Norwich bulletin., 1920-02-05
BURNAP MAKES CLAIM FOR S1, 300

Edwin l.. Burnap, who is now en- ployed i'll government post office de- partment in Washington, is present. ing claim for exactly one year s salary, $1,S0o, against the Norwich Board of water commissioners, based upon supreme court decision render ed last week for Mir. Burnap in the appeal taken to the supreme court by the water board.
 Judge Gager wrote the opinion on the appeal, in which all the other Justices of the supreme court con- cured, in saying that the Norwich wa ter board had no legal right, in eff feet tl1 constitute themselves into the legislature of the state of Con necticut and repeal an act passed by the legislature as they did when they abolished the office of superintendent of the Norwich water department
 The legislature created the office the decision says, and the board of water commissioners had no power to abolish it. The attempted abolition was in effect an attempt to repeal an act o1 the legislature and saccbm- plisa an unlawful removal of the Joel H. Reeds Judgment of restor- ation was properly rendered upon the facts found
 MT. Burnap's claim for salary runs from the date the board voted to abolish the office to the time a year later when the city meeting by vote repealed the act under which he was appointed. What the water boards s attitude as to paying the claim on making a further legal fight has not yet been announced. Judge John H, Barnes. counsel for MT. Burnap, has already presented the bill to the water board and has not heard one way or tde other from them.
 Reciting the legislative act of 1917 concerning the superintendent of wa ter works of the city of Norwich, the opinion goes to say:
 Tn June, 1917, pursuant to the pro visions of this act the appellant was appointed superintendent of water works of the city of Norwich at a salary fixed by the board. June 28, 1918, the board of water commission CTS adopted g resolution without no- tice to the appellant and without any hearing, providing that the office or position of the superintendent of wa ter works be and the same is here by abolished" and caused a copy o1 said resolution to be mailed to the ap- | pellant on June 29, 1918. The appell- ant to the judge of the superior court is based upon the claimed invalidity of the vote of June 2S, 191S and the claim that in effect this action amounted to a removal of the ap- pellant from his office without hear ing and without cause and contrary l to the provisions of the act.
 It is substantially agreed that the | specific question is. did the legisla- | ture, by this act, create the office o1 superintendent of water works, or die l the act merely authorize the creation of the office by the board of water commissioners? If the legislature cre- ated the office then the board of wa ter commissioners has no power tC abolish it. or to remove the occupant l of the office for cause and after full 1 earing. By whom then was the Of | fee created?
 Discussing the duties of the two of fees, president and superintendent, l the supreme court decision goes on tC say that "the distinction between tht ! duties of the superintendent and those | of the president were analogous tC
 that between the duties of mill supe