People ex rel. Duffy v. Hurley

• Decision Date: 24 March 1949
• Docket Number: No. 30789.,30789.
• Citation: People ex rel. Duffy v. Hurley, 402 Ill. 562, 85 N.E.2d 26 (Ill. 1949)
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. DUFFY v. HURLEY et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

402 Ill. 562

85 N.E.2d 26

PEOPLE ex rel. DUFFY

v.HURLEY et al.

No. 30789.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 24, 1949.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Harry M. Fisher, Judge.

Proceeding by the People, on the relation of Tracy Duffy, against Stephen E. Hurley and others, to compel respondents to restore relator to his proper relative standing on promotional eligible lists for position of police lieutenant in city of Chicago. From judgment awarding the writ of mandamus, the respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

Benjamin S. Adamowski, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (L. Louis Karton and Sydney R. Drebin, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Lane, Duffy, & Connell, of Chicago (Eugene F. Connell and Thomas J. Duffy, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

DAILY, Justice.

This is an appeal which in effect seeks to determine the validity of the 1947 amendments to section 10 1/2 of the City Civil Service Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1947, chap. 24 1/2, par. 49, by which military credits were awarded to persons on promotional eligible lists of cities operating under the act. Appellee, Tracy Duffy, is a police sergeant in the city of Chicago who successfully passed the examinations for the position of police lieutenant in May, 1941. He was then placed number 128 on the promotional eligible list and by September 9, 1947, had progressed to number 9. On the latter date, as a result of military credits given to others on the list, certain of the eligibles were advanced, and Duffy, a nonveteran, was lowered to position number 17. Thereafter, Duffy filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court of Cook County, in which he alleged the invalidity of the amendments upon which the award of military credits was based or, in the alternative, their inapplicability to persons on existing promotional eligible registers. He prayed that the civil service commission and the police commissioner of Chicago, whom he named as respondents, be compelled to restore him to his proper relative standing on the list. Respondents filed an answer alleging that they gave military credit only in conformity with the City Civil Service Act as amended, and denied that such amendments were invalid. The circuit court, after a hearing, ordered that a writ of mandamus issue as prayed. From that judgment the civil service commission and the police commissioner appeal to this court.

The statutory amendments put into issue by the pleadings are two which were adopted by the 1947 General Assembly, both purporting to amend the aforesaid section 10 1/2 of the City Civil Service Act. They will be designated herein by the titles given them on their introduction before the legislature. Senate Bill 625 was introduced in the Senate on June 2, 1947, was approved by the legislature on June 28, 1947, and by the Governor on July 21, 1947. House Bill 692 was introduced in the House on May 13, 1947, was approved by the legislature on June 30, 1947, and by the Governor on August 8, 1947. Both related to giving preference and advantage to persons under civil service who had rendered military service in past wars.

The pertinent provisions of Senate Bill 625 Laws of 1947, p. 639, are as follows: ‘Every member of the classified civil service of any city, town, or village coming under the provisions of this Act, who was called to, or who volunteered for the military or naval service of the United States at any time during the years hereinbefore specified or at any time between September 16, 1940 and the termination of World War II, and who was honorably discharged therefrom or who is now or may hereafter be on inactive or reserve duty in such military or naval service, not including, however, persons who were convicted by courtmartial of disobedience of orders where such disobedience consisted in the refusal to perform military service on the ground of alleged religious or conscientious objections against war, and whose name appears on existing promotional eligible registers or any promotional eligible register that may hereafter be created by examination as provided for by this Act, shall, in addition to all other credits for ascertained merits (efficiency), experience and seniority in the service, be given an additional credit in promotional examinations of one per cent (1%) (on the basis of 100%) for each six months or fraction thereof of such military or naval service; and, provided, further that such additional credit shall not be computed so as to increase or decrease the rating allotted to any person competing in such examination for ascertained merits (efficiency) or seniority in service. And provided further, that no person shall be given such additional credits in the promotional examination for more than eighteen months of such military or naval service.’

House Bill 692, Laws of 1947, p. 640, provides as follows: ‘Sec. 10 1/2. Persons who were engaged in the military, or naval service of the United States during the years 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, or 1919, or any time between September 16, 1940 and the termination of World War II, and who were honorably discharged therefrom, and all persons who were engaged in such military or naval service during any of said years, or any time between September 16, 1940 and the termination of World War II, who are now or may hereafter be on inactive or reserve duty in such military or naval service, not including, however, persons who were convicted by court-martial of disobedience of orders, where such disobedience consisted in the refusal to perform military service on the ground of alleged religious or conscientious objections against war shall be preferred for appointments to civil offices, provided they are found to possess the business capacity necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of such office, and it shall be the duty of the examiner or commissioner certifying the list of eligibles who have taken the examinations provided for in this Act, to place the name or names of such persons at the head of the list of eligibles certified for appointment, provided, however, that this shall not apply to promotions provided for in section 9 hereof, but in such promotions such person or persons shall be given an additional credit in the promotional examination of one per cent (1%) (on the basis of 100%) for each six months or fraction thereof of such military or naval service; and, provided, further that such additional credit shall not be computed so as to increase or decrease the rating allotted to any person competing in such examination for ascertained merits (efficiency) in seniority in service. And provided further, that no person shall be given such additional credits in the promotional examination for more than thirty months of such military or naval service.’

Appellee, in his action in the trial court and in his argument before this court, makes two attacks on these amendments to the act, contending (1) that the two bills are repugnant and cannot be read together, and this being so, that the House Bill repealed the Senate Bill for the reason that it was approved on a later day by the legislature and the Governor, or if read together they must be interpreted as showing a legislative intent that military service is to be credited only at the time of promotional examinations, and cannot be credited to persons on existing promotional eligibility lists; (2) that the 1947 amendments are unconstitutional in that they delegate legislative power to the civil service commission, and give the commission no intelligible standard to guide them in complying with the requirements of the act. Appellants, on the other hand, urge that the amendments may be construed so as to give effect to both, and that they do not constitute a delegation of legislative power to the commission.

As to the first point, suffice it to say at this time that we are of the opinion that the two amendments are not repugnant, can be read together, and that under authority of the Senate Bill, military credit may be awarded to persons on existing promotional eligibility lists. We refrain from a detailed discussion on such point because we are of the opinion that both amendments are invalid because they illegally delegate legislative power to the civil service commission.

In our consideration of other statutes alleged to be illegal as unwarranted delegations of legislative power, we have held that an act, to be valid, must not be vague, indefinite and uncertain. As pointed out in Krebs v. Thompson, 387 Ill. 471, 56 N.E.2d 761, it must be complete when it leaves the legislature and be sufficiently explicit to advise everyone of what his rights are under the act and how he will be affected by its operation. Chicagoland Agencies v. Palmer, 364 Ill. 13, 2 N.E.2d 910. Statutes which are so incomplete, vague, indefinite and uncertain that men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at their meaning and differ as to their application, have uniformly been declared unconstitutional as denying due process. Triner Corporation v. McNeil, 363 Ill. 559, 2 N.E.2d 929, 104 A.L.R. 1435;Parks v. Libby-Owens-Ford Glass Co., 360 Ill. 130, 195 N.E. 616. For a statute to be held valid the duty imposed by it must be prescribed in terms definite enough to serve as a guide to those who have the duty imposed upon them. Vallat v. Radium Dial Co., 360 Ill. 407, 196 N.E. 485, 99 A.L.R. 607. If the law leaves to a ministerial officer the definition of the thing to which it shall apply, such definition not being commonly known, it is invalid as an unwarranted and void delegation of legislative power to an administrative officer. People v. Yonker, 351 Ill. 139, 184 N.E. 228;Mayhew v. Nelson, 346 Ill. 381, 178 N.E. 921;Welton v. Hamilton, 344 Ill. 82, 176 N.E. 333.

It is appellee's contention that the duty imposed upon the civil service commission by Senate Bill 625 to award military credit is so...