Walker v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County

• Citation: 82 N.J.L. 348,82 A. 422
• Parties: WALKER et al. v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF ESSEX COUNTY et al.
• Decision Date: 20 February 1912
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

82 A. 422

82 N.J.L. 348

WALKER et al.

v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF ESSEX COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 20, 1912.

Certiorari by Herbert Walker and Pierre Black, removing resolutions of the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Resolutions set aside.

Argued January term, 1912, before TRENCHARD, MINTURN, and KALISCH, JJ.

Munn & Church, Frank W. Sommer, and T. D. Gottlieb, for prosecutors.

Benjamin F. Jones, for defendants.

MINTURN, J. The Legislature, in 1902, passed an act enabling counties, upon accepting it by a referendum vote, to reorganize their boards of freeholders. This act, commonly known as the "Strong Act" (P. L. 1902, p. 65), was amended at various intervals, and finally amended in 1909 (P. L. 1909, p. 294), when Essex county, upon a referendum vote taken on November 7, 1910, accepted it, and it thereby became operative in that county on January 1, 1912. The title of the original act was enlarged in 1909, so as to enable the board of freeholders to make appointments and to fix the "terms of office of officers appointed by such boards." By its sixth section, it terminates the terms of officers holding office, excepting certain specified appointees under appointment by the previous board, and prescribed a term of one year for all appointees of the new board.

The civil service act (P. L. 1908, p. 235) was adopted also by the electorate of Essex county at the same election, and went. Into effect immediately. That act embodies a public policy of civil administration, based upon qualifications of merit and fitness, for state, county, and municipal employment, and was held by the Court of Errors and Appeals to be applicable to the state service upon its enactment and approval. Attorney General v. McGuinness, 78 N. J. Law, 340, 75 Atl. 455. It became operative in the county upon its acceptance by the people on the referendum vote. Attorney General v. McGuinness, supra; In re Cleveland, 52 N. J. Law, 188, 19 Atl. 17, 7 L. R. A. 431.

In this legal environment, the new board of freeholders of Essex county thus created removed the two prosecutors, Walker and Black, from their employment in the county service, the one a bookkeeper and the other a clerk. This action was based upon the contention, now pressed upon the attention of this court, that the Strong act enables the new board to remove all appointees of the old board, declare vacancies generally, except in a few specified instances, and makes appointments to all offices and positions thus vacated for the statutory term of one year.

It would be futile to insist that the civil service act, passed in 1908, was repealed by the provisions of the Strong act, passed in 1902; but it is insisted, per contra, that the civil service act neither expressly nor by implication repeals the provisions of the Strong act. That it does not repeal it in express terms may be conceded. In counties where the civil service act has not been adopted, this question could not arise; for there the Strong act, in all its efficacy, would alone be applicable. But in Essex county, where the Legislature has enabled its electors to adopt both of these enactments at the same election, the. solution of this inquiry becomes a question of ascertaining the legislative intent.

The rule is fundamental that repeals by implication are not favored, and courts will never so construe laws, if by reasonable construction the entire product of the legislative will may stand. Hotel Reg. Realty Co. v. Stafford, 70 N. J. Law, 528, 57 Atl. 145.

These enactments must be considered, not as isolated and...