New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-02-02
STATE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
SUPREME COURT JUDGES ON THE LAW.
SHALL THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MAKE HIS OWN APPOINTMENTS

SHALL THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC "ohks
MAKE his rwN APPOINTMENTS
In the case of tho people tho relation OF Thomas
q. Kilcen. against Clarence H. Angie secretary oil
tho Ncw-York Civil Service Commission ana others,
In which an application was made for mandamus to
compel tho Civll sorvic, Commission to admit klecn
10 az animation aS to his fitness for the position of
ccrk IN the collector Canal STAT sics, the General
form OF the Supreme court has handed down de
rision DENYING the application. Presiding Justice Van
Brunt wrote the opinion of the court, in which he
says
the Supcrinicndent Public Works of this state bound
under Tho Constitution and laws of this state make
appointments Of persons employed In the caIe and
m ana cement OF the canals from the clg.ble lists Ger
tlfcd him by the Civil Service Commission as rcr-
examination under tho statute and rules relating to
persons In the evil service OF the Statel 1t
seems TO us that the making the Superintendent OF
Public Works Of this State in his appointments sub
scrvcnt to the Civn Service law would he clear
ing the superintendent of Public Works, which confers
upon such Superintendent the absolute power OF APP
in the care and management OF the canals.
II was evidently the intention OF the Constitution
solely responsible for the and management of the
canals, that ha should, therefore have undivided
power given TO the Superintendent is absolute No
language could confer the power In broader terms.
remove He is to determine qualifications. As he
Is to be solely responsible for ne work done he Is
his own employees But 1T IS coDtendcd
of the Constitution must be read In correction with
sns & section is Of ASs of the Snsa to
which. after naming a large number of subjects on
which the stature shalt pass general laws. pro
its Judgment NAV he provided for by general laws
And these provisions, II Is claimed give the Legisat-
urc discretion 10 pass general laws every subject
save those expressly excepted by the Constitution.
II this construction is TO prevail then It 70
have been an idle ceremony upon the part of the
constitutional powers TO the Superintendent Of Pub
lie Works If such power be taken away by leGts-
tendent extraordinary and unusual II became
part OF the organic law Of Tho land such organic law
II having been always supposed up to the present
time. being beyond the reach mere Legislative act
fore he denied
Presiding Justice. that the power of appointment
vested in tho Superintendent is absolute and cannot
be Invaded by legislation adding:
II II wore otherwise. the Superintendent would he
held responsible for the dfocs Of persons chosen
by him In the OF the Constitution from the
at large but from few selected BY others and prac-
tcsnv appointed by them. though indirectly. lie
cannot select from the applicants but from those of
them certified 10 him. and who might or might not
be M for the position acquired, Notwithstanding the
certificate given
In dissenting opinion. Justice Daniels holds that
the provision of the Constitution referred to should be
subject 70 legislative authority He asserts that by
the amendment of 1876 II has been provided that
the superintendent in the exercise of his authority
shall be fee from the control of all future legislation
and that II has not been declared provided by 1T
that the Superintendent in making his appo ntmens.
Shall be at liberty to select the apponees from the
citizens of the State At large that those apponeeS
shall be not subject TO the qualifications which might
aherward be annexed to his appointing power by
1udicious legislation He declares that the motion for
tho mandamuS should be allowed to prevail