New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-21
"SCHEDULE A" MEN WIN.
COURT OF APPEALS REvERsEs JUSTICE
KEOGH's DECISION.
THE c1IrrrENDEN CASE. WHICH WAS '"HD 40
TEST. INVOLVES THE PLACES OF AT LEAST

.,h.r. Anvil n The Court Of Appeals to-day. in
Aac,ainr the case of Civil Service reformers OF
Brooklyn against the Mayor. invoiV'ns 'ne Pc
Of at least sixty persons. In ADDITION 10 oeV'''e
that ,hs men could hold Office in the non-compe"
tive class and are entitled 70 their saia'ies' a
rninis,ercd what is believed 10 he rebuff 10 OiVi
Service examinations by opening the door 10 'he
classification OF numerous places under ~n"'
now a homeopathic clasS-conhdenoaI ciei
Judge Haight (Rep) writes the opinion anu
Judges Martin Bartlett and Nanr. ALI HePuohOa"9'
concur: Judge Gray (Dem) ana Judge An".e
(Rep) dissented from certain portions whe" en-
toward liberality In the CONSTRUCTION OF 'ie '""'
and Judge O'Brien (Dem) dissented from '"o Gil
tire opinion. -, ...
In brief the majority Of the court holds una.
the Constitution never intended that there shou'u
be such g. strict enforcement OF the cohpeu'N.
system and that public officers shouio wv "
10 say whether an attache was not III Soiie wa"
20 be decided a confidential clerk Upon that SUD
Sec, the opinion says confidential posiuons n"s'
he classified either one way the other ComPeu-
tive examination IS or Is not. pracucapie !" suoi,
positions A candidate may he ever so co'"f
and still lack many of the necessary eieiie"'' %
a Trustworthy officer he may be ever so ieaf"eu
and still lacking in judgment and discreuoh ne
mav be discreet and still without character he
may be homes; and yet meddesome ana PEI 50"
In whom YOU could not confde 10 our ni'"u' o
trainers of the Constitution OF the statutes never
contemplated or intended that competitive exam
"yvo think tho Civil Service laws should have a
reasonable INTERPRETATION and should be made as
practical as possible. and that we shouio aNoiu d
construction rendering them so burdensome as 10
array public sentiment against them
HISTORY OF THE SUIT.
The suit was brought by Simeon B. Chittenoen'
william G. Low James McKeen. John Kelley ho-
ward Y Passett and Stephen 7. Sturges' against
MAYOR Wurster Controller Palmer. City Auditor
sn,ton city Clerk Benjamin and City treasurer
Taylor Of Brooklyn. for alleged violation OF inc
Civil Service rules in making appointments III INC
various city departments. The complaint chai ses
that about sixty officers. who are named nave oeeh
Amounted in violation of the Civil Service regua-
.,on which requires a competitive examination 10
ascertain merit and fitness fer the place Inc
amendments have been made since December
1894.
Judse Eeoch's decision, which was afrmed py
the Appellate Division and reversed by the Court
- ,,neals to-day was that the courts are the final
arbI,crs: that is they are 10 decide whetheF places
are TO be filed by competitive examinations oi ho'.
In the case decided OF about one hunoieu NV"
,avoptv nlaces in Schedule A, only half doz.n
were filled by Mayor Wurster. All OF the rest were
appointed by his predecessors, going oac" 10 tie
beginning OF Civil Service under Mayor Low Inc
decision affects all of these appointments
Tho opInion Of the court OF last resort is that the
Mayor and other officials have power 10 reeuia.o
IN some degree the assignment of places IN certain
schedules.
In some respects the decision is ambiguous ana
only relates TO the case under discussion IL does
not decide that the constitutional secuoii us II
reads Is the entire authority for competitive exam
nations neither il that 1t Is not IL mere
" decides that the men in this case were appoint
"a under Schedule because they were In that
class and the Mayor of Brooklyn mad mace no
other classification Therefore, the heads Oh ue
partments could not be held Responsible. because
,bere was no other classification from which 70 ap-
lived up TO the Constitution the people may pro-
coed against him. but not against the heads OF de-
partments or the appointees. as in this action.
This throws the whole responsibility on the Mayor.
and action may be brought against MIN ioT e'aoiis
the Constitution.
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MAYOR.
Justice Haght wrote the prevailing opinion. He
holds that the employees whose places were In con-
,roversv were appointed since January 1895 with
out competitive examinations. On that date the
constitutional provision relative TO Civil Service
went into operation
The question at issue. Gays Justice Haigh' is
whether the classification Of offices made by the
Mavor of BROOKLYN legal. In view of the DISPOSE
zion 10 be made of this we are not called upon
10 determine the respective claims OF the appointees
We have reached the decision that this action ought
M, % he maintained The heads OF the depart
ments making the appointments had nothing 10 DO
with the classification. that duty devolved upon the
Mavor Under the classifcatons made. each of the
postions In controversy was placed in Schedule A
The position in schedule required no examination,
and consequently no lists were prepared by the ex-
aminers from which such positions couio be hed
/, 10 moi nretended that the Mayor corrupt. dis
honest or that he was actuaied by mn .oper motives
,inon him under the statute. and, until Ia. contrary
epnearg we mus. assume that he acted conscien
tiously and upon his best Judgment Hucn Ci@ss
fication not void: il may be NoldaDei lot ms ac
ZION is subject review but until IL IS JuclcldIy
determined that his classification was erroneous II
j. protection 10 the subordinate heads OF @epatI
noin,men,s were made in accordance with statute
and the Classification as ii then existed 1hey could
sihcstion had been made the appoint ments must be
deemed valid. The conditions "ouId exist
with reference 10 the positions vacated by the re.
moyal OF the ncumbents In case this judgment
ehould be affirmed
NO UNWILLINGNESS SHOWN.
We are considering the legal propositions found
ed on the record before us. ]; does not show any
unwillingness on the part of the Mayor to change
the classification. II the Mayor refuses TO do his
duty or II he II improperly. the people have
remedy
He may be compelled by mandamus or certlorari
10 do # in accordance with the Constitution and
the statute The courts have the power TO COM
pei the performance Of duty.
We have say that the duty rests upon the
LEGISLATURE and the courts 10 enforce the Consti-
tuition We doubt not that the Legislature at an
early day will pass laws that will furnish a com
plete system for carrying out the provisions of the
Constitution.
THE NEW COLLECTOR.
The announcement of the selection Of Frank r.
Moore of this city. by President Mckinley. to be
Collector Of Internal Revenue for the First District
OF NewYork was the most interesting bit of politi-