Heck v. Hall, 3 Div. 303.
Decision Date | 29 June 1939 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 303. |
Citation | 238 Ala. 274,190 So. 280 |
Parties | HECK, STATE COMPTROLLER, v. HALL ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.
Bill for declaratory judgment by I. C. Heck, as Comptroller of the State, against Grover C. Hall and others, as members of the State Personnel Board, and I. J. Browder, as State Director of Personnel, to determine the validity of the Merit System Act. From a decree favorable to respondents, complainant appeals.
Modified and affirmed.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Chas. L. Rowe, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
J. M Bonner, Legal Adviser to the Governor, of Montgomery, for appellees.
I. C. Heck, the Comptroller of the State of Alabama, impressed that the Act of the Legislature, Regular Session 1939, approved March 2nd, 1939, and known as the "Merit System Act" was unconstitutional, and therefore void, brought this proceeding in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County against the respondents, Grover C. Hall, Thomas E. Kilby and John H. Peach, as Members of the State Personnel Board of the State of Alabama, and I. J. Browder, as State Director of Personnel of the State of Alabama, for declaratory judgment as to the validity of said Act.
It was insisted in the court below, and the insistence is renewed here on this appeal, that said Act is obnoxious to a number of the provisions of the State Constitution, particularly Sections 1, 21, 42, 43, 44, 45, 70, 112, 134, 137, 139, 164 and 166.
In the outset it may be stated that the entire Act is highly remedial, and should be liberally and favorably treated and construed with reference to the evils it was intended to curb, and the highly beneficent aims that inspired its adoption. Chittenden v. Wurster, 152 N.Y. 345, 46 N.E. 857, 37 L.R.A. 809.
It is generally recognized that the legislature may enact laws providing that appointments to office, or to places of employment, according to merit and fitness, and that such merit and fitness shall be determined by examinations competitive, or otherwise. People ex rel. Akin v. Kipley, 171 Ill. 44, 49 N.E. 229, 41 L.R.A. 775.
(Italics supplied.) 5 R.C.L. p. 610, Sec. 3; People ex rel. v. McCullough, 254 Ill. 9, 98 N.E. 156, Ann.Cas.1913B, 995; Newcomb v. Indianapolis, 141 Ind. 451, 40 N.E. 919, 28 L.R.A. 732; People ex rel. Akin v. Kipley, supra; Rogers v. Buffalo, 123 N.Y. 173, 25 N.E. 274, 9 L.R.A. 579; State ex rel. Buell v. Frear, 146 Wis. 291, 131 N.W. 832, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 480; Goodrich v. Mitchell, 68 Kan. 765, 75 P. 1034, 64 L.R.A. 945, 104 Am.St.Rep. 429, 1 Ann.Cas. 288.
5 R.C.L. Sec. 5, p. 611; Ransom v. Boston, 192 Mass. 299, 78 N.E. 481, 7 Ann.Cas. 733; Hale v. Worstell, 185 N.Y. 247, 77 N.E. 1177, 113 Am.St.Rep. 895.
In the case of Conner v. Mayor, etc., 5 N.Y. 285, it was observed: (Italics supplied.)
In the case of State ex rel. Buell v. Frear, Secretary of State, 146 Wis. 291, 131 N.W. 832, 834, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 480, it is said, with reference to the civil service law of that state:
A public office is but a public agency; and the officer is but an agent of the public. The chief consideration in the selection of these agents should always be the public welfare, and the state can, when there are no constitutional limitations acting as barriers, undoubtedly fix and prescribe such qualifications for appointment as will best insure the selection of competent and capable servants.
In this connection, what was said by Mr. Justice Peckham, while serving on the Court of Appeals of New York, is so sound and so convincing that we here reproduce a part of his opinion, Rogers v. City of Buffalo, 123 N.Y. 173, 25 N.E. 274, 278, 9 L.R.A. 579:
A careful reading of the Constitution of Alabama will disclose nothing to indicate that the legislature, in dealing with offices and employments of its creation, did not possess a free hand in imposing qualifications upon those who would aspire to appointment to such offices and employments. The right to create necessarily carried with it the right to prescribe lawful qualifications, to the end that the state should be served only by capable and efficient public servants.
The foregoing will fully serve to demonstrate that it was within legislative competence to enact a Merit Service Law, and this brings us, therefore, to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gideon v. Alabama State Ethics Commission
...fact that the individuals involved in the instant case are public employees. Justice Knight, speaking for this Court in Heck v. Hall, 238 Ala. 274, 190 So. 280 (1939), a case which involved a constitutional challenge to the Merit System Act, held that the legislature has authority to impose......
-
Folsom v. Wynn
...clear standards governing the execution and administration. Nelson v. Donaldson, 248 Ala. at 122, 26 So.2d at 849; Heck v. Hall, 238 Ala. 274, 190 So. 280 (1939). The trial court held that the language of § 41-4-90 did not sufficiently limit the Governor's discretion in imposing proration o......
-
CITY OF DOTHAN PERSONNEL BD. v. DeVane
...Civil Service Act] is that there has been established a new procedure for this to be done for the purpose, as stated in Heck v. Hall, 238 Ala. 274, 190 So. 280 [(1939)], of promoting better government by attracting employees who are better qualified and who are assured of tenure so long as ......
-
City of Birmingham v. Graffeo
...v. Watson, 429 So.2d 1036 (Ala.1983) (emphasis added). See also Simpson v. Van Ryzin, 289 Ala. 22, 265 So.2d 569 (1972); Heck v. Hall, 238 Ala. 274, 190 So. 280 (1939). It is well settled that the legislature may abolish an office and thereby cut short the term of an officer. The trial cour......