People ex rel. Sellers v. Brady

• Decision Date: 23 April 1914
• Docket Number: No. 9357.,9357.
• Citation: 262 Ill. 578,105 N.E. 1
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. SELLERS v. BRADY et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

262 Ill. 578

105 N.E. 1

PEOPLE ex rel. SELLERS

v.BRADY et al.

No. 9357.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 23, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Thomas G. Windes, Judge.

Petition by the People on the relation of Mary A. Sellers, for a writ of mandamus, against James J. Brady, Auditor, and others. From a judgment issuing the writ, respondents appeal. Affirmed.P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., Lester H. Strawn, of Ottawa, and George P. Ramsey, of Springfield (John J. Poulton and Thomas J. Young, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Joseph M. Connery, Arthur E. Gammage, and Ednyfed H. Williams, all of Chicago (Edgar A. Bancroft and Russell Whitman, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

CARTER, J.

Mary A. Sellers filed her petition for a writ of mandamus in the circuit court of Cook county in October, 1913, against James J. Brady, as auditor of public accounts of the state of Illinois, William Ryan, Jr., state treasurer, and the civil service commissioners of the state, praying that mandamus issue against said defendants commanding them to restore relator to her position as stenographer in the Chicago office of the auditor of public accounts and to cause a warrant to be drawn on the state treasurer for the amount due her from July 1, 1913. Answers and replications were filed. After a hearing the trial court ordered that a writ of mandamus issue, commanding said auditor to reinstate the relator, within one day from the entry of said order, to said position of stenographer, and within five days to sign his warrant as such auditor, payable to relator, for the sum of $506.66, and commanding said state treasurer to countersign said warrant upon presentation and pay said relator said sum. From this judgment the auditor and state treasurer appealed to this court.

It appears from the record that the relator, Mary A. Sellers, had been prior to and was on July 1, 1913, employed as a stenographer in the Chicago office of the auditor of public accounts; that being the date the amendment to the State Civil Service Law, governing, as she contends, that position, went into effect. Laws of 1911, p. 222. It is contended by appellee that under said law she was placed in the classified civil service of the state without an examination.It further appears that the auditor of public accounts on June 5, 1913, requested relator to resign, to take effect July 1, 1913; that she refused so to do; and that on said last mentioned date the auditor appointed one Thyra Cleary to the position formerly occupied by appellee. Without attempting to set out all the facts as to her efforts to retain said position of employment in the auditor's office, we deem it sufficient to state that if said act of 1911 is constitutional, and appellee was by its terms placed in the classified list, the judgment of the trial court should be sustained. It should be added that the state civil service commissioners concede the constitutionality of the act and admit that appellee is within the classified list of said act and they have refused to acknowledge the legality of the appointment of Thyra Cleary.

[1] Appellants urge the unconstitutionality of this statute on several grounds. The first and principal one is that said amendment of 1911 to the State Civil Service Act was not passed in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution as to printing certain amendments, as said provisions have been construed by this court in Neiberger v. McCullough, 253 Ill. 312, 97 N. E. 660. Counsel for appellee argue that this question, as well as practically all the other constitutional questions raised by appellants, is not now an open one in this court, as this act was held constitutional in People v. McCullough, 254 Ill. 9, 98 N. E. 156, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 995; that in that case the constitutionality of this act was attacked; that it was there held that the employés under the Secretary of State were not his employés but the employés of the state, engaged not in his work but in the work of the state, a public and not a private service; that under the reasoning of this court on a very similar question in Greenberg v. City of Chicago, 256 Ill. 213, 99 N. E. 1039,Richter v. Burdock, 257 Ill. 410, 100 N. E. 1063,Kennedy v. Neeves, 258 Ill. 24, 101 N. E. 245, and Gifford v. Culver, 261 Ill. 530, 104 N. E. 147, appellants and every one else are precluded by the decision in People v. McCullough, supra, from questioning the constitutionality of said amendment of 1911 to the State Civil Service Law. It would be difficult, after holding the act constitutional in People v. McCullough, supra, to now hold it unconstitutional, and in so doing not overrule the reasoning in Greenberg v. City of Chicago, and the other cases just referred to on this point. However, as we deem the law constitutional as to the other grounds urged and do not base our decision solely on the ground that this law has heretofore been held constitutional, we shall not further discuss that question.

Counsel for appellants contend that while the said act of 1911, which originated in the house of representatives, legally passed that body before it was acted upon by the Senate, certain of the senate amendments were never printed in either house. Certified copies of the original journals of both houses with reference to this bill (known as House Bill No. 47), so far as they affect the question under consideration, were introduced in evidence. After the bill had passed the House it was sent to the Senate, and the journal of that body shows that on the date of its receipt it ‘was taken up and read at large a first time, ordered printed, and under the rules' referred to the committee on civil service. Three days later (April 28) the journal shows that the chairman of the senate committee on civil service reported the same back with amendments, and recommended that the ‘amendments be adopted and that the bill as amended do pass. Under the rules the bill was ordered to a second reading and to be printed with the amendments.’ May 2d, by unanimous consent, it was made a special order for second reading on May 3d. On that day the journal shows that it ‘was taken up and read at large a second time, together with the following amendments thereto, reported from the committee on civil service.’ Then follow seven amendments. The journal, in setting out each amendment, opens with, ‘Amend printed bill,’ and then follows a statement of how it shall be amended. The journal then recites the adoption of the first three amendments, without reference to whether they were printed or not. The fourth amendment was then taken up, and the journal shows that a senator offered an amendment to that amendment, which read: ‘Amend the fourth committee amendment by inserting after the word ‘wardens,’ in line 13 of the printed amendment, the words' (then stating certain changes). Another amendment was thereupon offered as a substitute, which was adopted. The fifth amendment was then taken up and rejected. The sixth amendment was then taken up and after being amended was adopted. Then the seventh amendment was taken up and amended in certain particulars. There is a question raised as to whether this amendment, as amended, was adopted. We shall discuss that later. Thereafter another amendment was offered to the bill, which was lost. Another amendment was then offered, with reference to which the journal reads, ‘Strike out section 1 of said printed bill, as amended, and insert in lieu thereof the following’ (setting forth the proposed substitute). Pending the vote on this, it was decided to postpone the further consideration of the bill and pending amendments until May 4th. On that day the bill was taken up on the pending question as to substituting an amendment for section 11. Before the vote was taken on that question another substitute for the amendment was offered; the journal reading: ‘Strike out of section 11 of printed House Bill No. 47 as amended in Senate and insert in lieu thereof the following’ (then giving the substitute). On vote the substitute was adopted. Farther on the journal reads: ‘The question then being, ‘Shall the bill be ordered to a third reading and the amendments printed?’ it was decided in the affirmative.' The journal shows then that by unanimous consent, on motion, ‘the consideration of House Bill No. 47 [describing it without reference to the amendments made in the Senate] was made a special order for Tuesday, May 9.’ On May 9th the journal shows that the presiding officer announced the special order to be ‘the consideration of House Bill No. 47 [describing it without any reference to the amendments made in the Senate] on the order of third reading. By unanimous consent Mr. Magill offered the following amendment to the bill, which was adopted: Amend section 11 by adding the following: ‘Provided, that in the University of Illinois and the normal schools students may be employed under the rules of the civil service commission without examination or certification, and a private secretary or stenographer in the offices of the dean of men and the dean of women of the University of Illinois shall not be included in the classified service.’ And the bill, having been printed, was taken up and read at large a third time. And the question being, ‘Shall this bill pass, together with senate amendments thereto?’ it was decided in the affirmative by the following vote' (then follow the names of those voting).

The copy of the House Journal with reference to said senate amendments is shown. It does not indicate whether said amendments were printed in the House or not, but shows that the six amendments adopted by the Senate were concurred in by the House.

Do these minutes that we have quoted from the journal of the Senate show that the bill, with the senate amendments, was printed before being acted upon by that body? When said bill was ordered to a second reading in the Senate the journal shows that the bill,...