Mangam v. City of Brooklyn (98 N.Y. 585, 1885)

Huger, Ch. J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum. of $100, for each of the years 1879, 1880, 1881 and 1882, as the balance of her intestate’s salary as policeman in the city of Brooklyn, alleged to be remaining unpaid by the defendant. Said intestate was appointed policeman prior to 1877. The claim is made by virtue of the charter of that city,' appearing in chapter 863, Laws of 1873, which fixed the compensation of patrolman at the sum of $1,100 per annum. It is answered to this claim that the common council of Brooklyn, by virtue of authority conferred upon them in chapter 459, Laws of 1877, have reduced the annual compensation payable to patrolmen in that city, from $1,100 to $1,000. It is also claimed that the same reduction was effected by chapter 467 of the Laws of 1879. If the validity of the reduction made under either authority is established, it constitutes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action. The appellant asserts, however, that these acts do not affect the questions in dispute, for the reasons:

First. That both of them were, by their terms, restricted to officers to be thereafter elected or appointed; and

Second. In case the first proposition fails, that such acts are obnoxious to the provisions of section 18, article 3 of the Con stitution, as being local bills, and “ creating, increasing or decreasing fees, percentage or allowances of public officers during the term for which said officers are elected or appointed.”

The first proposition depends upon the meaning and effect to be ascribed to the following sections of the acts in question: Section 6 of chapter 459, Laws of 1877, and section 7 of chapter 467 of the Laws of 1879, is similar, reads as follows : “ The provisions of this act shall not apply to any officers, who, under the provisions of the Constitution, cannot have their fees, percentages or allowances increased or diminished during their present terms of offices; but said provisions shall apply to all of those hereafter elected or appointed to perform any service within the city of Brooklyn.” The language of this section is upon its face ambiguous and equivocal, and requires an inquiry into its meaning before the provisions of the act can be understandingly enforced.

In a proper sense there are no public officers in the State, whose compensation may not be increased or diminished by the legislature during their terms of office, except those of governor, lieutenant-governor and other State officers named in the Constitution, judges of the Court of Appeals and justices of the Supreme Court, county judges and surrogates. These are, by the terms of the Constitution, expressly exempted from the power of the legislature to diminish, and in some cases to increase, during their existing terms. ¡None of these persons, however, are officers of the city of Brooklyn or paid from its treasury, and they are not, therefore, the officers referred to by the acts in question. All other public officers are subject to the power of the legislature to increase or diminish their compensation at any time, provided it be done by gen eral law. In a strict sense, therefore, the language of this exception does not apply to the officers in question, for the inhibition is against such legislation by local or private bills only, and not to enactments accomplishing these objects by general law.

In accordance with settled canons for the construction of statutes, however, some effect must be given to all of the language employed in framing them, * provided the intent of the legislature is discoverable from the words employed, or other sources of information open to the consideration of the court, and such construction is reasonable and does not lead to absurd or unjust results.

It is quite obvious, from the language of the act, that the legislature had in mind section 18 of article 3 of the Constitution in framing it, because they use the precise language employed in that section in describing the class of officers who are not to be affected by its provisions. Thus, they say it is those officers “ who, under the provisions of the Constitution, cannot have their fees, percentage or allowances increased or diminished during their present terms in office.” This language is used in section 18, article 3, and in no other place in the Constitution, and unless held to apply to that section, it must be denied any application whatever. It does not follow, from this circumstance, however, that we must give it the effect claimed for it by the appellant. It is quite clear, if the legislature intended the provisions of the act to apply only to future elected officers, that any reference to the constitutional provision was utterly unnecessary, as their power of legislation over that subject was undeniable. It is also quite obvious, from the inclusion of the official names of the officers in question in the provisions of the act, and the clauses specially providing that the amount of their compensation should be left to the power of the common council to regulate, that the legislature did not suppose they were transcending their constitutional power in legislating as they did. If the legislature had intended that the act should affect subsequently-elected or appointed officers only, they would have said so directly, and 'omitted all reference to the constitutional provisions.

It would seem, therefore, that the first' clause of section 6 was inserted merely as a tentative provision . to save the act from possible condemnation as being in conflict with the Constitution.

It is evident, from the consideration suggested, that no conclusive inference can be drawn from the insertion of the clause in question, that the legislature intended thereby to exempt officers from the operations of the act who would otherwise be included in its provisions, but it would seem that they intended to leave the act open in that respect, to he determined by the solution of the question as to their constitutional power to pass it. The act is clearly hypothetical, and its true reading, if paraphrased according to its apparent object and meaning, would be as follows: This act shall not affect any officers named therein whose compensation cannot constitutionally be increased or diminished during their existing terms; and if so read, there is afforded no room for the contention that the legislature intended thereby to exempt the existing police force from its operation.

We thus arrive at the question whether the statutes referred to violate section 18 of article 3 of the Constitution.

It is quite certain that the act of 1877 does not infringe upon its letter, and it is only by a resort to principles of construction that the appellant can hope to nullify its provisions.

The Constitution prohibits the legislature, by local or private bills, from increasing or diminishing the “ fees, percentage or allowances ” of certain officers during existing terms of office. The act of 1877 refers only to salaries, and does not purport, in itself, either to increase or diminish those, but attempts only to confer power upon the common council to fix and regulate such salaries as are payable from the municipal treasury.

The appellant claims, however, that the act is within the spirit and meaning of the constitutional provisions, and that, therefore, the attempt, by the common council, to reduce the patrolmen’s salaries was ineffectual. The rules applicable to the construction of constitutional provisions are the same generally as those applying to statutes, and the object in both cases is to arrive at the intention of the law makers.

If the meaning of a given provision be clear and unambiguous, and leads to no absurd or unjust result, it leaves no room for the application of rules of interpretation, and must, therefore, be enforced according to its letter and spirit. (Potter’s Dwarris on Stat. and Const. 9; Jackson v. Lewis, 17 Johns. 475.) It was said in Newell v. People (3 Seld. 97), “ whether we are considering an agreement between parties, a statute, or a constitution, with a view to its interpretation, the thing we are to seek is the thought which it expresses. To ascertain this the first resort in all cases is to the natural signification of the words employed in the order and grammatical arrangement in which the framers of the instrument have placed them. If thus regarded, the words embody a definite meaning which involves no absurdity and no contradiction between different parts of the same writing, then that meaning upon the face of the instrument is the one which alone we are at liberty to say was intended to be conveyed.” (See, also, McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N. Y. 602; Johnson v. H. R. R. R. Co., 49 id. 455.) If the words used in a statute are susceptible of different meanings, that one must be ascribed to them which accords with the natural and obvious signification and import of the language used. For the purpose of arriving at an understanding of its signification, it is the duty of the courts to examine the whole act, and by a comparison of, and a consideration of its various clauses and provisions, determine the meaning of any doubtful or ambiguous phraseology used therein.' (Beebee v. Griffing, 14 N. Y. 244.) But where the same words are used in different parts of the same act, in connection with the same subject-matter, it is contrary to settled rules of construction to give them different meaning, in the several places where they occur. It was said by Lord Denman in Reg. v. The Com. of the Poor Laws (cited in Potter’s Dwarris, 195): “ We disclaim altogether the assumption of any right to assign different meanings to the same words in an act of Parliament on the ground of a supposed general intention in the act, we think it necessary to give a fair and reasonable construction to the language used by the legislature ; but we are not to assume the unwarrantable liberty of varying that construction for the purpose of making the act consistent with any views of our own.” Following the rule referred tp in examining the question presented for our consideration, we can see no reasonable ground for holding that salaries of public officers are included in the provision in question.

The omission of the word “ salaries,” and the use of the rather uncommon word “ allowances ” in section 18, considered by itself, would be quite significant, and suggestive of great doubt as to the real signification of the provision; but when considered in connection with other occasions where the framers of the Constitution and the law-makers have been called upon to express themselves on the subject of payments to public servants, we shall find a uniform and invariable use of language, showing that' the respective phrases of “compensation,” “salary,” and “ allowances” have been used discriminatingly by them, and with a perfect understanding of their true meaning. Thus we find that the Constitution provides that “ each member of the legislature shall receive for his services an annual salary of $1,500 ; ” but senators, when serving as members of the court for the trial of impeachments, and such members of the assembly as shall be appointed managers of an impeachment, “ shall receive an additional allowance of $10 a day.” (§ 6, art. 3.) The governor “ shall receive for his services an annual salary.” (§ 4, art. 4.) The lieutenant-governor shall receive for his services an annual salary, “ and shall not receive or be entitled to any other compensation, fee, or perquisite for any duty or service he may be required to perform by the Constitution or the law.” (§ 8, art. 4.) The secretary of State, comptroller, treasurer and attorney-general shall each “ receive for his services a compensation which shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he shall have been elected.” (§ 1, art. 5.) A superintendent of public works “ shall receive a compensation to be fixed by law.” (§ 3, art.’ 5.) Three deputy superintendents “ shall receive for their services a compensation to be fixed by law. (Id.) Judges of the Court of Appeals, - and justices of the Supreme Court “ shall receive for their services a. compensation to be established by law, which shall not be diminished during their official terms.” (§ 14, art. 6.) It is provided for the county judge that “ his salary, and the salary of the surrogate, when elected as a separate officer, shall be established by law,” and “ shall not be diminished during his term of office.” (§ 15, art. 6.) The compensation of the clerk of the Court of Appeals “shall be fixed by law.” (§ 20, art. 6.)

“No officer whose salary is fixed by the Constitution shall receive any additional compensation. Each of the other State officers named in the Constitution shall, during his continuance in office, receive a compensation to be fixed by law, which shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he shall have been elected or appointed, nor shall he receive to his use any fees or perquisites of office, or other compensation.” (§ 9, art. 10.)

“ Judicial officers in office when this Constitution shall take effect may continue to receive such fees and perquisites of office as are now authorized bylaw, until the first day of July, 1847.” (§ 11, art. 14.) “ Any person holding office under the laws of this State, who, except in payment of his legal salary, fees or perquisites,” shall receive, or consent to receive,