The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-02-18

The complete text of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the suit of James H. Sullivan vs. City of Bridgeport, is
 printed below. It is a sweeping de-
 nial of the claims of tax board supre- macy that have been made the basis of the case. The powers given to the
 popular branch of the government, that branch whose members are di- frectly answerable to the people, are
 defined and described. The opinion of the court is so, strong in its aff1r- nation of the power of the council to employ the powers it has employed, as
 to almost read like a rebuke to the tax board, of which the court says that it is not the purpose of the charter that this board shall cripple depart
 ments in their ordinary expenses or reasonable, legal salaries.
 The opinion follows:
 ''The plaintiff has been a member of the defendants police force since 1886. Prior to October 9th. 1907 and con- tinuously up to the commencement of this action he had been a policeman in Grade A. the highest of the four grades into which the patroln1en of the police force are divided. By an ordf- nance fixing the salaries and com pensation of the officers and men of the police department in force on and before October 9th. 1907. policemen in Grade A were entitled to and received $2.90 per day. On that day the com mon council passed an ordinance, to take effect at the beginning of the cItys next fiscal year. April 1. 19O8. and repeating as of that date all in- consistent ordinances, whereby the salary or compensation of each of the officers and each grade of patrolmen was increased. The salary or com in grade A was $3.25 per day. The plaintiff without Fe-appointment con- tinued to serve as a patrolman in that grade after April 1. 1908. and has de- manded payment for such service since that date at the rate of $3.25 per day. The defendant has paid him at the old rate. S2.90 per day. and has refused to pay the balance claimed The case is reserved for the advice of this court upon an agreed statement of facts.
 s9rhe defendants refusal to pay the increased compensation is based upon three grounds: First because both the board of apportionment and taxation and the common council of the de- fendant city failed and refused to make an appropriation for the police department sufficient to pay such in- crease in the compensation of members of the police department and because it is provided by the charter of the city that no money-other than that appropriated shall be expended for any purpose:' second. because it is provid- ed by the charter that no salary of any officer. employee. agent or servant of the town or city elected. chosen or appointed for certain term shall be increased or diminished by any action of the common council to take effect n - IL -e..I increase in the compensa- ton of the members of the police de- partment was prohibited by Article XxIY of the amendments of the con- stitution of the state
 t'It is the duty of the board of ap- portion11ent and taxation to determine in February each year the requirement. of each department of the city govern ment for the ensuing fiscal year, to apportion to each it's required amount and to lay tax to meet the total re-
 (Continued on page three,)