The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-02-17
THEY MUST NOT BE PAID.
Putting to Work" by Com
mittee an Illegal Method
No Ratification Since.
Text of a Decision Which Covers
the Entire Ground of the
Great Controversy.

following decision in the cases OF la
borers appointed by committees of the
Board of Street and Water Commis-
sioners. The decision fully sustains
Mayor Wanser's attitude in the matter
in every particular. The decision is as
follows:-
Matthew Noonan against the City of
Jersey City. The facts as agreed upon IN
writing between the parties are rs fol.
lows:-On January 9. 1899. the plaintiff
was employed by two members OF the
Board of Street and Water Com
missioners of Jersey City; that the
defendant is municipal corporation OF
the State of New jersey, created by II
charter granted by the Legislature OF
this State; that the Street aud Water
Boa I'd are the legal and de facto success
ors of the Board of public Works OF Jer-
sey City, whose powers are derived from
the cnarter; that the plaintiff had been
formerly employed by the said Board OF
Public Works previous to the date OF his
employment for which suit is brought.
IL appears by this statement that the
Two Commissioners were delegated by
the Street and Water Board In their re-
spective districts to make the necessary
appointments In cases of repairs of waite
pipes; that the payrolls for the months in
which said plaintiff was so employed
were duly passed by the Board. concurred
in by the Board of Finance and Taxation
and presented to Mr.. Wanser. the Mayor.
whereupon he vetoed plaintiffs claim;
that the plaintiff worked seven days in
May, 1892, and seven days In June. 1872,
at the rate of 50 per day; that There Was
an appropriation sufficient TO pay him il
the treasury of the city.
He here sues for recovery for his SER
vices at the rate of Two dollars per day.
WANsER's vETOEs.
The Mayor vetoed the plaintiffs claim,
or rather the resolution of paym ent. on
the ground that the plaintiff was not en-
ployed by the Board OF Street and Water
Commissioners of Jersey City by an
official act of theirs entered upon their
minutes or otherwise; that the employ
mept was not an exercise of the power Of
the board, nor WAS 1t incurred in the man
ner required by the City Charter.
His opinions upon the subject appear in
his veto message of Junel7, 1892, and they
appear to have been prepared after legal
inquiry into the principles OF law which
should govern the subject matter. He
was In such veto message In the un-
doubted exercise of his legal powers, and
in support of policy leading to just and
economical administration OF the affairs
and expenditures of the city.
his contention, in short. was that the
board, lin making toe appointments to
any sort of employment, must act official
" by action at some meeting aud the
evidence of their action publicly pre-
served in the minutes of their proceed
ings.
In this contention 1t was ycorrect, and
his propositions In this respect must be
sustained.
AS matter of law, no implied contract
to pay tor personal services rendered to
municipal corporation eau exist, how
ever, beneficial such services may be to
the municipal corporation or TO the pub
lie.
1t is obvious, without much argument,
that in these days this rule OF law should
be infiexibly maintained.
And it has been decided in this
State that, il not originally authorized.
no liability can attach upon any ground
OF implied contract for personal services.
HOW TO RATIFY.
That there may be ratification and an
adoption of such employment as will
bind municipal corporation Is also well
established, but the principle is that the
acts of ratification must be with the
same formalities necessary to be COM
piled with in making a valid contract.
1t is apparent in this case that there has
been no ratification and adoption of this
employment.
The vote of the Mayor at the time
the resolution of payment was pr esented
to him WAS correct, in point of law. Since
then no acts of ratification appear. and
therefore. the recovery in this action Can
not be had.
1t may be as we'll, while we are on this
subject, to give expression to soRe OF the
views in relation TO the question OF our
engagement of personal services by this
board in the matters within their control.
We are sensible that our decision, in the
Common Pleas. on Appeal, are not au-
thority, except in so far as they are de-
terminations of the cases In hand, which
we are bound iu law TO decide, and i'll
matters of some public Importance, to
give at least brief expression ofreasons,
Indicating that we are not insensible to
the legal rights of private persons seeking
to recover their claims on one hand. nor
insensible to that which Is justly due to
the public on the part OF those appointed
to administer our local affairs.
BOARD OF WORKS POWER.
The Board of Public Works, as consti-
tuted before the adoption of the recent
charter, had power to employ persons to
work on streets and sewers and other
public works of the City OF Jersey City.
II no express power had been granted 10
them TO make such employment, it
would necessarily exist as incidental to
the subject matters over which they bad
control The Board of Street and Water
Commissioners succeeded to q great ex-
tent to the powers of the Board of Public
Works.
1t is general principle, that the gen.
erai legislative power residing in the
State government may delegate to a
municipal corporation, some portion of
its own powers which are held in sub
ordination to the general power, but
these delegated powers given for LEGAL
objects are agarded as trusts, confided to
the hands in which they are placed and
are not subject TO be delegated by the
repositories of them. The rule is plain.
then. that the legislative powers of a
municipal corporation cannot be vlcarl-
ously exercised.
Now the Court regards this case. and
from the provisions OF che Charter cited
to us, have concluded that there can be
no contract of employment of any kind
binding the city in matters over which
the Board of Public Works, or the Board
of Street and Wafer Commissioners. have
control, without some resolution OF action
of such Board as Board, at some regu-
lar or special meeting OF said Board de-
signating in q specific way the services
for which the engagement Ia madf, the