Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. MERRITT v. KRAFT et al., Civil Service Commission
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-06-28
Citations: 130 N.Y.S. 363
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. MERRITT v. KRAFT et al., Civil Service Commission.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 130
Pages: 363–367

Head Matter:
PEOPLE ex rel. MERRITT v. KRAFT et al., Civil Service Commission.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
June 28, 1911.)
1. Mandamus ( 75 )—Civil Service—Classification.
The classification of a position as exempt by the State Civil Service Commission will not be corrected by the court on mandamus unless clearly violative of Const, art. 5, § 9, requiring appointments in the civil service according to merit and fitness ascertained by examinations, and, where there is a reasonable ground for difference of opinion, the action of the commission must stand, though, the court may differ from the commission as to the wisdom of the classification.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mandamus, Dec. Dig. § 75. ]
2. Mandamus (§ 75 )—Civil Service—Classification—Judicial Review.
Examiners of stock transfers in the office of the State Comptroller, required to ascertain whether the stamp tax imposed on stock transfers by Tax Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 60) §§ 270-279, has been paid, were classified as exempt for five years. At the request of the State Comptroller, the position was classified as competitive. Thereafter, at the request of a subsequent comptroller, the Civil Service Commission placed the position in the exempt’ class. The examiners under the law are secret service men, and their sole duties are of a detective nature, involving not only thorough knowledge of bookkeeping, but a general commercial experience which will enable them to detect devices by which the tax law may be evaded. Sold, that the classification of the position in the exempt class was within the discretion of the commission, and the court would not interfere therewith.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mandamus, Dec. Dig. § 75. ]
Houghton and Kellogg, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Albany County.
Mandamus by the People, on the relation of Fred L. Merritt, against John E. Kraft and others, constituting the Civil Service Commission of the State, to compel the rescinding of a resolution classified as exempt the position of Examiner of Stock Transfers in the office of the State Comptroller. From an order directing a peremptory writ, defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, HOUGHTON, SEWEEL, and BETTS, JJ. .
Thomas Carmody, Atty. Gen., for appellants.
■ Albert De Roode, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SMITH, P. J.
By article 12 of the tax law, it is provided that, upon every sale or transfer of shares of stock in any domestic or foreign corporation, there shall be paid to the state a tax of 2 cents upon each share of $100 of face value or fraction thereof. This tax is paid by affixing to the instrument of transfer, or, in case there be no instrument of transfer, upon the books of the party making the transfer, adhesive stamps which are purchased from the Comptroller. For the making of such sale or transfer without the affixing of said stamps the party is deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and is punished by a fine of not less that $500 or more than $1,000, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. By section 276 it is provided that the State Comptroller may inquire into and ascertain whether the tax imposed by the provision of this article has been paid, and for this purpose he is given authority to examine the books and papers of any person, firm or corporation whose memoranda of transfers shall be made accessible to him for that purpose, and a failure to disclose the books and memoranda showing such transfers by any person or corporation is made a misdemeanor, subjecting the party to heavy fine or imprisonment or both. In 1911 this law was amended so as to prohibit the sale of stamps by private dealers, or by any one except an authorized agent of the Comptroller.
For the purpose of making the examinations necessary to ascertain whether the' stamps have been duly affixed and the tax paid, the Comptroller has in his office fourteen employes, called "examiners of stock transfers." In 1905 when these examiners were first appointed at the request of the State Comptroller, they were classified by the Civil Service Commission as in the exempt class of the civil service. They so continued in the exempt class until July 7, 1910, when, upon the recommendation of the Comptroller, they were put in the competitive class. In February, 1911, the present Comptroller requested the commission to place the position of examiner of transfers of stock again in the exempt class, and in March of that year the commission passed a resolution restoring such position to the exempt class in the civil service, and it is this resolution which is required to be'rescinded by the order for the mandamus issued by the Special Term from which this appeal is taken.
The requirement of the Constitution, in section 9 of article 5 thereof, is to the effect that appointments in the civil service of the state shall be made according to merit and fitness, "to be ascertained as far as practicable by examinations, which so far as practicable shall be competitive." By this provision of the Constitution it is provided that laws should be enacted to provide for the enforcement thereof. In the enforcement of this fundamental law, to somebody must be assigned the duty of determining in what cases it is practicable to ascertain the qualifications for the office by competitive examination. That duty is primarily placed upon the executive branch of the government, and by statute has devolved upon the Civil Service Commission. It is true that its determination cannot be arbitrarily made, but is subject to review by the courts. There is no doubt, however, as to the rule by which such review should be determined. It is clearly stated in the opinion of Chief Judge Cullen, in People ex rel. Schau v. McWilliams, 185 N. Y. 101, 77 N. E. 787, in this language:
"It seems to me that the cases cited indicate the true extent to which the court should assume to supervise the action of the Civil Service Commission. If the classification of the commission clearly violates the Constitution or the statute, mandamus should issue to correct the classification. If the action of the commission is not palpably illegal, the court should not intervene."
In the same case the Chief Judge states:
"Where the position is one, as to the proper mode of filling which there is a fair and reasonable ground for difference of opinion among intelligent and conscientious officials, the action of the commission should • stand, even though the courts may differ from the commission as to the wisdom of the classification."
If by the determination of this commission this office had been put in the competitive class of the civil service, the able opinion of the learned judge at Special Term would furnish strong reason for approving such classification. It does not necessarily follow, however, when the commission has determined that the ascertainment of the qualifications for this office by competitive examination is not practicable, that its determination is "palpably erroneous." Eor five years the position was classified as exempt, with the assumed approval of the different Comptrollers who were in office during that time. The request by Comptroller Williams that the offices be classified as competitive presents only his judgment as differing from those of the" prior Comptrollers under whose incumbency the office was deemed properly exempt. These examiners are in fact secret service men. Their sole duties are of a detective nature, involving not only thorough knowledge of bookkeeping, but a general commercial experience, which will enable them to detect the many devices by which this law may be sought- to be evaded. Not only extensive business experience, but a keen acumen, is a necessary qualification for the successful performance of duties which are unusually exacting. The competitive examinations provided for by the civil service law are from the nature of the case made public by statute. To whatever conclusion the court would come, if invested with the primary duty of determining this question, ii? my judgment, in view of the exacting nature of the duties of the office and of the fact that for five years under different Comptrollers the position was deemed properly placed in the exempt class, it" cannot be said that "intelligent and honest men might not differ" upon the question, or that the classification of the civil service commission was "palpably erroneous." In People ex rel. Sweet v. Lyman, 157 N. Y. 369, 52 N. E. 132, it was held that a special agent in the excise department was as matter of law to be placed in the exempt class. The principal duties of those agents were detective duties, to ascertain whether the law had been violated, and, while they were given some further responsibilities which apparently have not been given to those examiners, nevertheless the decision throws light upon the question as to whether it can be now held as matter of law that the placing of these examiners in the exempt class, with duties nearly analogous, is a palpably erroneous classification by the commission. I recommend, therefore, that the order be reversed, and motion denied, but without costs.
Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without costs. All concur, except HOUGHTON, J., dissenting in opinion in which KELLOGG, J., concurs.