New-York tribune., 1895-07-14
NOT VALID APPOINTMENTS.
DECISION AGAINST ALDRIDGE'S MAN
MCLELLAND.
r,srrcE HERRICK DECLARES THAT THE DEPART
,,rvr or p1,B1Ic WORKS Is SUBJECT TO
THE CIVIL SERVICE LAws-HIs

NrNr OF PUBLIC WORKS IS SUBJECT TO
THE CIVIL SERVICE LAws-HIs
OPINION IN THE CASE.
,,honv July l3-Supreme Court Justice Her
.,ct to-day denied the motion or Jonn w. Mc-
oakland for a mandamus to compel the STATE
controller TO pay his salary as clerk In the
cora, Collectors office. The decision has aroused
,cb interest here. The Controller contenoeu
.hat NicClelland had not passed a CIVIL service
domination, and had not been CHOSEN from the
C,,, Service eligible list McClellano was an
onno,ntee of superintendent OF Public works
Aldridge. In denying the motion FOR manoa-
rrus Justice Herrick held that the employees In
tho Department Of Public WORKS. the state
prison Department. clerks of the prison. VINO are
appointed by the State Controller, came withih
,hs provisons of the Civil Service laws Nc
C,a,,ands plea was that the appointees or the
Cur urerintendent of Public Works were not sub
,ect TO the Civil Service laws, but that the
nower Of appointment was lodged exclusively
IN the Superintendent untrammelled by any
,.,,s ru,es or regulations whatever. This was
test case, as fifty other appointments were "aoe
IN the same way as McCleland's. The case
will now go to the General Term and afterward
nrobably to the Court of Appeals.
1us,ice Herrick writes long opinion, In which
he says
The questions presented are Of grave importance
seriously affecting the civil servve ,s Greatest and
most important departments. as well as ~ .ne s,s s,se
n office of many subordinate oiicers OF tne S'a'e'
and therefore, merit careful consIueiatio"'
rben he reviews the provisions of the old Con-
.titution. which existed prior TO January ias''
vh,ch the Court of Appeals held. exempted the
public Works and Prisons departments from
,hs oneration of the Civil-Service laws Ihis
..ue nrovsion. which is included In the new
constitution and the section OF the new Con-
s,itut;on which brings all public offices within
the scope of the Civil Service laws. are also
dueIt upon. Justice Herrick continues:
IT,. ar,,, ~ c,ass,fvinc the various officers and
emnloyes of the State and of making rues anu
regulat!ons providing for the examination Oh can AZ
covsrnor of the State and he is TO determine now
far il is practicable to include in any cassificauon
ne Ins SERVICE of the State The Cy Service Com
mission, so-called is merely 10 aid him as ne may
law and in fact the responsible head of the civil
Service OF the State he is not only TO see that tne
iS uan;iaeions of the Constitution and the acts
OF the Legislature, TO make the laws S.na' -, tde
~ The State Is TO be governed At the time Of the
Uassage U s. Of the Civil Service law in 1888 the Gov
arr
fSehd tSe depsrments Of Plbhc Works and Prisons
toned contested and the SHh 6EI1 vos al IN tec
up 10 January / last contained provisions which
the heads of these Two hordnates sne
The new Constitution. adopted In 1874. contains
the same provision as TO the % Work or
did the old Constitution (Section g. Article W. III
also an enf brh p1ovss nsT ha
polntments and promotions IN the civil service OF
the State and Of all the civil divisions thereof IN
Guiding cities and villages shall be made accord
Ing to merit and fitness 10 be ascertained. so far
s ss 1y be 50 lar
It is eontended BY the reiator that, the same Ian
r se 'es od se m should
given while on behalf Of the Controller. 1t is con-
that the the er OF
limited by the provisions OF Section or the same
terpretation and construction OF the Constitution
as II now Is.
GETTING AT THE MEANING
The first rule in interpreting and constructing
Constitution Is to give TO II the effect and mean
Ing intended by its trainers and by the people who
adopted 1t. And the first rule for ascertaining
what that intent and meaning was is that 1t is to
be gathered II possible from the plain and ordinary
meaning of the words used
Let us. then turn to the language OF the Constitu
t0n. Appointments and promotions in the clVn
service. Of the State and OF all the civil divisions
thereof. including cities and villages, shall be
made, etc. This language Is general. ana. IN
ITSELF contains no limitations or restrictions, and Is
apt language to cover all appointments under the
state Government. without any exception, and we
the Constitution and that the people who adopted
II did not understand the force of language. cine
People VS. Purdy. 2 Hill 81
Standing alone there would be no question but
what !'. under the language OF Section Article V,
lust quoted. was included appointments of the kind
e That orhss s to an9'hT @ re OF m
ton must be. construed together. Section. Of
Article V confers upon the Superintendent OF Pub
lie Works the power Of appointing his subordinate,
and. as we have seen. the court OF last resort In
constituting the same language in the old Constitu-
uon held that that was an untrammcIed ana un-
restricted power. The relator has invoked the rule
that where clause OF constitution which has
the same words by the trainers OF another Con.
hs1sof 9n II viii be the
Law Ss.) Thus these two sections are brought into
in sc case na of the S Peope v
when We are compelled TO resort to construction;
.na on ~hen we are compelled 10 Ieso' % 20
ne same rules apply as In constituting statute.
.sd M above is % asuse
constitution Is adopted in new constitution 1t Is
limitations and nd restrictions f All parts Of the Con,
ton given that Will harmonize the several parts
with each other and In constituting clause OF II
&c Whether there are any provisions in the new
Constitution different from those from which the
read in connection with it. and whether they in any
way enlarge. modify limit or restrict rs & meaning
and the laws they previously existed, and the
evils. II any. that were intended to be cured by
such provisions 1t Is to be presumed that In franz
Ing the Constitution the Convention had In view
the then existing laws. people vs. Rathbone, 145
N. Y. 453-4S)
A CHANGE INTENDED.
Bearing these things in mind. II would seem from
reading Of these sections Of the Constitution that
the trainers thereof intended by section to limit
or modify the power OF appointments conferred by
section 3. and that the power Of appointment con-
!erred by section Is to be exercised subject to
tne principles declared In section 8.
IL. however, these considerations are not suncent
70 render the meaning and intent OF the Constitu-
on entirely Gear, there other methods OF arrv-
ing at the meaning OF It's trainers and of the peope
who adopted II. to which may resort. and those
are reading and considering the proceedings and
debates OF the convention which framed the insru-
msnt under consideration