The National tribune., 1906-02-15

l SSisASc W pfefeFcHCe III civil service.
The Supreme Court discusses the free
dom Of the State in the employment of
its citizens In civil office, and decides
that there was no abridgment of this
freedom In the, Veterans Preference
Act. s.
Inc State has the same freedom OF
| employment that belongs to the indi-
| vidual, and no one will contend that
the lnds4lduai may not employ any per-
son Whom ne wishes to employ, or that
he may not choose his employees from q
certain class. IL it were otherwise lib
erty or contract would be destroyed,
and legislation in that direction would
be clearly unconstitutional. The right
| to pursue any lawful calling i'm a law
| ful way Is undoubtedly a fundamental
right, but there is a marked dIstinc-
| ton between this right and the So
| called right to be employed by a par
| t1cular person, or in particular line
| OF service. For the purpose of Govern
ment, the Counties. Cities and Towns of
| the state are its agents and under its
control. and what the State may con-
| stitutionally do with reference to pub
lie matters it may direct it's agents to
| do; and by the act in question the State
| has simply said that it will employ in
| all public departments and upon all
| public works only those of certain
| class of it's citizens, other things being
! equal.
| Nor do we believe that the act is
class legislation within the accepted
| meaning of the term. 1t imposes no
special obligations or burdens on those
who are excluded from it's benefits, and,
| as we have seen, privileges may be
granted to particular individuals with
| out reserve when by so doing the rights
| of others are not interfered with. 1t
does not forbid the right to the acquisi-
ton or enjoyment of property, nor pre-
vent the disposal of person Or property,
Wh1ch may be conceded to be among
| the natural rights and to be protected
by the natural liberty of the individual.
That equality of rights. privileges and
capacities should be the aim of the
law no one will question. But we are
not here called upon to deal with the
question OF inequality in privileges or
immunities, for the right to hold a pub
| lie office or to be employed by the State
in any capacity is not q privilege with
in the meaning of the Constitution; and
IL our conclusion on this question is
right. it follows that there can be no in
equality or injustice in the statute I'M
der consideration, for the sufficient rea-
son that no right protected by the Con-
stitution has been invaded. And con-
sequently our conclusion that the stat
ute does not cOntraVene either the Con-
stitution of the United States or the
Constitution of this State is not in con-
flict with the cases cited by the appel
lee on the question of the equality of
privileges and immunities. among which
is the case of the State VS.. Garbroski.
Ill Iowa, 496.
1t is fundamental that the Legisla-
ture has the power to legislate on all
subjects. unless 1T is expressly or inn
pliedly prohibited from SO doing by the
Constitution, and the act Of the I.egis-
lature which is assailed must be plainly
at variance with the Constitution before
the court will 80 declare it. All doubt
full questions will be resolved in favor of
the validity Of the act.
Stewart VS.. Board of Supervisors, 80
Iowa, Q.
Huff VS.. Cook. A Iowa, 639.
See. also, Jacobson VS.. Massachusetts,,
1877 u. S.. II.
That the principal question involved
In this case Is not entirely free from
doubt may be conceded but after full
andsthe reasoning Of the cases SUPPORT
ing our CONCLUSIONS. we are satisfied
that the act is not unconstitutionaf
Furthermore similar aetss~ha vsSabeens
sustained in SeyeEal Of our sister States,
and while the constitutional question
under consideration has not been con-
sidered in many of the decisions they
nevertheless @1end support to our con-
clusion in general way. The leading
case IS In re..Wortman, 2 II. Y. Supp
3-f. his accession was followed by Inc
New York Courts until the State Con-
stitution was amended in 1894. giving
preference of employment to veterans.
People VS.. Stratton. 80 y. Y. Supp.
2G9.
People VS.. Tobey, 1853 y. Y, 3s1.
People ex rel Fallen vs. Wright. $50
y. Y. 444. .st.-a.l... ....
People vs.. Lathrop. 142 y. Y, 113.
Lewis VS.. Board, 81 y. j. Law, 24O
ENGLAND VS.. Board. 43 Att. 445.
Mcdonald ys. Newark, SIS y. J. Law,
257.
(MinnD ..s, r
Goodrich vs, Mitchell, Ga L. r. A.,
945. (Kansas)
Opinion Of Justices 1876 Mass. $50.
Opinion of Justices. las Mass. 5S7.
The Supreme Court takes up the de-
cisions of the Kansas and Massachu-
sets Courts. upon which the opponents
to Veterans Preference relied very
much, and says:
The Constitution of Kansas differs
from our own with respect to granting
privileges. The Kansas Bill of Rights
contains the provision that no special
privileges or immunities shall ever be
granted by the Legislature which may
not be altered. revoked or repealed by
the same body: and this power shall
agency" And it is probably true that
the Goodrich case IS not an authority
on the constitutional question that we
have before us.
The appellee relies on Brown VS.. Rus
sell. 166 Mass, IA, and on State vs.
Whitcom. 50 y. W. Rep, Az (Wis.), as
authorities against the constitutionality
of the law, but neither is so in fact. In
Brown vs. Russell the precise question
determined was whether the Legisla
ture could "constitutionally provide that
certain public offices and employments
which 1t has created shall be filled by
veterans In preferment to all other per-
sons, whether the veterans are or are
not found or thought to be actually
qualified to perform the duties of the
Office and employments by some impair
tial and competent officer or board
charged with some public duty in maxi
ing the appointments" And it WAS
held that such legislation was uncon-
stitutional, because the appointing pow
or could not be compelled to appoint to
public offices persons of a certain class,
In preference to all others, regardless
Of their qualifications. In State VS..
Whitcom the question here presented
was not involved and was not decided.
The Court concludes by showing that