People ex rel. New York Inst. For the Blind v. Fitch

• Decision Date: 12 October 1897
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK INSTITUTION FOR THE BLIND v. FITCH, Comptroller.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

154 N.Y. 14

47 N.E. 983

PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK INSTITUTION FOR THE BLIND

v.FITCH, Comptroller.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 12, 1897.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, First department.

Mandamus by the people, on the relation of the New York Institution for the Blind, directing Ashbel P. Fitch, comptroller of the city of New York, to audit and pay the claim of the relator for clothing furnished such of its inmates as resided in the city and county of New York. A judgment granting a peremptory writ was affirmed by the appellate division (42 N. Y. Supp. 1131), and respondent appeals. Reversed.

O'Brien, J., dissenting.

T. E. Hancock and Francis M. Scott, for appellant.

John M. Bowers, for respondent.

MARTIN, J.

The question presented in this case involves the consideration and construction of certain provisions of the constitution and of the statutes by which the relator was organized and continued, and by which it has been supported and the management of its affairs controlled. These provisions of the constitution are new, having gone into operation on the 1st day of January, 1895. So far as applicable here, they provide: ‘Neither the credit nor the money of the state shall be given or loaned to or in aid of any association, corporation or private undertaking. This section shall not, however, prevent the legislature from making such provision for the education and support of the blind, the deaf and dumb, and juvenile delinquents, as to it may seem proper.’ Article 8, § 9. ‘No county, city, town or village shall hereafter give any money or property, or loan its money or credit to or in aid of any individual, association or corporation, or become directly or indirectly the owner of stock in, or bonds of, any associationor corporation; nor shall any such county, city, town or village be allowed to incur any indebtedness except for county, city, town or village purposes. This section shall not prevent such county, city, town or village from making such provision for the aid or support of its poor as may be authorized by law.’ Article 8, § 10. Section 11 of article 8 provides for a state board of charities, which shall visit and inspect all institutions of a charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory character, except those for the insane and adult criminals. Section 13 provides that the visitation and inspection provided for therein shall not be exclusive of other visitation and inspection (then) now authorized by law. Section 14 declares: ‘Nothing in this constitution contained shall prevent the legislature from making such provision for the education and support of the blind, the deaf and dumb, and juvenile delinquents, as to it may seem proper; or prevent any county, city, town or village from providing for the care, support, maintenance and secular education, of inmates of orphan asylums, homes for dependent children or correctional institutions, whether under public or private control. Payments by counties, cities, towns and villages to charitable, eleemosynary, correctional and reformatory institutions, wholly or partly under private control, for care, support and maintenance, may be authorized, but shall not be required by the legislature. No such payments shall be made for any inmate of such institutions who is not received and retained therein pursuant to rules established by the state board of charities. Such rules shall be subject to the control of the legislature by general laws.’ After the adoption of the amended constitution the legislature enacted a statute which, in substance, authorized the administrative boards or officers of counties, towns and municipalities, in their discretion, to appropriate and pay to charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory institutions, wholly or partly under private control, for the care, support, and maintenance of inmates, but to be made only for such as were received and retained pursuant to rules established by the state board of charities. Laws 1895, c. 754. In the same year the legislature passed an act to revise and consolidate the laws relating to that board, which, in substance, declared that it should be its duty to visit, inspect, and maintain a general supervision of all institutions, societies, or associations which were of a charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory character, whether state or municipal, incorporated or not incorporated, which were made subject to its supervision by the constitution; that the institutions subject to its supervision should include all institutions, societies, and associations which were of a charitable, eleemosynart, reformatory, or correctional character or design; and that institutions for the deaf and dumb and blind should be subject to such visitation and inspection by the state board of charities as the constitution provides. Laws 1895, c. 771, §§ 2, 9, 11. It is upon these provisions of the constitution and statutes that the appellant relies. His claim is that, as the inmates of the relator were not received or retained by it pursuant to the rules established by the board of charities, it was not entitled to the relief which has been awarded. That the relator was wholly or partly under private control, and that the inmates for whose clothing it seeks to recover were not so received or retained, are admitted.

This court has already held that the provisions of the constitution relating to this subject operated presently, so that, from the time rules were established by the state board of charities, no payments for inmates not received or retained in pursuance thereof would be justified. People v. Comptroller of City of Brooklyn, 152 N. Y. 399, 46 N. E. 852. Indeed, it is practically conceded by both parties that if the relator is a charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory institution, the decisions of the courts below were incorrect, and the orders appealed from should be reversed. That it is either a correctional or reformatory institution is claimed by neither. Thus, the single question to be determined by this court is whether the relator is a charitable or eleemosynary institution. To a proper understanding of that question, it is necessary to ascertain the nature of the New York Institution for the Blind, and the purpose for which it was organized and continued. To that end, a brief history of its organization, the management of its affairs, the manner in which it has been supported, and the class of persons who have been its inmates, seems to be required:

In 1831 Dr. Ackley, who had previously been active in organizing and carrying into operation institutions for the education of the deaf and dumb, turned his attention to the matter of the instruction of the blind. Associating with himself a number of other benevolent gentlemen, they sought to establish an institution wherein the unfortunate blind might be educated, and at the same time learn some useful trade or business by which to obtain a livelihood in after years. With this object in view, they procured the institution of the relator to be organized under and by chapter 214 of the Laws of that year. The purpose of its organization, as stated in that act, was the instruction of children who were born blind, or might have become so by disease or accident, and it required the institution to apply its funds or property to that purpose alone. Its first work seems to have been commenced that year in a small room in Canal street, where children taken from the almshouse were instructed under the control of Dr. John D. Russ, who remained in charge of the institution until its utility was established. Its first president was Samuel Ackley, and there were associated with him, as managers and officers of the institution, gentlemen whose known philanthropy was such as to show quite plainly that the purpose of the institution was a benevolent one, and that it was not intended to be one of profit to the corporators. Although the education of the blind had previously been, to some extent, successfully attempted in Europe, the relator seems to have been a pioneer in that work in this country. An institution had been organized in 1829 in Massachusetts, through the exertions of Dr. John D. Foster, under the name of the New England Asylum for the Blind, which was subsequently known as the Perkins Institution and Massachusetts Asylum for the Blind, but it was not opened until 1832. It was first under the charge of Dr. Samuel D. Howe, who commenced in a private house on Pleasant street, in the city of Boston, with six pupils. In 1833 a similar institution was organized in Philadelphia through the efforts of Robert Vaux. Thus, the idea of organizing special institutions for the instruction of the blind seems to have occurred to humane and benevolent persons in New England, New York, and Philadelphia at about the same time, and without any apparent concert of action. All these institutions were organized and carried into operation through the efforts of the benevolent, and to accomplish a work of charity that had hitherto been neglected in this country.

In 1834 (chapter 316) the relator was authorized to receive four indigent blind persons from each ‘senate’ district, in like manner and at like expense to the state as provided by law for the indigent deaf and dumb. Such indigent blind persons, besides their literary or school education, were to be instructed in some trade or employment taught and carried on in the institution. At that time the deaf and dumb were furnished with board, lodging, and tuition, for which the state paid the institution in which they were maintained and educated. Laws 1822, c. 234; Laws 1830, c. 170. In 1836 (chapter 226) $12,000 was appropriated, to be paid to the relator, to purchase in fee simple the two acres of ground occupied by it, and to defray the expenses of repairing the buildings thereon, the conveyance to be made to the state; and it was to receive...