New-York tribune., 1901-05-08
STATE APPowTuENr TO LOCAL OFFICE.

STATE APPOINTMENT TO LOCAL OFFICE.
The litigation brought 10 notice the other day
by Justice GaynorS injunction directed 10 the
justices Of the Appellate Division in the Second
Department may serve a useful purpose in
addition 10 the primary one Of determining who
may appoint the Commissioner Of Jurors for
Kings County The procedure taken is i'm some
respects novel but il is explained as the only
method Of getting the point at issue judically
determined without involving in dispute the
titles Of rival commissioners and possibly block
Ing the machinery Of justice. ANY steps to test
the validity Of the act comforting the appoint
ment of a commissioner on the Appellate Jus
tees before an appointment is made must be
taken in the direction OF enjOining action. The
Appellate judges could not Issue the Injunction:
IL had 10 come from court OF original juris-
diction. aud the whole question must first be
passed upon by il and he carried up I'm the regu-
lar manner. Tho fact that the injunction was
directed by the judge Of lower 10 those OF a
higher court is an amusing feature of the case.
but the course taken is not necessarily improper
on that account Doubtless the question will go
20 the Court OF Appeals and il is certainly best
that ii be determined without involving in any
doubt the title Of a commissioner Of Jurors actu-
ally engaged in discharging the duties of his
Office.
IL makes comparatively little difference to the
general public whether some county officers in
Kings County select the Commissioner OF Jurors
or the justices OF the Appellate Division per-
form that duty But the power Of the legis-
lature in the premises is OF interest. for the
same constitutional question comes up with
relation 10 various attempts OF the State govern
ment 10 exercise control over local administra-
tion such. for instance. as taking the police
force from the hands os city authorities The
constitution requires that city town and vii
lase officers shall be elected by the people or
appointed by the local authorities. The exact
nearing and scope OF this provision is much I'm
dispute, and authoritative INTERPRETATION
would he of great service II was first inserted
In the constitution 20 1876 and continued with
out ch2nrr - that OF 1894. In 1867. I'm CON
STRUNG the metropolitan Police District law.
the Court OF Appeals held, but not unanimously.
that the constitution referred only 10 offices
existing NJ the time OF its adoption. Judre
DeniO. however. conceded that the Legislature
could not create offices merely with new names
20 perform functions Of old officers and SO eynde
the rule that they must he locally elected ar
appointed. In 1873 the Court OF Appeals under
the leadership OF Judge Allen. criticised this
view and oyerthrew a police bill applying ID
Troy and its suburbs. but did not exactl,
reverse Judge DEMO. for IL made distinction
between the State assumption OF local func
fions over large territory comprising two
cities end over a single city with small addi
tional districts obviously included merely ts
give the new police officers slightly dineren
powers from those the city officials could per
form and evade the constitution
Nevertheless. two entirely different views o
the question have prevailed in the Court o