Adie v. Mayor of Holyoke

• Decision Date: 29 May 1939
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN F. ADIE v. MAYOR OF HOLYOKE & others.

303 Mass. 295

21 N.E.2d 377

JOHN F. ADIE v. MAYOR OF HOLYOKE & others.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

May 29, 1939

February 9, 1939.

Present: FIELD, C.

J., DONAHUE LUMMUS, QUA, & DOLAN, JJ.

Public Officer. Holyoke. Municipal Corporations, Officers and agents. A member of the municipal gas and electric commission of the city of

Holyoke, appointed by the mayor under St. 1922, c. 173, was a public officer.

The mayor of the city of Holyoke had no authority to remove from office a member of the municipal gas and electric commission either under Section

26 of the city charter, St. 1896, c. 438, or by implication from his power to appoint under St. 1922, c. 173.

PETITION, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Hampden on January 12, 1939, for a writ of mandamus.

The case was reported by Dolan, J.

J. M. Healy, (F.

E. Button with him,) for the petitioner.

H. J. Lacey, for the respondent Tighe. C. S. Lyon, for the respondent Yoerg.

J. R. Nolen, for the respondent Ranger.

DOLAN, J. This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to recognize the petitioner as a member of the municipal gas and electric commission of the city of Holyoke, from which office the respondent William P Yoerg, as mayor of that city, purported to remove him; and to restrain the mayor from "intruding himself" as an acting member of that commission. The other respondents James L. Tighe and Casper J. Ranger, are members of the commission. The case was heard by a single justice of this court who reported it, without decision, for determination by the full court upon all questions of law raised by the petition and answers.

The allegations of the petition may be summarized as follows: On June 7, 1938 the respondent mayor of the city of Holyoke, hereinafter referred to as the mayor, acting under St. 1922, c. 173, appointed the petitioner a member of the municipal gas and electric commission of the city of Holyoke, hereinafter referred to as the commission, for a term of six years from the first Monday of July, 1938. The petitioner duly qualified under the appointment on July 1, 1938. On January 9, 1939, the mayor notified the petitioner in writing that he was removed from that office. On January 10, 1939, the board of aldermen of the city of Holyoke, at a meeting called by the mayor to see if the board would approve his action in removing the petitioner, voted not to approve that action, and that leave be given to withdraw, without prejudice, the order seeking approval of his removal. On January 12, 1939, the mayor notified the city clerk, in writing, that he had appointed himself as an acting member of the commission pending the appointment of a commissioner to fill the existing vacancy.

In his answer the mayor denies that the board of aldermen voted against the approval of his action in removing the petitioner, and says that they merely voted that leave be given to withdraw the order seeking their approval of his action without prejudice. He further answers that on January 9, 1939, after a discussion with the petitioner and the latter's counsel, he gave the petitioner a written notice of removal assigning as causes therefor (1) that the petitioner had "executed a contract between the City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department and the Taylor-Logan

Company a Corporation in which . . . [the petitioner was] personally interested, said contract having been so executed by . . . [the petitioner] both in . . . [his] capacity as a Commissioner of the Municipal Gas and Electric Commission and also in . . . [his] capacity as an officer of said Taylor-Logan Company," and (2) "For the good of the service." The respondent Ranger in his answer states that the mayor had authority to remove the petitioner, and that he (Ranger) "must recognize" the mayor as a member of the commission. The respondent Tighe in his answer states that the petitioner is "a valid existing member" of the commission "regardless of the acts" of the mayor.

The office in question was first provided for by St. 1922, c. 173. Section 1 provides that "There is hereby established an unpaid commission to be known as the municipal gas and electric commission of the city of Holyoke, to consist of three members, who shall he appointed in the manner and for the terms hereinafter provided. Said commission shall be vested with all the powers and duties heretofore exercised by the mayor of said city under the provisions of chapter one hundred and sixty-four of the General Laws, and in addition thereto shall have such powers and duties as are now conferred or imposed by said chapter upon municipal light hoards in towns." Section 2 provides that "The mayor of said city shall, subject to confirmation by the board of aldermen, appoint prior to July first, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, one member of said commission to serve for two years, one for four years and one for six years, from the first Monday of July, and thereafter as the term of any member expires, a successor shall he appointed for the term of six years. Vacancies shall he filled in like manner for unexpired terms. The members shall in all cases hold office until their successors are chosen and qualified." Section 3 provides for the taking effect of the act upon its acceptance by the board of aldermen. The city charter contains no provision relative to these offices.

The issue argued by the parties is whether the mayor has the right to remove for cause or otherwise a member of the commission.

It is contended on behalf of the respondent mayor that he had authority to remove the petitioner under Section 26 of St. 1896, c. 438, entitled "An Act to revise the charter of the city of Holyoke." This section provides that "The mayor shall have the sole power of appointment to all the municipal offices established by or under this act, unless herein otherwise provided, and he may, except as herein otherwise provided, remove from office by written order any officer so appointed hereunder for any cause which he shall in his official discretion deem sufficient . . . ." It would appear, however, by the express wording of this section that the power of removal therein conferred is limited to offices "established by or under" the charter. To extend the power to offices not so established would violate the principle that all words of a statute must be given weight. Barnes v. Peck, 283 Mass. 618 , 625, and cases cited. St. 1922, c. 173, makes no reference to the city charter, nor does it disclose any intent by the Legislature that the offices thereby created were to be subject to the provisions of the charter. It is provided in Section 1 of the statute that the commission thereby created should be vested with the powers and duties formerly exercised by the mayor under c. 164 of the General Laws and also those exercised by municipal light boards in towns under said chapter. See now G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 164, Sections 34-69, more particularly Sections 55, 56, 57, 63. Under this chapter the department of public utilities is given supervision over the operation of municipal gas and electric plants. See what is now G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 164, Sections 43, 47, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, 68. In view of the detailed provisions set up in this chapter for the establishment and supervision of municipal gas and electric plants, we think the commission created by St. 1922, c. 173, can exercise its functions only subject to the provisions of c. 164.

Cities and towns in this Commonwealth can exercise those powers and perform those duties only "which are expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied from those expressly conferred or from undoubted municipal rights or privileges." White v. Treasurer of Wayland, 273 Mass. 468 , 470, and cases cited. MacRae v. Selectmen of Concord, 296 Mass. 394 , 396. Statutes relating to powers conferred upon municipalities "have always been given a strict construction. . . . This principle applies with special force to statutes enabling municipalities to enter into commercial activity . . . `where cities and towns are authorized to enter the field of business enterprises, like the manufacture of gas and electricity, they do it not under the laws relating to private corporations . . . but under' special statutory provisions." MacRae v. Selectmen of Concord, 296 Mass. 394 , 397. It is only by the authority conferred by G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 164, Sections 34-69, and not by virtue of any implied power of the city of Holyoke, that it can maintain a gas and electric plant. In the absence of any express provision in the city charter, any power of the mayor over those in charge of the management of the plant must be derived from the governing statutes, and is not to be implied from the provisions of the city charter.

The present case is not one where the city charter gives the mayor a sweeping power to remove any head of a department or member of a board whether or not his office is created by or under the charter. For this reason the cases of Murphy v. Mayor of Boston, 220 Mass. 73 , 75, and Egan v. Mayor of Boston, 298 Mass. 448 , 450, are clearly distinguishable. See also Cunningham v. Mayor of Cambridge, 222 Mass. 574 , 580. In the cases just cited, because of broad provisions of the city charters, it was immaterial whether or not the office was one established thereunder. In the instant case, however, the office in question is not established under the city charter, and the power of removal confided to the mayor therein is specifically limited to the offices established thereunder. It follows that the power of removal granted under the charter does not extend to the office here involved. Compare Johnson v. Mayor of Quincy, 198 Mass. 411 , 412.

The question remains whether,...