other civil divisions of the state, except cities, as after due inquiry by the Commission shall be found practicable, was intended to apply to counties and justified, if it did not in fact require, the extension of the rules to the populous counties of the state. Furthermore, when county offices become salaried instead of feed offices, the relations between the superiors and subordinates, as well as between the superiors and the public, would seem to have become somewhat changed.

In connection with this matter of the applicability of the competitive system to county officers and of the relations of the subordinates to the superiors in such offices attention should be called to a mandamus proceeding brought against the Commission by one Blust, a person employed as engineer in the jail of Erie county, but who was also deputized as a deputy sheriff by the sheriff, and who not only had charge of the heating apparatus of the jail but who at certain hours had custody over persons confined in the jail. To the Commission the latter services seemed to be not only incidental but in fact to have been an unnecessary incident, if indeed not an incident created for the express purpose of establishing a confidential relation between the sheriff and his subordinate. This seemed to be a fair inference from the fact that it was alleged that no such incidental duties were performed by the person who held the same position under the preceding sheriff. Therefore, although we had exempted all of the deputy sheriffs in that county authorized by law generally to act for and in place of their principal and also those who rendered services which are usually performed by such deputies, and also the deputy sheriffs whose duties seemed to be principally those of court attendants, assigned as such by the sheriff for the terms of court to be held in Erie county pur

suant to the statute, we insisted that the engineer be in the competitive class, and the sheriff refusing to abide by that classification and appointing Blust to the position without examination we refused to certify to the validity and legality of his appointment and consequently his salary was not paid him by

proper disbursing officer. Blust brought a mandamus proceeding against the Commission, alleging that his position was of a confidential character and that it was not practicable to fill the same as the result of competition, and that the Commission had erred in not putting it in the exempt class. By the kindness of the attorney-general one of the deputy attorneys-general was assigned as attorney for the Commission and the proceeding was litigated. At the trial term the relator, Blust, was successful and the Commission was ordered to change the classification and to certify to the validity of his employment. The question seemed to be of such importance that an appeal was taken, but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the decision below and held that as it was a fact that the engineer was made a deputy sheriff by the sheriff, and that incidental to his duties as engineer of the jail he performed the duties of a deputy, he was a deputy, and it was further held that the relations existing between a sheriff and his deputy were highly confidential. opinion of the Appellate Division in People ex rel. Blust v. Collier et al., composing the State Civil Service Commission, 62 App. Div. 478.)

(See

In order that that important section of the law which forbids the levying of political assessments and contributions upon public officers and employees might be the better observed, the Commission during the progress of the last campaign sent a circular letter to the heads of the various departments, offices and insti

tutions of the state calling their attention to the provisions of the statute and directing them to bring the same to the attention of their respective subordinates.

We would again call attention to the introduction in the legis lature of numerous bills designed to authorize the payment of persons who have been employed in violation of the civil service law and rules. Some of these cases may be meritorious, and to such relief should be given; but in the great majority of instances they are merely attempts to condone violations and evasions of the statute, and are not only repugnant to its clear provisions but tend to break down one of the strongest safeguards of the system. It should not be forgotten that by the present civil service law (section 7) the superior who appoints a subordinate in violation of the civil service law or rules is personally liable for the compensation of the subordinate, and that the statute specifically provides that "no public officer shall be reimbursed by the state or any of its civil divisions for any sum so paid or recovered in any such action." It is equally clear that it is wholly repugnant to the statute to pass laws authoriz ing payment directly to the subordinate employed in violation of the civil service law and rules, and such acts should not be passed unless possibly in a few meritorious cases where the violation was apparently made unknowingly, or where some public urgency necessitated action which was a technical rather than a substantial violation of the civil service law. It is with pleas ure that we acknowledge that bills of this character introduced. in the previous session of the legislature did not meet with approval of the Governor, and our sole reason for mentioning the subject at this time is the fact of the reintroduction of these bills in the session of the legislature which began on January 1, 1902.

In conclusion we would acknowledge the constant and vigorous assistance of your Excellency in our efforts to enforce the civil service law, a law which established a method of appointment which is designed to secure that which has at all times been the great aim of the present administration-an efficient, economical, businesslike administration of the affairs of the state.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

WM. MILLER COLLIER

CUTHBERT W. POUND

JOHN E. KRAFT

State Civil Service Commission