The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-11-20
Norns or LraAL EEENrs.

An interesting difference Of opinion has
arisen between Attorney-Genera Hancock and
Corporation Counsel Whalcn upon the question
whether the provisions OF the Greater New
York charter In respect to appointments and
removals In the civil service OF the city are AZ
fected by the act Of 1893 in regard TO the civil
service Of the State. The Attorney-G General
takes the position that the general state law
passed at the last session OF the Legislature
amends and TO a certain extent repeats the
civil service provisions OF tho charter, while
the CORPORATION Counsel Is of the opinion that
the latter remain unaffected by the civil SER
vice legislation OF 1893. Mr.. Whalen's view 10
sustained by the courts so far as they have YET
passed upon tho point In controversy. 1t Is a
woll-established rule of statutory construction
that a general law does not repeal or supersede
an earlier special law Of local application I'M
less the intent to repeal or supersede 1t Is dis
tinctly expressed or manifested by necessary
implication. The Appellate Division OF the
Supreme Court In the First Judicial Depart
ment Ia unanimously Of the opinion that the
general Civil Service act Of 1893 was not In
tended by the LEGISLATURE to apply and does.not
apply TO the city Of New York. and Judge John
Clinton Gray Of the Court Of Appeals concurs
with the members OF the Appellate Division In
that conclusion. Because the other Judges
OF the Court Of Appeals have refused thus far
TO pass upon the question. the Attorney-den-
eral infers that they entertain a contrary opin-
Ion. So far as judicial support is concerned.
the CORPORATION Counsel appears to occupy the
stronger ground ut this time.
Mr.. Andrew Carnegie has had a little trou-
BILE with the Special Commissioner OF Jur-
ors in this county. which resulted on Thurs
day in his appearance before that officer. who
examines him and placed him upon the special
....- Ia Tll- ~ 49,
citizens who have been found to be specially
qualified to serve as jurors In criminal cases.
| and a person whose name is placed upon the
list is relieved from service In civil cases gen.
orally. The result Is that every such person
secures practical exemption from all jury
duty. for very few cases arise In which these
special jurore are ever called upon to serve at
all. The effect OF the special Jury system is
thus very injurious TO the community. Three
or four thousand Of those citizens who are
most 1T to act as jurors are withdrawn from
ordinary jury service. from which they enjoy
exemption by reason Of the bare possibility
that they may be called upon some time to sit
as jurors In a difficult criminal case. Only two
or three times has resort been had to the
special jury list in this county. we believe. to
obtain a jury. and never In Kings county.
where the same system prevails. The list
thus really becomes a list Of persons practi-
cally exempt from jury duty. and it embraces
those citizens best qualified for such service.
On Thursday Mr.. Justice Fursman OF Troy.
who has been sitting at a trial term OF the SUI
preme Court in this city. was somewhat an
noyed at the failure OF a jury In a negligence
case to agree upon a verdict, and finally felt
obliged to bring the trial to an end on that ac-
count. II am informed" he said. that one
juror has refused to discuss the case abso-
lutely with you. In disregard OF his duty and
the requirements OF the law. He is No. 3. and
he is discharged from service for the rest OF
the term" Perhaps the learned Judge could
not have dealt with him in any other way. but
the punishment seems hardly adequate to the
offence. Indeed. most jurors would regard 1t
as no punishment at all. and many would
doubtless quickly initiate the example Of No. 5
II they were sure that by so doing they could
free themselves from a months or a fort
nights longer service on the Jury.
In Brooklyn on Monday q truck driver was
arrested for refusing to get out OF the way OF
an ambulance of the Homeopathic Hospital
which was proceeding to that institution with
a patient. DISTINCTIONS to the passage OF
such vehicles are usually due to ignorance OF
the requirements Of the law on the subject.
which cannot be too generally known. "A per-
son." says the Penal Code Of this State. "who
wilfully stops or obstructs the passage Of any
ambulance or vehicle used for the transporta-
ton of sick or wounded persons or animals
upon any public street. highway. or place, or
who wilfuily Injuries the same. or wilfully
drives any vehicls into collision Herewith. Is
guilty OF a misdemeanor." 1t will be seen that
it is as much OF a crime to delay an ambulance
carrying a sick cat or sick horse as to inter-
fere with the free passage Of one conveying a
wounded 1 or dying man. Under the Greater
New York charter 1t is likewise declared to be
a misdemeanor for any person UPON or in any
vehicle tn refuse the right Of way to any fire
apparatus which is being used by flremen in
the performance of their duty.
A good deal Of complaint Is made by lawyers
in this State in regard to our complicated sys-
tenn OF procedure. which has steadily grown
more and more cumbrous and perplexing TO
the legal practitioner during the last twenty
five years. 1t may be some satisfaction to
them to know that there are newer States
which are as badly of In this respect as is New
York. Take Indiana, for example. In the
latest pamphlet number of the Northeastern
Reporter we find q case decided by the Appel
late Court Of Indiana in which the jury were
required to answer 253 interrogatories The
closest parallel to this that we recall in New
York is a libel suit in which the counsel for
the plaintiff handed up to the trial Judge more
than 100 requests to charge.
The Supreme Court OF Indiana has recently
sustained the constitutionality OF a statute
requiring the registration OF dentists in that
State and forbidding the practice Of dentistry
EXCEPT by registered dentists. The statute
provides for a State Board Of Dental Exam
liners con sistinG Of five members three Of
whom are TO be chosen by the Indiana State
Dental Association. The Constitution OF In
diana forbids the granting OF privileges which
shall not upon the same terms belong equally
to all citizens. and it was contended that the
Dentistry law gave q special privilege TO the
State Dental Association in authorizing it to
appoint a portion OF the examining board and
In allowing it also to prescribe the standard OF
qualification for persons desiring to practice
dentistry. The Supreme Court. however. de-