Ayers v. Hatch
| Decision Date | 03 March 1900 |
| Parties | AYERS v. HATCH, Mayor, et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C. W. Bartlett and E. R. Anderson, for petitioner.
H Huestis Newton, for respondents.
The first question is whether the petitioner is a 'veteran holding an office or employment in the public service' of the city of Everett, within the meaning of St. 1896, c. 517 § 5. We think that he is not. It is plain, it seems to us, that the statute was intended to provide for the preference of veterans in the offices and employments coming within the scope of St. 1884, c. 320, commonly known as the 'Civil Service Act,' and the acts in amendment thereof; and that the provisions of section 5 apply to veterans who hold offices and employments under and pursuant to the statutes relating to civil service and the rules established by the civil service commissioners. Section 1 defines the word 'veteran' as used in the act. Sections 2, 3, and 6 relate to the examination and appointment of veterans to positions 'in the public service classified under chapter three hundred and twenty of the Acts of the year Eighteen Hundred and Eighty-Five and acts in amendment thereof and the civil service rules thereunder, subject to such rules,' and to their employment 'in the labor service of the commonwealth and of the cities and towns thereof' under rules established by the civil service commissioners. Section 4 contains directions to the commissioners respecting the preparation of lists of applicants for positions in the public service who have passed the examinations, and of those who have been certified for appointment or employment. Then comes section 5, and it seems to us that it would be wresting it from its connection, and giving to it an effect that it was not intended to have, to hold that it was designed to apply to any veteran who was in the public service of a town or city in an office or employment of a civil nature. The more reasonable construction is, we think, that it was intended to prevent the removal or suspension or transfer without his assent, and without a full hearing, of a veteran who had been appointed under the statutes and rules relating to the civil service; thus continuing to him after his appointment the same preference over others who were not veterans as before his appointment. We find nothing in the various veterans' preference acts to lead us to suppose that a different result was intended. They are all embraced in St. 1896, c. 517, and are repealed by section 8 of that act, and need not, therefore, be further considered. St. 1887, c. 437; St. 1889, c. 473; St. 1894, c 519; St. 1895, c. 501. Neither do we find anything in the civil service act, or in the amendments thereto, which leads to a contrary result. The first provision in regard to preferring veterans is in the civil service act itself. St. 1884, c. 320, § 14, cl. 6. Manifestly, this refers to offices coming within the scope of that act, and no others. Section 15 excludes elective officers, among others, from the operation of the act. From an early period in the history of the commonwealth the office of an assessor has been elective, and still is. 11 Plymouth Colony Records (State Ed. 1643) 42; 2 Records of Mass. (State Ed. 1646) 174; 1 Prov. Laws (State Ed. 1692-93, c. 28) 65; St. 1785, c. 50; Rev. St. c. 15, § 33; Pub. St. c. 27, § 28. Assessors did not, therefore, come within the original civil service act of 1884. The only amendment affecting the question which we are now considering is St. 1893, c. 95. By that statute the word 'elective' in St. 1884, c. 320, § 15, was stricken out, and the words, 'who are elected by the people or a city council' were inserted, so that it now reads, 'Judicial officers and officers who are elected by the people or a city council,' etc., 'shall not be affected as to their selection or appointment by any rules made as aforesaid.' The object of the amendment evidently was to define with greater certainty what was meant by the word 'elective'; and the words 'who are elected by the people' signify, it seems to us, officers whom the people are and have been accustomed to elect. Assessors are obviously such officers. Moreover, it is to be observed that 'the civil service statutes and rules relate only to certain subordinate offices and employments' (Brown v. Russell, 166 Mass. 14, 15, 43 N.E. 1005, 32 L. R. A....
To continue reading
Request your trial