New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-05
TAX DEPUTIESNOT EXEMPT
STATE COMMISSION ACTS.
.4puroucl Of Work Of Local Ci5d
Seracc Board Withheld.


ss,henv Mach s-several organizations IN
,cssv-York city were represented to-day u
-. a., e,.te C,,,-u Service Commission IN op-
rosition TO tan application OF the Munlclpa' ~
e.r,tee Commission of Sew-York city Tor aP-
.,,,,-sl % q resolution placing The positions OF
- so-,r., tax commissioners and that OF Su-
..,.t,tenoant OF Ponds and Conduits IN that city
a. tle exempt from examinations schedule
.rh,so Who appealed against;he resolution, ana
IN, organizations they represent were As ioi-
lo.rs. - r. Dumont OF the Merchants Ass"-
,isf,on. Charles =. Hughes. q The civil Service
reform Association; Horace +. Deining. OF 'iie
,,rv cluh. and Henry ". Harden, j. Warren
ss-eere and Elliot II. Goodwin. OF the Cl1i@e'iS
r-nson. Assistan: Corporation Counsel Charles
~. errearea "a favor Of the resolutions.
ar Hughes in his argument against tne leSo-
,,,fio,s conte-lded that experience had Demon
.f-,tes .ltat the positions ~ deputy tax COM
...t,vsoner should he in the competitive class.
~. mas method they had been filed with gooo
f,-n Public policy also dictated that men IT,
,,o,sa A. FAR as possible from politics and thor-
,,,vblv disIntercs.ed should be selected 10 per
~-,, che i-rfrorseut duties OF placing Naiues on
f~oper1y The only argument that could pe an-
ir-cad IN favor ~ their exemption was INC
Question o. law. that they. being depu'sshipS'
s,,,ts DO Allied without recourse 80 competitive
asvv ,,ro,idas that only such deputies as were
..to.r,zo5 "a r-s-rorn, the duties Of their prin-
Tt,sis wore entitled 20 @ place in the exempt
-. The deputv taN commissioners were not
90 .b,t class ~ deputies. They could not "0'
ror ,he hoard that appointed them. Ihey "ouiu
.,e-fo-rn only such duties es were assigned 10
Fbem ,..A -.
Mr Deming in his argument heid mat '.e
ssr,,tv tax con1nissionership was purely aa-
,in,otrst!,e Office and therefore should be IN me
competitive schedule
~ Harden for the citizens Union. argued
tbs4 the legal authorities were opposed 20 me
N classification 81 the deputy tax commissioner
raSsitiOn confidential
Sir Goodwin argued that Il would re AZ IT.
Justice now % exempt she ositions. when ioI'y
no a the deputyships had been hled ny com
pe.itive examination.
rkHsistant Corporation Counsel Guy held that
ssas courts had defined deputyships as conhden-
siai positions and that under that decision the
positions in question should be placed In the
exempt schedule.
The state Commission IN executive session de-
ciGed 90 refuse the application Of the New
York Civil Service Commission. fling The fol-
lowing memorandum with the decision denying
she application:
tina purposes OF removal these officers were
deputies Of an official or department within
the meaning ~ the last sentence Of section Il
OF the Civil Service law. which reads: Nothing
in this section shall be construed to apply TO the
position OF private secretary. cashier or dep
lily OF any official department" The court
old not hold that the positions were confidential.
but held that all deputies. confidential or other
wise. might he removed without a hearing on
stated charges under section p OF the Civil
Service law. which restricts the removal OF
F1fa ii 11rrsfa
except from the positions OF private secretaries
cashiers and deputies There IS nothing in this
have held that these positions are properly in
ne exempt class. The decisions on that point
are Ell the other way.
The only deputies exempted by law are ssepu-
tes OF principal executive officers. authorized
~ law TO act generally for and I'm place OF their
Principals"
Judge Bartlett said Of these deputy tax COM
rnissioners. in People eK rel Thompson VS.. Felt
Her. that the deputy commissioners are in no /
> nse independent officers. but perform all their
olNies under the direction and supervision OF 4
the board and subject 10 it's approval"
Z The use Of the above removal case 70 Justify 4
2 claim for exemption is not justified. Further 1
nnere, ~ there Is any doubt the point 81 IS I
De duty OF the civil Service Commission TO /
pphod the law and not 20 weaken il.
3 The State Commission also refused TO approve 1
q resolutions 81 the New-York City Commission 4
rlscing the position Of Superintendent Of Ponds 4
spd Reservoirs IN the exempt class. and placing /
a laboring positions in the city IN one general
{, ass
4 The request Of County Medical Examiner 4
hanser OF Erie County FOR the exemption from 4
80 animation OF the position OF assistant secre-
tery and stenographer was denied.
: an amendment 10 the classification OF posi-
4 ems IN the civil service OF the city Of Elmira
llacing the position Of stenoErapher IN the CITY
Sourt In the exempt class, WAS returned without /
GIaproval
Z An amendment 20 the municipal Civil Service ]
y les 81 the city or Mount Vernon, providing
rfht the minimum limit OF age OF rodrnen ana
clainmen be changed from twenty-one years to
g ehteen wears az the time OF application. was
approved.
= Mayor Mcclellan last night declined to die
elss the refusal Of the State civil Service Com
mission TO permit the ffty-three deputy tax
commissioners 81 This city 10 be taken out OF
Tie Civil Service regulations.
e y have nothing 70 say" said the Mavor.
''eihe Stale board has evidently disagreed with
re ] guess that ends IL. 7 stin think I
r CHIT"
There was rejoicing among the ffty-odd depu-
Ees when they read the State boards decision
CITY CLUB PROTESTS TO STATE BOARD.