97 N.Y.S. 433 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1906
We are required, in determining the question presented by this appeal, to pass upon the constitutionality of chapter 501 of the Laws of 1905 (amdg. Laws of 1898, chap. 182, § 2). as well as the charter of the city of Yonkers (Laws of 1895, chap. 635). The city of Yonkers is a municipal corporation, acting under chapter 635 of the Laws of 1895 and the acts amendatory thereof. ■ At the time of the passage of that act the city of Yonkers, had a population of less than 50,000 inhabitants. In the year 1904 John II. Coyne was elected an alderman of the city foi; a term expiring on Decem- • ber 1, 1906, and resigned that office on November 13, 1905.
The charter (Laws of 1895, chap. 635, tit. 1, § 2; Id. tit. 2, § 1; Id. tit. 6, §§ 1, 4) provides that the common -council shall consist of fourteen members (a majority of whom shall constitute a' quorum for the transaction of business), and that no tax shall be levied, or assessment confirmed, except by a vote of a majority of all the members in office. In the year 1905 it was determined by the • census, taken pursuant to law, that the city of Yonkers had a population of 61,707, and a certificate of that fact was made by the Secretary of State and filed in the office of the clerk of the city of Yonkers on October 5, 1905. The city of Yonkers thereupon became a city of the second class. (Const, art. 12, § 2; Laws of 1898, chap. 182, § 2, as amd. supra.).
Coyne and six Others were elected aldermen in November, 1904, under provisions of the charter prescribing, among other things, that two aldermen should be elected in each of the seven wards of the city for the term of two years, one td be elected each year, it being provided that seven aldermen should be elected in the city each year. (Laws of 1895, chap. 635, tit. .1, §.2; Id. tit. 2, §§ 1, 2, 6.)
The first question presented for our determination is whether chapter 501 of the Laws of 1905 is effective as a- legislative act, or whether it is unconstitutional and void. It postponed within 'the city of Yonkers until January 1, 1908, the operation of the “ White Charter,” with the exception of the election of municipal officers in November, 1907, and, if valid, the charter of said city remains effective and in operation. If it be void, the provisions of the White charter are applicable, the municipal officers of the city are governed by it, and its provisions (§ 13, as amd. by Laws of 1901, chap. 133) permit only one alderman for each ward; and, as there is now actually in office an alderman representing the second ward, elected in November, 1905, there is no vacancy in the office to fill by special election, and the order appealed from would necessarily have to be affirmed.
We cannot concur in the construction of the respondent that this statute is a special law. We think it was a general law. At the time of its enactment it did not relate to a single city; it related to all cities of the third class. It became a law before the census of 1905 was taken. It was not known which, or how many, cities of
Judge Earl has framed a definition of a general law in Matter of New York Elevated R. R. Co. (70 N. Y. 327, 350), where he says: “A law applicable to. all the people of the State, and operating in all parts of.the State, would be most general. But a law may be general without affecting all the people of the State. A law regulating the rights of married women, or of minors, or of adults, or of aliens, would be-general, and it.would be general, although confined to the persons in being at the time of its passage. ■ So, a law conferring new rights-upon all existing insurance companies, or railroad companies, or manufacturing companies, would be general. A law which relates to persons or things as a class is general,'but one. which relates to particular persons or things of a class is special and private.” The law did not undertake -to single out any city of a class, but related to-- all as a class. The application of the White charter -to the city of Yonkers is suspended as provided by the statute. (Laws'of 1898, chap. 182, § 2, as am.d. by Laws of 1905, chap. 501.) •
In regard to respondent’s argument that the defendant ¡Goyne’sterm of office as.alderman was abridged by section 3 of article 12 of the Constitution and expired in December, 1905, we think this Contention is also without merit. The section of the Constitution ■upon .which it is based is- properly divisible into two parts ; the one part containing the clause -abridging the terms, of officers is limited to thosp elected before the 1st day of January, 1895;, in addition to this, cities of the third class, of which, thé city of Yonkers at the • time of Coyne’s election was one, were, by the closing sentence of the section, excluded .from its provisions.
There is no force in the argument that the appellants elected in-1904 have no standing in court upon this appeal because of the fact that the title to their office or the title to -the office of the other
Jenks, Hooker and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs.