The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-05-04
Their Relations to Can
yasSing Boards.
Supreme Authority in Assem-
bly,, Not in Council.
Arguments of j. T. BlOdgett Before
Assembly Committee.


ing this afternoon on the bill from the city
OF Providence designed TO make a return
ing board of the Boaro OF Canvasssrs and
kegisration and the amendments thereto
for the increase OF salary presented by
Mr., John 4. Blodgett of the Board, Mr..
Blodgett made the following address and
argument in support OF his amendment;
The question presented by the proposed
amendment to the pending bill 10 create
the Board of Canvassers of the city OF
Providence counting and returning
toard In said city, Is whether the COM
pensation of that Board shall be wholly
dependent upon the pleasure OF the City
Council, which is Dody composed of
forty (s0) Co0ncilmen, ten Aldermen. and
the Mayor, or shall be fixed by State law.
The answer to this question depends in,
the first place upon whether the members
of this board are or are not municipal
officers, and secondly upon whether the
present method of compensation is correct
in principle and in accordance With the
general policy and current of legislation
relative TO other boards having similar
powers and discharglng similar duties.
In support OF the proposed amendment
the following propositions may b..
affirmed confidently end without fear Of
successful contradiction, viz. :
First. That the members of said Board
respect whatever municipal oa'cers, apd
second. That the present n ethod OF
their comrensaiion Is hnlque, exceptional
and anomalous, whether view Al in the
light of the statutes o. this State relative
to the compensation OF the sereHaf beards
OF canvassers in the o'h,r cities and
towns, or in the light of the legislation
upon the same subject n.atter in other
Stats, and Is. moreover, as inoefenslb!e
in theory as 1t ia unsupported by pseccd-
ent here or elsewhere.
Let US Inst consider the distinction be-
tween State and municipal ottlcer ss
defined 10y law writer's and estalttsbed by
decisions OF the courts.
Judge Dillon in his great work on
Municipal Corporations (sec. $50 thus dis
tinguishes between State and municipal
officers.
".,nd here II is in-crtsnt 10 bear in
mind tho before mentioned distinction
betweea State officesr--that is. officers
whose duties concern the state at large
ar the general public, elthough exercised
within defined terri ORAL limits land
municipal officers. whose functions re-
Lite exclusiy ly TO local concerns in the
particular municipality"
And again (Sec. 7J2) "But il on the
other hand they are elected or appointed
by q corporation In obedience 10 the
statute to perform pubic service not
peculiarly local or corpor te, but because
this mode OF selection has been deemed
expedient by the Legislature in the dis
tripution of the powers OF the Government
If they are independent of he corpora
tion as 10 the tenure of their Office and
the manner OF disohsrglng their duties,
they are not TO be regarded as the servants
or agents OF the corporation, lut as pub
lie or State officers wi h such powers as
the statute confers upon them"
So also In People VS.. Curley, Col. p
w t,,fef q L On inn. r.rfc ION
prevails TO some extent that all civil
officers whoses duties embrace municipal
laws, ordinances and regulations ere
purely local or municipal in their chnr-
acter and have no general rela-
tion to the body polite OF
the State. II must be borne In mind
that there is legal distinction between
State officers; that is, officers whose du-
ties concern the State at large, or the
general ublic, although exercised within
defined limits, and municipal officers
strictly whoss functions relate exclusively
TO the particular munieirality."
And in State vs. Vale, dino. p. u. the
court says: "'rhe legislature hsd the con-
stitutional power to establish this board
of commissioners as part OF the local
administration OF city Affairs and to pro-
vide that they should be paid out of the
city treasury, and as ody constructed
Tor the purpose OF civil government, they
this State In a certain populsr accepts-
tioD, the words 'ciyil officers unoer this
state might possibly be Interpreted TO
m tan State officers in the sense OF Iartici-
pating directly In the adm nistration OF
the State government as SUCH cut they
are none the less civil officers under tins
state because their fupctio.s are confined
10 the local administration. The offices
are created and the officers appel tea and
their powers given and their duties defin-
cj ard their salaries fixed directly by act
OF the Legislature. Trey exercise a
share OF the Towers OF civil government
and their authority comes directly from
the State. they arc TO be considered as
much civil officers under this State as the
judge OF n conrt. The mode Of appoint
ment Is not materiai.n
In Bri.ton w. steber, e2 mo. y. 374, af-
ter ching and approving the distinction
between State aud municipal officers as
above made by Judge Diiloa the court
says: "a Statc oflcer may be connected
with some OF the municipal functions,
but he must oerive his powers from n
State ttatu.e and execute his powers in
obedience to state law ."Whllst
II is true that the state grants the charter
under which city is organized anc acts,
yet those elected in obedie ce to that
charter perform strictly mum icipial func-
tioDs and do not act In obedience to State
law in the manner enjoined upon State
officers.n
The same doc rine is sustained in Fell
lows VS. Mayor. . Hun. p. asa. "Whether
an office ~ one OF the county OF OF the
htate government Ia purely question de-
pending u1on its classification by law"
"Thev 90 not belong 10 nor form
any part OF the county government but
take rank as officers Of tue state govern
ment for the purpose of enforcing the
laws OF the state within their territorial
jurisdiction. The mode in which their
salaries ore To be psid and the lorotion
in which their duties are to be performed
are mere incidonts neither defining
nor affecting their legal status as public
o.iicers."
Ard In the exhaustive and well consid-