The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-03-17
The Civil Service Law In the Court of
Appeals.

1t is plain that the recent decision Of the
Court Of Appeals of this State, constituting
the provisions of the revised Constitution
in respect to appointments to the civil ser
vice, is very generally misunderstood. This
is apparent from newspaper comments. and
also from discussions in societies and clubs
protesting a particular interest in civil SER
vice reform. Much that has been said on
the subject would indicate that the Court Of
Appeals had promulgated some novel and
startling doctrine of law which was to
revolutionize the State, so far as appoint
ments are concerned; whereas, In fact, 1t
has simply decided hat the existing statute
relating to examination for appointments
to office, has been extended by the Constitu-
ton so as to apply to appointments by the
State Superintendent of Public Works.
This law has been on the statute book for
years. 1t was enacted In 1888, and amended
materially in 1894, and is commonly known
as the Civil Service law. 1t prescribes ex-
aminations for appointments to various
classes in the civil service, and prohibits
the State Comptroller from paying any Off
Ger, clerk, or other person in either of those
classes, unless upon n certificate showing
tilhb " htS Detu law ully hppOllleu ullueT
the rules and regulations of the Civil Service
Commissioners In form. as it existed be-
fore the new Constitution, the statute was
broad enough to include places in the State
Department of Public Works.
In 1883, however. the Court of Appeals
held that the Civil Service law had no appli-
cation TO the subordinates of the Superin-
tendent Of Public Works. This was under
the Constitution of 1916, which contained
no such provision rs the Constitution of
1894, requiring appointments to be made
according to merit and fitness, to he ascer-
tanned, SO far rs practicable, by eXamina-
tons. The Constitution of 1916, on the
other hand, expressly conferred upon the
Superintendent of Public Works the power
to employ, suspend, and remove persons en-
gagged in the care and management of the
canals. This constitutions grant of power
was Of higher authority than any mere leg
~islative enactment such rs the Civil Service
law, and the Judges OF the Court of Appeals
unanimously agreed that the Superin-
tendent OF Public Works could not be re-
stricted in his selection OF subordinates by
the operation of that statute at that time.
But the condition OF things Is now very
different. The Constitution itself las re-
vlsed in lS0i, being the highest law, now
provides n rule in respect to appointments
similar to that which then existed only by
virtue of n statute. Hence the rule has be
come broad enough to reach the Superin-
tendent of Public Works and control him
in the exercise of the appointing power.
Hereafter, In making appointments, he must
obey the Civil Service law OF 1SS3 as
amended aud in force when the appoint
ments are made.
Such is tho substance Of the decision OF
the Court of Appeals in the case OF the peo-
Pile against RoBERTs, which has lately at-
tracted so much attention. 1t simply up
holds the prcuNisting statute law governing
appointments in the civil service Of the
State. The court does not declare that the
new Constitution has altered the terms Of
that law in any respect, but it holds that
the law has been extended in its range so ~
TO govern the action OF n public officer who
was formerly free to choose his subordi
mates without reference to its provisions.
"It Is evident from the language NJ
the new provision ~ the Constitution"
says Judge DENIS O'BRIEN, who writes the
prevailing opinion, and from the dehates
i'm the Convention which followed ITS intro
duction into that body, that it was framed
and adopted with reference TO existing laws,
which were intended 20 give II immediate
practical operation. So that, ~ he continues,
"in adopting the new Constitution, the peO-
pie, in their original capacity, decreed that
thereafter all the departments Of the Gov
eminent should be brought within the OPP
GRAFTON Of existing laws on the subject OF
appointments"
This decision, ~ We understand IL, Is