The National tribune., 1885-08-13
VETERANS RIGHTS.


of the soldier-fremen-of which we spoke
at length last week-with the adverse de-
| cision of the State Civil Service Commission.
1t promptly applied to the Supreme Court
of the City of Brooklyn for a mandamus to
compel the Commissioners to promote Wm.
J. Chiro and Patrick HI. Travers-the vet
eran firemen who stood Nos. Is and 10 on
the list of those who successfully passed the
examination-to the vacant foremanships.
Justice Cullen, of the Supreme Court, denied
the following reasons:
The contention of the relator, if conceded, would
result that all appointments and promotions con-
templated by the statute as the subject of compe-
tition should he filed by discharged soldiers and
sailors, if there such applicants who might be
found qualified, and only in default of such app-
cants would such appointments be open TO other
persons to competition. However just or proper
such rule would be, plainly the Legislature has
not enacted it. The construction of the statute
here adopted does not render the preference given
10 discharged soldiers sailors ilusory. 1t will
still be substantial. Both the statute and the rules
under it contemplate the exercise of discretion by
the appointing power among several of the appil-
cants having the highest grading. The one with
the highest standing may be passed by and one
with a lower standing appointed. But If a dis
charged soldier sailor is presented for appoint
ment he must be appointed in preference to others
having equal or lower standing. In other words
if his standing is equal or better than that OF his
competitors, he has the absolute right to the
appointment, which is not the with other
persons.
Now, if we understand the meaning of a
logical proposition, this reasoning, while it
supports denial of the rights guaranteed
ex-soldiers by law, completely upsets the
position taken by the Mayor and the Com
missioners in their denial.
They refused to exercise the lawful pref
eIence and promote the veteran firemen,
because they said the law expressly confined
this preference to soldiers whose rating upon
examination was equal that of their civilian
competitors, and no discretion was allowed
the appointing power.
As fremen Chiro and Travers stood lowest
ON the list of those who had passed the ex-
animation, the Commissioners claimed they
were not of equal standing" with those
who had been numbered from 1 to IL. Con-
sequently the preference could not operate,
and the Commissioners were compelled to
make the promotions from those who stood
first on the list We denounced such plead
ing as a peryersion of the Civil Service idea,
as well as violation of the preference law,
for it has never been contended by the strong
est advocates of the Civil Service Law that
the rating given by the Board of Examiners
should override all other considerations as to
the fitness of a candidate. It has always
been claimed that the object Of the exami-
nations was simply to present the appointing
power with certain number of competent
men from which to make selections. Any
other view would be preposterous, for it
would take away from the appointing power
high constitutional prerogative and bestow
it upon the Examining Board.
The Judge now comes in and says that he
cannot interfere to direct the appointment
of particular persons, because the whole
matter is left to the discretion of the ap-
pointing power, which can range the whole
length of the list and appoint the highest or
lowest at will, without dictation from him.
OF the two positions taken, Justice CulIen's
is much the sounder. He recognizes the full
force of the legal prescription of preference
to be exercised in favor of soldiers and sail
ors. Also, that, so far as the results of the
examination are concerned, all who passed
that examination stand on an equality. He
goes still farther, and says that in the exer-
else of their discretion the Commissioners
must be influenced by the preference Or
dained by the law. But after taking these
preliminary steps very bravely, he seems to
become frightened at the logical deductions
from his own premises and creeps out of a
very small hole by saying, in effect, that if
there is anybody who is numbered after the
ex-soldiers on the examination list, he must
not be preferred to the soldiersl That is, if
there had been Nos. 16, II, 10 and 10 on the
Brooklyn list, the Commissioners would not
have been allowed to prefer them to the
soldiers who were rated higher. Did any
one ever hear such intolerable nonsense so
gravely uttered?
In plain words, this is the customary Jug
CLING when sharp lawyers set out to find
reasons for not doing something they do not
want to do. 1t is piece of leering smart
ness "-of SNUG chicanery. The Brooklyn
Commissioners set cut to evade the spirit
and letter Of the law and to find reasons for
doing what they wanted to do, and they
imagine they have succeeded.
THE MONUMENT TO GEN. GRANT.
AS was anticipated, the New Workers are
already finding it uphill work to raise money
for monument to Gen. Grant at Riverside