Case Name: In re HERTLE et al., Commissioners of Accounts
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-07-15
Citations: 105 N.Y.S. 765
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re HERTLE et al., Commissioners of Accounts.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 105
Pages: 765–772

Head Matter:
(120 App. Div. 717)
In re HERTLE et al., Commissioners of Accounts.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
July 15, 1907.)
L Municipal Corporations—Officers—Commissioners of Accounts—Statutory Authority.
Greater New York Charter, Laws 1897, p. 35, c. 378, § 119, empowering the mayor to appoint two commissioners of accounts, who shall make examinations of the accounts and methods of the departments and offices of the city as the mayor may direct and as the commissioners may deem for the best interests of the city, and report to the mayor the results thereof, • and authorizing them to compel the attendance of witnesses, first enacted by Laws 1873, p. 513, e. 335, § 106, and amended by Laws 1882, p. 29, c. 410, § 110, and by Laws 1884, p. 608, c. 516, empowers the commissioners to ascertain not only what the books of an office examined show, but what they ought to show, by requiring witnesses to submit to an examination, so that the actual transactions of the office and the officers and his subordinates and employes may be laid before the mayor, and authorizes them to investigate an officer holding an elective office; Greater New York Charter, Laws 1897, p. 34, c. 378, § 115, subd. 3, making it the duty of the mayor to keep himself informed of the doings of the various departments of the city, and authorizing the commissioners of accounts to make examination any time they see fit.
2. Constitutional Law—Judicial Powers—Delegation.
Greater New York Charter, Laws 1897, p. 35, c. 378, § 119, authorizing the appointment of commissioners of accounts, charged with the duty of examining the accounts and methods of the department and offices of the city and to report to the hiayor the result thereof, is not invalid as an attempt to confer judicial powers on the commissioners, since the examination made by them, as well as the report, settles nothing, except that it furnishes the mayor with information as to the condition and workings of the office investigated.
3. Municipal Corporations—Officers—Investigation of Accounts—Statutes.
The examinations of accounts of the departments and offices of the city of New York provided for by Greater New York Charter, Laws 1901, pp. 31, 632, c. 466, §§ 54, 1534, authorizing investigations by a justice of the Supreme Court or fy the board of aldermen, and by Greater New York Charter, Laws 1897, p. 35, c. 378, § 119, authorizing the appointment of commissioners of accounts, who shall make such examination of the accounts of the departments and offices of the city as the mayor may direct, etc., are separate and distinct, and neither of the examinations provided for is exclusive.
4. Same.
The right of the commissioners of accounts authorized by Greater New York Charter, Laws 1897, p. 35, c. 378, § 119, to make examinations of the accounts and methods of the departments and offices of the city, to determine the extent of the examination, rests with the commissioners, and they may pursue their investigation so long as the examination conducted by them or the questions propounded to witnesses called by them is relevant and pertinent to the subject-matter of the inquiry.
Lambert, J., diss'enting.
Appeal from Trial Term.
In the matter of the application of John C. Hertle and another, commissioners of accounts of the city of New York, for a warrant for the arrest and commitment to jail of John F. Ahearn. From an order granting the application and issuing a warrant of commitment (105 N. Y. Supp. 1022), John F. Ahearn appeals. ,
Affirmed.
Argued before McLAUGHLIN, INGRAHAM, CLARICE, HOUGHTON, and LAMBERT, JJ.
Martin W. Littleton, for appellant.
Terence Farley, for respondents.

Opinion:
McLAUGHLIN, J.
The appellant is the president of the borough of Manhattan, in the city of New York. By reason of certain charges which were published concerning the management of his office he requested the mayor of the city of New York to direct the commissioners of accounts to make an investigation of his department. The mayor did as requested, and the examination was entered upon and continued for some time, when the appellant was called as a witness, and, after being duly sworn, certain questions were propounded to him, which by advice of counsel he declined to answer, substantially upon the ground that the commissioners had no power to inquire—he holding an elective office—into the policy of his administration; that they had already made a detailed examination, and for that purpose lie had afforded them the fullest and freest access to all the books, papers, and records in the office; that the facts before them showed, as well as reports made, that the office was in good condition; and that any further examination was unnecessary. The commissioners of accounts thereupon applied to the Special Term of this court, by an order to show cause, for a warrant committing him to jail for refusing to answer the questions put to him, and directing that he there remain until he submitted to answer such questions, unless in the meantime he were discharged according to law. The motion was granted, and a warrant of commitment issued, fropi which he appeals.
The examination of appellant was sought under section 119 of the Greater New York Charter, which he contends, through his counsel, if construed to confer general powers on the commissioners of accounts to conduct any examination which they deemed for the best interest of the city, is unconstitutional, in that it is an attempt to confer judicial powers upon them.. This section of the charter, or so much of it as is pertinent to the question under review, reads as follows:
"The mayor shall appoint and remove at pleasure two persons who shall be commissioners of accounts, one of whom shall be a certified public accountant. It shall be tlieir duty once in three months to make an examination of the receipts and disbursements in the offices of the comptroller and chamberlain, in connection with those of all the departments and officers making returns thereto and report to the mayor a detailed and classified statement of the financial condition of the city as shown by such examination. They shall also make such special examinations of the accounts and methods of the departments and offices of the city as the mayor may from time to time .direct, and such other examinations ns the said commissioners may deem for the best interests of the city, and report to the may- or and the board of aldermen the results thereof. For the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with these examinations, .they shall have full power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to administer oaths and to examine such persons as they may deem necessary."
I1 When the office was first created (Laws 1873, p. 513, c. 335, § 106) the duties of the commissioners, of whom the president of the department of taxes and assessments was one, were to examine into the financial condition of the city and make and publish a detailed statement thereof. They were also to make from time to time—
"an examination of the expenses of the several departments and officers, and malte sncli recommendations to the board of apportionment, and other officers, with reference thereto, and particularly with reference to salaries and duties, as they may deem advisable."
This statute, as re-enacted by the consolidation act (Laws of 1882, p. 29, c. 410, § 110), was amended so as to read substantially as above quoted by chapter 516, p. 608, of the Laws of 1884, which was reenacted in the Greater New York Charter (Laws of 1897, p. 35, c. 378, §119).
It will be observed by the amendment of 1884 the two persons appointed by the mayor were the sole commissioners of accounts, the president of the department of taxes and assessments no longer being included, and the statement made by the commissioners of the financial condition of the city were reported to the mayor, instead of being published as before. It will also be observed that the power of the commissioners was considerably increased. Besides the regular statements of the financial condition of the city, they were authorized to make special examinations at the mayor's direction, or of their own volition, as they might "deem for the best interests of the city," of the accounts and methods of the various departments, and report the result to the mayor and board of aldermen. For the purpose of making these examinations, they were given power to examine witnesses, which was much more extensive than was necessary if the examination was designed simply for the purpose of ascertaining whether the accounts were properly kept. If this were the purpose, it is difficult to imagine why so great a change was made bj»- the amendment, and especially why the commissioners should have been clothed with power "to compel the attendance of witnesses" and examine' them under oath. Obviously this was not the purpose of the amendment: It was designed to clothe the commissioners with power to ascertain, not only what the books of the office showed, but what they ought to show,.by requiring witnesses to submit to an examination, to the end that the actual transactions of the office in all their details, as well as every act of the officer himself and his subordinates and employés in connection therewith, might be laid before the mayor. The fact that the office investigated is an elective one makes no difference, because the statute applies just as much to an officer who is elected as it does to one who is appointed. The charter makes it the 'duty of the mayor to keep himself informed of the doings of the various departments of the city (section 115, subd. 3), and that he may properly discharge the duty thus imposed upon him "he is authorized to direct the commissioners of accounts to make an examination any time he sees fit. The examination thus directed cannot be prevented by an assertion of the officer whose department is being investigated that he holds the position by election, rather than by appointment, or that the examination is unnecessary.
The act, in my opinion, is not unconstitutional, and this was the view of the late General Term. Matter of McAdam, 7 N. Y. Supp. 454, 54 Hun, 637. Nor does it confer judicial powers upon the commis sioners. The examination made by them, as well as their report, settles nothing, except that it furnishes the mayor with accurate information as to the state, condition, and workings of the office investigated. It is in no sense a judicial proceeding. They harve no power to decide. Matter of Armstrong v. Murphy, 65 App. Div. 126, 72 N. Y. Supp. 475. In a great city like New York, working under a charter as complex as its charter is, public policy requires that every available means of examining the administration of the various departments and offices of the city government be utilized to their fullest extent, and statutes having this object in view should be liberally construed. The fact that the Legislature has seen fit to provide that an investigation may be made by a justice of the Supreme Court (Greater New York Charter, Laws 1901, p. 632, c. 466, § 1534) or by the board of aldermen (Id. p. 31, § 54) is not of the slightest importance, because the Legislature had the power to provide, as it did in section 119 of the charter, that an examination might be made by the commissioners of account at any time at the request of the mayor. Neither of the examinations thus provided for is exclusive, but each may be had separate and distinct from the other.
Nor does it lie with the appellant to say that, by reason of the examination already made, a further examination is unnecessary. The determination of that question rests solely with the commissioners. They may pursue their investigation so long as the examination conducted by them or the questions propounded to witnesses shall be relevant and pertinent to the subject-matter of their inquiry. The questions propounded to the appellant were relevant and pertinent, and were a proper subject of investigation.
If the foregoing views be correct, then it follows that the order and warrant of commitment should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
INGRAHAM, CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ., concur.