New-York tribune., 1906-05-05
CIVIL SERVICE AND THE COURTS.

The Court Of Appeals has just handed down
decision which establishes an entirely new
doctrine concerning the status Of the Civil Ser
vice administration of the state with respect
to the courts. When the constitution Of 1895
went into effect Civil Service reformers were
the first to resort TO the courts to compel ad-
ministrative officers to enforce their view Of
the constitutional provision, but without avail.
They have since more often had occasion to
depYecate judicial interference. which has gen
orally been invoked by persons seeking exemp-
tiOns which Civil Service commissions would
not allow. Frequent attempts have been made
TO change classiticatiOns by certiOrari or man
damus. and for a long time it was uncertain
how far either procedure could be carried for
review of the Civil Service commissions. In
the case of Sims agt Collier however. the
Court of Appeals declared that mandamus
would not lie. and that the remedy for a faulty
classification by certiorari. That ruling is
now squarely reversed in the case Of the People
ex rel. Schau agt. the Municipal Civil Service
commissioners Of Buffalo and the State Civil
Service commissioners
The action brought by captain in the
Fire Department of Buffalo to review the ac-
tiOn of the two commissions in classifying the
position Of battalion chief as competitive, and
the Appellate Division Of the 4th Depart
ment reversed the action of the commissions
on the ground that competitive examination
was not practicable, although such examina-
tons have long been held for similar positions
in the city Of New York. 1t was clear that If
this decision stood almost any classification
could be reversed by the courts and the Court
Of Appeals would be constituted the real Civil
Service Commission Thus the important Ques-
ton was brought forward whether Civil Ser
vice claSsificatiOns other than those plainly pre-
scribed by the statute were TO be determined
finally by the commission or by the courts. On
this point the State Commission carried up the
case, which was ably argued by Attorney Gen
eral Mayer
Judge Cullen writes the opinion for the cOurt.
which is a enthusiastically clear and straight
forward discussion of the issue. He holds that
the action of the commissioners in classifying
places is purely administrative, and not judicial
or quasi judicial. though 1t does require the
exercise of judgment and discretion in a high
degree Therefore he holds that it's action can
not be reviewed by ceTtOrari in any case II
1t could the courts would be asked from time
to time 10 reverse themselves. They might de-
eide that a place should be competitive which
a commission exempted. Experiment might
prove that competition impractcable and
then a new order would he necessary. Com
petition might be practicable at one time or in
one place and impractcabIe at another time
or place. Says the Judge: IF the question of
'the classification is always judicial one, then
''there must be the same classification every
"where. for there must be at least some degree
"Of finalty in judicial determinations" Ger
tiOrari being discarded the court holds that the
remedy for mistaken classification is by man
damus. With refreshing directness and simplic-
ity which command great respect for their con
trast with the practice of some courts which
distinguish" Inconsistencies TO the confusion OF
utigants. the Chief Judge says:
The foregoing Views lead TO a retraction OF
those expressed by us in People ex rel Sims "
Collier, where we held that the remedy was not
| Dy mandamss. but by certioraTi. In the opinion
then rendered fully concurred That case was
! a proceeding ny mandalnus, and properly
| decided other grounds than those expressed
/ 5y the opinion. The Civil Service scheme OF the
constitution and OF the statutes Is comparatively