When the Public Burdens bill" passed Dy
the last Legislature went effect June l. 1880
the office OF Henry j. Dudley Superintendent OF TIE
Department of Buildings by its terms ceased to exist
The Fire Commissioners upon whom devolved t'e
duties of the office. demanded from Mr.. Dudley ,hs
books and documents pertaining TO the business OF MS
department Instead Of complying with the deinahu
Mr. Dudley sought from tho Supreme Court writ OF
prohibition restraining the Fire Commissioners from IN
terfering with performance OF the duties OF Superin
tendent OF Buldings Mr. Dudley. when the matter
came up for argument before Justice Potter In Cham
hers claimed that the Public Burdens bill WAS uncon-
sttutonaI It violated, Roswell d. Hatch, his counsel
argued section To- article of the Constitution forbid
ding the passage OF q local bill embracing more than
one subject II OF article B. providing
t0at no existing law shall be made part OF new law
except by inserting the existing law In the new act
This claim was made because OK PROVISION Oh
the Public Burdens bill providing that exsting lava 10
regard to buildings not Inconsistent WIN INC ACT
itself should continue in force although they were not
included bill Assistant Corporation Counsel An
drews argued against these propositions Justice Pot
ter filed his decision and opinion Yesterday uphoidlng
the constituiiOuallty OF the act He says
The relator contends that this act ia unconsitu
onal and void because there were not inserted IN the
act under consideration all former acts in force at the
tine OF the passage OF this act having relation to the
powers and duties OF The Department OF Buildings and
its officers employees n this view Is correct IL io
lows that every the Legislature makes change IN
officer who is to perform certain duties 1t must also
accompany that change with areenactment oil each ana
every specific power granted 10 aud every duty TO be
performed by such officer 1t also follow this
case that the law OF 1873. whca the law OF 1880 II Is
claimed attempts additionally to change, is Itself
unconstitutional for the very that are 1rged
against the cOnstitutionsy of the law Of 1880 The
opject and design OF this provision OF the Constitution Is
entirely manifest 1t 70 make sure that the mem
bers she Legislature should have brought 10 their
view and the full and precise terms OF the bill
they about to enact into law and to prevent any
INSTRUMENTATION or imposition upon the part Of those
who were ignorant OF disposed TO learn the exist
ing law made applicable to a new subject by simple
But such the character or object or the
enactment in question The section under CONSIDERATION
does purport TO enact new laws upon the subject OF
buildings their conditions. 1t simply devoives the
execution OF existing laws different officers, aud
transfers the charge Of the execution Of the existing
laws upon that subject from one bureau or department
to another under the charter city government
The Legislature was not passing new or amending
an old law. but changing the means and man
ner OF the execution of existing law.
II could not have the design Of the trainers OF the
Constitution that upon the passing OF an act charging
the officer whose duty II to execute certain laws
laws he is to execute. conclude that the act
question violation of section IL of article OF the
is also commended that the act of 1880 void for
the further reason IL conflicts with section 10 of
article 3 of the Constitution. which provides mo
private or local bill which may be passed by the Legs-
ature shall contain more iha1 one subject ana thas
question act to amend chapter $50 OF the laws OF
1873 entitled An Act to reSrsa91e me Local govern
he levied In said city. 1t would seem that
the language employed Is well selected TO express the
subject OF the bull and to embrace every one of the
almost nnumerabe things which constitute the govern
of CITY, The title OF the act or 1873 has not been
conflict
Under the title Of that act almost the entire charter Tor
the government OF the City of NewYOrk was enacted
and has successful operation for several years
Under the title of the act OF 1873 namely An Act to
reorganiz. local government of the City Of New
York were properly embraced the mutitudnous parts
which make up system OF government Among the
essentials of a complete government for great and
growing city will b. found every item and detail spee
fed in the act of 1873.
The words employed in the title OF the act OF 1880
In addition 10 the words employed in the original act
namely TO reduce the burden OF taxes TO be levied
upon said cly are or no importance AS we nave sald
all the provisions or the act Of 1850 are essentials or or
pertain to, city government. Those words do not
to make it more stutona: perhaps they have
been Of rendering he bill more passable. But
or the provisions of The act were not pertinent or
proper city government and the others were, the
latter would not be void or Imperative The Courts uni
formlY now dscrEdnate between the valid and the In
valid provisions OF acts In relation TO city governments
adopting the former aud rejecting the later. The Peo
against OBrieu, 80 n Y, 1881 There can be but
little If any doubt that the amendaOry act ia cOnstu
IL under that section amended that the question in
TINS case al re- rps ne rGs nUe
the of prohibition or its propriey against the
spondents. the should be quashed with $40 costs"
Justice Potter also rendered decision quashiDg the
writ OF prohibition obtained by Mr.. Dudley To prevent
the Mayor from continuing proceedings for hs removal
which were instituted before The passage OF the Public
bill under charges OF official neglect OF duty
made against Mr.. Dudley. In this case the Justice
says:
90 This motion comes before the Court upon the
made upon the aavits and papers for and the return
to- alternative writ OF prohibition The object OF the
writ RESTRAIN the respondents from proceeding to
move the relator superintendent OF Buildings. Tue
main ground relied upon is that the OF rela
tors office expired the lat day OF May,
1879, and that he holds the office until his
duly appointed and qualified, and Is not for
that SUBJECT 10 the proceedings prescribed for
moyal from office. The papers upon the application
beyond question hat the REALTORS has
expired and that he Ia noldDg over Bat since the
ceeding begun by the Mayor remove the eatOr,
the Office Superin or Buildings been abol
ished by ac OF the Legislature passed May &c. $780,
that have held, CONSTITUTIONAL and operates
10 abolish the office. in the OF the People rel
Dudley ast. Vincent q. King Fire Commissioner There
OCCASION therefore, remove the retOr from
office which has ceaaed exist to consider the quss
tons discussed by the counsel IN this Tie writ
should be lshed.'