John Butler, Levi Reynolds, Junior and William Overfield, Late Board of Canal Commissioners of Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs In Errors v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Citation51 U.S. 402,10 How. 402,13 L.Ed. 472
PartiesJOHN B. BUTLER, LEVI REYNOLDS, JUNIOR, AND WILLIAM OVERFIELD, LATE BOARD OF CANAL COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA, PLAINTIFFS IN ERRORS, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Decision Date01 December 1850
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

51 U.S. 402
10 How. 402
13 L.Ed. 472
JOHN B. BUTLER, LEVI REYNOLDS, JUNIOR, AND WILLIAM
OVERFIELD, LATE BOARD OF CANAL COMMISSIONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PLAINTIFFS IN ERRORS,
v.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.
December Term, 1850

Page 403

THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.

The object was to test the constitutionality of an act passed by the legislature of Pennsylvania, on the 18th of April, 1843, entitled 'An Act to reduce the expenses and provide for the election of the Board of Canal Commissioners.' The allegation was, that the act was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

The plaintiffs in error were, on the 1st of February, 1843, severally appointed and commissioned by the Governor of Pennsylvania to be Canal Commissioners for one year, by separate commissions from the Governor, all of similar tenor and date, of one of which the following is a copy:——

'PENNSYLVANIA, SS.

'David R. Porter, Governor of the said Commonwealth, to John B. Butler sends greeting:

'Whereas, in and by an act of the General Assembly of this Commonwealth, passed the 28th day of January, 1836, the Governor is empowered and required, on or after the first day of February, 1836, and annually thereafter, to appoint three Canal Commissioners, and, in case of vacancy, to supply the same by new appointments, whose powers, duties, and compensation shall be the same as those of the (then) present board, and shall commence on the first day of February, 1836, and on the first day of February annually thereafter, and whose term of service shall continue for one year:

'Now, therefore, be it known, that, having full confidence in your integrity and ability, I, the said David R. Porter, Governor of said Commonwealth, in pursuance of the power and authority to me by law given, have, and by these presents do, appoint you, the said John B. Butler, to be a Canal Commissioner for the term of one year from the day of the date of these presents, if you shall so long behave yourself well. Hereby giving and granting to you, in conjunction with the other Commissioners, all the rights, powers, and emoluments of the said office, and authorizing and requiring you to unite with the said Commissioners in the execution and performance of all the duties of a Canal Commissioner, agreeably to the several laws of this Commonwealth.

'Given under my hand and the great seal of the said Commonwealth &c., the first day of February, A. D. 1843.'

Page 404

This appointment was made in pursuance of the act of Assembly passed 6th April, 1830 (Pamph. Laws, p. 218; Internal Improvement Laws, p. 65), and of the act of 28th January, 1836 (Pamph. Laws, 23; Int. Imp. Laws, 145).

The first of these acts (§ 1) provides, 'That on or before the first Monday of June next, and annually thereafter, the Governor shall appoint three Canal Commissioners, and, in case of vacancy, supply the same by new appointments, whose powers and duties shall be the same as those of the present board, and shall commence on the first Monday in June, and shall continue in office for one year, and who shall receive, as a full compensation for their services and expenses, the sum of four dollars each per day,' &c.

The second act provides, 'That it shall be the duty of the Governor, on or after the first day of February next (1836) and annually thereafter, to appoint three Canal Commissioners, and in case of vacancy supply the same by new appointments, whose powers, duties, and compensation shall be the same as the present board, and shall commence on the 1st of February next, and whose term of service shall continue for one year,' &c.

On the 18th day of April, 1843, the legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act in the following words, to wit:——

'An Act to reduce the expenses and provide for the election of the Board of Canal Commissioners.

'§ 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That, at the next annual election, the qualified voters of the several counties of this Commonwealth shall vote for three persons as Canal Commissioners, who shall perform all the duties now by law enjoined upon the Canal Commissioners of this Commonwealth; the persons so elected shall decide by drawing from a box ballots numbered one, two, and three, which of them shall hold his office one, which two, and which three years; the Commissioner who shall draw the ballot numbered three shall hold his office three years; he who shall draw the ballot numbered two shall hold his office two years; and the other shall hold his office one year; on the second Tuesday in October in each year thereafter, there shall be elected one person as Canal Commissioner, who shall hold his office for three years; the elections of Canal Commissioners shall be conducted by the officers authorized by law to conduct the general elections in the several election districts; a return of the votes given for said office shall be made to the Secretary

Page 405

of the Commonwealth, in the manner now provided for the transmission of returns of elections of Representatives; the Secretary of the Commonwealth, on receipt of all the returns, shall notify the persons so elected, who shall enter upon the duties of their office on the second Tuesday in January succeeding their election; if any vacancy shall occur in the said Board of Canal Commissioners by death, resignation, or otherwise, the Governor shall appoint a suitable person to supply the vacancy until the next general election, when a person shall be elected for the unexpired term of him whose death, resignation, or removal shall have caused a vacancy; and that the pay of the said Canal Commissioners, as well as the present Canal Commissioners, from and after the passage of this act, shall each be three dollars per day.'

The remaining sections are omitted, as relating to the subordinate officers.

At the annual election in October, 1843, three gentlemen were elected Canal Commissioners, who, on the 9th of January, 1844, assumed upon themselves the duties of the office to which they had been elected.

The plaintiffs error continued in the exercise of the duties of the office the said 9th day of January, 1844, and were ready and willing to serve out the balance of the term for which they were commissioned, but were then superseded by the persons elected in October, 1843, pursuant to the said statute of 18th April, 1843.

On the 22d of March, 1844, the Auditor-General and State Treasurer settled the accounts of the plaintiffs in error, as late Canal Commissioners, in which they allowed them each $4 per day from 1st February, 1843, to 18th April, 1843, inclusive, and $3 per day from 18th April, 1843, to 8th January, 1844, resulting in a balance due the Commonwealth of $1,071.

From this settlement the plaintiffs in error appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, pursuant to the provisions of the act of Assembly.

The cause came on for trial in the Common Pleas of Dauphin County, on the 25th of October, 1847, when the foregoing facts were given in evidence, when the court charged the jury as follows:——

'The defendants were appointed Canal Commissioners for the term of one year, commencing on the first day of February, 1843, at which time their compensation was fixed by law at four dollars per day. On the 18th of April, 1843, the legislature, by an act entitled 'An Act to reduce the expenses, and provide for the election of Canal Commissioners' (Pamphlet

Page 406

Laws of 1843, p. 337), reduced the pay of Canal Commissioners from four to three dollars per day. The Auditor-General and State Treasurer settled the accounts of the Canal Commissioners in pursuance of this act. The Canal Commissioners contend that this act is unconstitutional, so far as it relates to reducing their pay after their appointment to office; and this is the only question that is presented in this case. The court instruct the jury that the act in question is not unconstitutional; and, as there is no other dispute, they should find for the Commonwealth. To this charge the defendants' counsel excepts; and it is filed at their request.

'N. B. ELDRED, Pres. Judge.'

The jury, under this charge, found a verdict in favor of the Commonwealth for $1,301.26, the amount stated to be due from the plaintiffs in error by the Auditor-General and State Treasurer, with interest accrued thereon.

The Commissioners carried the case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which, on the 30th of June, 1848, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

A writ of error brought the case up to this court.

It was argued by Mr. J. M. Porter, for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Alricks, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Porter, for the plaintiffs in error, made the following points:——

That the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania erred in affirming the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, in that state, at the suit of Common Pleas of Dauphin against the plaintiffs in error, as the act of Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, passed upon the 18th day of April, 1843, entitled 'An Act to reduce the expenses and provide for the election of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
169 cases
  • Fugate v. Weston
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 19 Marzo 1931
    .......         John R. Saunders, Attorney-General, and Edwin H. ... of the said county of Lee and the Commonwealth of Virginia, with all powers and rights and ...586, 18 S.Ct. 435, 42 L.Ed. 866; Butler Pennsylvania, 10 Howard (U.S.) 402, 13 L.Ed. 472. ... been given power to remove police commissioners of cities for cause, and in referring to this ...This is the character of the power of the board of control as considered in Farm Investment Co. ......
  • White v. Worth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 22 Abril 1900
    ...there was or could be, from the nature of things, any property or contract as to a public office, —notably, in Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 402, 13 L. Ed. 472; Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 548, 25 L. Ed. 710; Crenshaw v. U. S., 134 U. S. 99, 10 Sup. Ct. 431, 33 L. Ed. 825. See quot......
  • Chambers v. United States
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • 15 Octubre 1971
    ......C., attorney of record for plaintiff. John Silard, Rauh & Silard, Washington, D. C., of ... further to the Civil Service Commission Board of Appeals and Review (BAR). She asked for ... we have many times awarded back pay to plaintiffs, both military and civilian, who demonstrated a ...Butler v. Pennsylvania, supra 10 How. 402, 13 L.Ed. ...Pennsylvania, supra ; Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U.S. 548 25 L.Ed. 710; Blake v. United ......
  • Katzenbach v. Morgan New York City Board of Elections v. Morgan
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 13 Junio 1966
    ...... v. . John P. MORGAN and Christine Morgan. NEW YORK CITY ... Hernandez Colon, Ponce, P.R., for Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as amicus curiae. . ...Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d ...Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S.Ct. 992, 32 L.Ed. 253; ... statutes are given a similar presumption, Butler v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 10 How. 402, 415, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT