The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-02-18
Supreme Court Riddles Completely Theory of
 Tax Board Supremacy


 Completely Theory of }. Tax Board Supremacy
 (Continued From First Page.) ouirement. The fact that in making its estimates for the police department this board failed or refused to make an appropriation sufficient to pay the bers of that department is not con- elusive of the plaintiffs right to re- cover.
 "The purpose Of placing the power of apportionment and taxation in the hands of special board was to pro- feet the taxpayers from unusual and unnecessary expenditures. not to cripple the different departments Dy deprlvlnR them of the means of paying the ordl- nary salaries and running expenses of theiy. departments. The board of po- lice commissioners have no power to fix the S1lumber of patrOlmen in their depertlnerlt or the pay of any of them. This power is given to the common council.
 ..After the number is fixed the board appoints the required number and can remove them only for cause, unless the number is reduced by the common council Tie police commissioners can not reduce or change the pay of the patrolmen.
 sIt clearly is not the intention of the charter that the board of apportion- ment and taxation should reduce the patrolmen's pay by apportioning to the police department an insufficient sum to provide the compensation fixed by law. s
 when the number and compensa- .tion of the policemen have been legal. ly established 1t is the duty of that board to provide by sufficient ap- prorriation and tax levy for their pay merat. But if they fail to do this the police commissioners may. the appro- priation for their department being a definite sum for general purposes. by cutting expenses elsewhere reserve sufficient for the payment of the fixed salaries.
 sIs this is not possible the common council may under the charter make a special appropriation to meet the de- f1ciency If there is unappropriated revenue of the city sufficient to meet it and if not it can reduce the number of policemen so that the appropriation already made will be sufficient to meet the salaries of those remaining;
 Tt is found as part of the case that the board of appropriations and taxa ton failed and refused to make the appropriation sufficient to pay the increased salaries in the police depart lmenk provided for in the Ordinan1e Of October g. 1907. and that the common council has not since reduced the ial appropriation for the purpose Of paying the increase in salaries and comnensation.
 ssButsit is not found that. at the time this action was brought. there was not remaining of the appropriation which was made sufficient to pay the increase on all salaries then due.
 aI,ess, than two-thirds of the fiscal year had then passed and presumably a large part of the appropriation for the police department then remained 
 .ssIt does not appear therefore that the city was not then in funds appro- priated for the purpose sufficient to nav the plaintiffs demand. Upon the facts found therefore the defendants first defense does not justify its re- fusul to pay the balance claimed if the same was legally due.
 ssVe assume that the refusal of the boSrd of apportionment to appropriate sufficient to meet the increase in sal artes was because the board question: ed upon the grounds now urged by the defendant. the legality of that in- crease. If as claimed the common cJuncil in repeating the former ordi- rance and by passing new one estab- HshinE larger salaries or compensation for the policemen. acted in violation of the defendants charter or of Article xXIV of the Amendments to the Con- stitution of the State their action was void and the increase was invalid. stThe construct ton an6 purpose of the 24th article of the amendments to the consultation received the attention oE this court in the recent case of Mc-S Govern vs. Mitchell, 7S Conn. 5S6, and was there carefully and fully cOnsad- cred. It is there held that 1t is the purpose of the article to take from the puffic bodies therein mentioned, in- cluding cities, the power to make gra- tutious compensation to public officers and employees in addition to that which is established by law or con- tract: and that 1t does not, either df- rectly or indirectly or by implication, take from them the power to regulate by legislation the public services and of public officers. They may therefore to the extent of their legislative power enact laws or ordd- nances fixing the future compensation of such officers.
 '"The ordinance in question purports to establish the compensation which all of the members of the police depart ment shall receive after the 1st day of April following it's enactment.
 "It is not the vote of a gratuity in excess of what the law allows them but a law establishing what they shall receive in the future.
 ssIt differs in this respect from the vote in the case of Wright vs. Hart ford. 50 Conn, 546, relied upon by the defendant. In that case a gratuity was voted by resolution to a tillerman in excess of the amount fixed by the existing ordinance.
 s.The ordinance in the present case was not within the prohibition of arti- cle 24 of the amendments to the con- stitution.
 ssIf the Common Council had power to enact the ordinance it was there fore valid.e
 "The charter gives the Common Council the power to make, alter and repeal orders and ordinances relating to the salaries and compensation of all 1 of the city.
 That the Legislature could confer upon the city the power of such local legislation is unquestionable. State vs Carpenter, 60 Conn.,. 97, 103; Wal lingford vs. Hall, 64 Conn.,, 426. 431; State vs. Dedearaski, 80 Conn.,, 47S 4SO.
 "But the charter contains the pro- vision that no salary of any officer, agent or servant of the town IF city chosen or appointed for a rcer- |