Majority
Headnote
1. Civil Service — Veterans—Discharge—Confidential Relation.The relator alleges in his petition that he “is, and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, an honorably discharged soldier, who served as such in the Union army during the war of the Rebellion,” and that, “prior to his removal, he duly notified the said William É. McFadden, collector of assessments and arrears, that he was an honorably discharged soldier who served as such in the Union army during the war of the Rebellion, and that, notwithstanding said notice and said protests made as hereinbefore set out, your petitioner was removed, and his name stricken, as he is informed and verily believes, from the pay rolls of said city.” It is not disputed that the relator, Michael O’Keeffe, was appointed to the office of deputy collector of assessments and arrears for the borough of Brooklyn on January I, 1898, and duly qualified by filing a bond for $15,000. He continued, to hold the position, and to discharge its duties, until January 6, 1902, when he was notified by the respondent that his services were dispensed with. The relator moved at a special term of the supreme court for a peremptory writ of mandamus directing his reinstatement, and from the order denying said motion this appeal is taken.
The relator claims to be entitled to reinstatement under the provisions of section 21 of chapter 370 of the Daws of 1899. This section provides that:
“No person bolding a position by appointment or employment in tbe state of New York or in tbe several cities, counties, towns or villages thereof, wbo is an honorably discharged soldier, sailor or marine, having served as such in the Union army or navy during the war of the Rebellion, * * * shall be removed from such position or employment, except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing, upon due notice, upon stated charges and with the right to such employs or appointee to a review by a writ of cer-tiorari. # * * Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to the position of private secretary or deputy of any official or department, or to any other person holding a strictly confidential relation to the appointing officer.”
The question to be determined, for there is no doubt of the facts as set forth in tbe relator’s petition in respect to his service in the Union army, is whether the position which he was filling was within the exception clause of the statute above cited. By the provisions of section 151 of the charter of the Greater New York, as amended by chapter 466 of the Daws of 1901, it is provided that there shall be five bureaus of the department of finance, the third of which shall be “a bureau for the collection of assessments, and of such taxes, assessments and water rents as are in arrears, the chief officer of which shall be called the collector of assessments and arrears.” Section 152 provides that the comptroller shall appoint the collector of assessments and arrears, and that the latter shall, before entering upon the discharge of the duties of his office, enter into a bond to the city of New York, to be approved by the chamberlain and comptroller, in the penal sum of $25,000, for the faithful discharge of the duties of the office. Section 155 provides for a principal office in the borough of Manhattan, with branch offices in the borough of Brooklyn, etc., and section 156 provides that the collector of assessments and arrears may appoint the requisite number of deputy collectors of assessments and arrears, and that he shall take from each deputy so appointed by him a bond, in such penal sum
We think the suggestion that the law in relation to veterans, in so far as the rights of the relator are concerned, has been in any way modified, abrogated, or changed by the provisions of chapter 533 of the Daws of 1901, is untenable. This act was passed for the obvious purpose of preventing any change in the existing laws in reference to veterans, and not with the intent of taking from section 21 of chapter 370 of the Daws of 1899 the exception clause in reference to confidential positions. It is the intent of the legislature, fairly expressed, which is to be given the force of law; and, viewed in this light, chapter 533 of the Laws of 1901 has no effect upon the general law under which the relator claims.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
Cases cited
- People ex rel. Tate v. Dalton 158 N. Y. 204 at 214, 52 p. 89