home | authors | books | about

Home -> Oliver P. Field -> Civil Service Law -> Chapter IV continue

Civil Service Law - Chapter IV continue

1. Chapter I

2. Chapter II

3. Chapter III

4. Chapter III continue

5. Chapter IV

6. Chapter IV continue

7. Chapter V

8. Chapter V continue

9. Chapter VI

10. Chapter VI continue

11. Chapter VII

12. Chapter VII continue

13. Chapter VIII

14. Chapter VIII continue

15. Chapter IX

16. Chapter IX continue

17. Chapter X

18. Chapter X continued

19. Chapter XI

20. Chapter XI continued

The court will determine whether a particular person or position
should come under the exempt class, once it has been defined by statute,
but it will not prevent the formation of such a class by substituting its
discretion for that of the civil service commission, which is usually au-
thorized by law to make rules and classifications within the broad group-
ings marked out by the legislature. 63 The power to classify is subject to
judicial review of the statute or of the commission's regulation defining
the limits of the exempt class, because the legislature is not free to annul
the constitutional requirement of merit in its definition of that class. 64

When a statute exempts from the classified service those for whom a
bond is given by a superior, it becomes necessary to inquire into the na-
ture and scope of that bond. If it covers the defaults and actions of an
assistant, that assistant may be placed within the exempt class. 65 An as-
sessor's clerk has been held to be in the classified service because the

assessor was not required tp give a bond covering defaults of his subor-
dinates. In this case the charter extended the classified service to all ex-
cept certain enumerated groups, including those officers elected by the
people and their subordinates, for whose defaults the officers would be
liable. 66

A provision that three clerks, assistants, and stenographers for each
elective officer, board, or commission are to be in the exempt class does
not mean that each member of a board of five is entitled to three in the
exempt class, but the board as a whole. 67 Neither does the provision that
one clerk and one deputy clerk of court shall be in the exempt class mean
that each of the twenty-eight divisions of a large municipal court should
have a clerk and a deputy clerk in that class. 68 The court said, in a general
observation upon exemptions of this kind, that "these exemptions which
may be made by the legislature or by the civil service commission ap-
pointed under its authority must have relation to the duties of the office
and not simply to the title which is used. In other words, there must be a
reasonable exercise of the power given under the constitution . . . There
must be something in the nature of the duties which makes the service
either one of confidence or else of such importance that personal selection
instead of competitive examination is for the best interests of the public
and fulfillment of the particular duties."

Sometimes the confidential nature of the relationship between the
superior and subordinate is the basis for placing the subordinate in the
exempt class along with the superior. But when this is the case, the courts
will look to see whether a particular subordinate or group of subordinates
is actually engaged in the performance of duties that cause such a confi-
dential relationship to arise. 69 A sheriff in a large office may have some
employees who do not occupy a position of such confidence; if they do
not, then they are not entitled to be in the exempt class, nor is the sheriff
entitled to have them placed there.

At other times it is the peculiar and exceptional qualifications required
for the position that serve as the basis for exemption from the classified
service. A medical examiner in the department of education is not the
holder of such employment as falls within this exceptional group. 70

In general, the courts like to make certain that the position is not
clearly within the classified service before they are willing to investigate
whether it should go in the exempt class. Doubtless this is partly due to

the relatively common statutory statement that all positions not in the
exempt class shall be in the classified service. 71

When a person is appointed to a position in the classified service for
which examination is required without taking that examination, he is
appointed illegally, and gets no protection against removal, because per-
sonally he is not to be treated as in the classified service, even though his
position is. 72 This was the decision in a case involving a statute that listed
a number of positions as in the unclassified service and recited that all
others were to be included in the classified service. Under an earlier law
the position involved had been placed in the unclassified service, but this
recitation was held to change the allocation of the position.

When unusual qualifications are required for a position, the civil
service commission may be permitted to waive the rule that requires
competitive examination, but a person appointed to such a position in
the classified service does not receive the protections that usually go with
a classified position. 73

Civil service laws or charter provisions sometimes provide for division
into competitive and noncompetitive classes. In some instances this is a
primary basis of classification; but at other times it is subsidiary, as in
the division into classified and unclassified services, with a subdivision
of the classified service into the competitive and noncompetitive, the ex-
empt, and the labor classes. It is necessary to observe very closely the
exact status of each of these divisions and classes, because the rights that
accrue to the holders of positions in the different ones may vary some-
what. It might be that a noncompetitive position under one type of classi-
fication would bring with it rights that would not accrue under another

type. 74

The civil service commission is usually given some discretion as to
which positions and employees are to be in the classified and which in
the unclassified service. One statute recited that the unclassified service
"shall include such heads of divisions ... as the civil service commis-
sion shall from time to time, by rule determine." A position that had
never been placed in the unclassified service by a rule of the commission
was said by the court to remain in the classified service so far as removal
protections were concerned, even though no examination was required. 75

"All clerks and . . . others rendering clerical service" does not in-
clude a road inspector for purposes of classification. 76

The courts sometimes watch a reclassification from the competitive
to the noncompetitive class with a sharp eye in order to see whether it is
merely a method of avoiding the removal restrictions sometimes con-
fined to the competitive class. 77

Sometimes the phrase "ungraded service" is used. This seems to in-
clude much the same type of position as the phrase "unclassified serv-
ice." The civil service commission is often given no authority to regulate
promotions and salary increases in this service; if it is not given such
power, it may exercise none. 78

The division of employees into temporary and permanent generally
does not involve a problem of classification in the usual sense of that
term under civil service law. It is a classification, to be sure, but one that
may be made within any of the other established classes. It relates to the
duration of the work or employment rather than to the nature of the
work, although the nature of the work may be somewhat involved by
virtue of its relation to duration. The general subject of temporary ap-
pointments, made to fill in gaps in the personnel system due to a rush of
work or to a failure in the eligible lists or to other causes of that type, will
be discussed elsewhere. 79 But in so far as the problem of classification is
involved, it should be said that it is the courts which determine whether
as a matter of law an employment is temporary or permanent. The gen-
eral test used in distinguishing the two types is laid down by a California
case as follows: "If the position . . . actually exists in practice with a
reasonable degree of continuity and permanency, the courts are justified
in treating the position as a permanent one within the meaning of the
civil service provision although the services in the position may occa-
sionally be intermitted by resolutions of the board of public works 'lay-
ing off' the incumbent of the position." 80


The usual statement that merit and fitness are to be ascertained, so far
as practicable, by examination has caused some courts to introduce this
concept of practicability of examination as a test for certain types of clas-
sification. When this is done, the courts will consider the nature of the
duties that are to be performed by the incumbent of the position in ques-
tion. 81 This is not to be taken, however, to mean that the courts will
intervene in all instances to determine the question of practicability,

"People ex rel. O'Toole v. Hamilton, 98 A. D. 59, 90 N. Y. S. 547 (1904).

because they are slow to do so and will refuse to disturb the determina-
tion of the personnel agency on the practicability of examination. Only
when the case is a clear one will the court interfere. 82

However, the practicability of a competitive examination was used
by the Ohio court as the test for determining whether a confidential po-
sition was to be placed in the exempt class. The court emphasized that
a fiduciary relationship existed between the cashier in a department and
the head of that department because of the large sums of money handled
for the department by the former. His "fitness," it was said, was to be
determined by intimate knowledge of his qualifications; for this reason
he belonged in the class exempted from examinations. Now, although
the statute did not specifically list the position among those comprising
the exempt class, it did exempt persons who were deputies and who
occupied fiduciary positions. The cashier, though not a deputy, did oc-
cupy such a fiduciary position. This latter fact should have been the
basis for the decision, rather than the test of practicability of examination,
which confuses two distinct matters. 83

Another Ohio case makes the same confusion. An assistant prose-
cuting attorney was held to be in the unclassified service because a
competitive examination was not suitable for testing his fitness for the
office. 84 The service was divided into a classified and an unclassified
division, and the classified division into competitive and noncompetitive
groups. The competitive group consisted of those positions for which a
competitive examination was suitable. The noncompetitive group cov-
ered "all positions requiring peculiar and exceptional qualifications of
a scientific, managerial, professional, or educational character, as may be
determined by the rules of the commission." The court emphasized that
the position was one of trust and confidence, and apparently this feature,
together with its resentment against imposing further tests upon those
who had already passed the bar examinations and had been admitted to
the bar by the court itself, constituted the real basis of the decision. But
the court seems to base its decision upon the impracticability of examina-
tion in such a position, a view that is not only illogical but based upon a
plain misreading of the statute, because if the competitive type of ex-
amination could not properly be used then the position should, under the
provision of the statute, be placed in the noncompetitive class, within the
classified division of the service, not in the unclassified division. It is, of
course, ridiculous to suppose that a general examination in the law of the
type administered by bar examiners under the supervision of state su-

preme courts serves the more exacting purposes of an examination to
determine the professional competency of a lawyer to be employed in the
specialized type of work involved in various types of governmental ad-
ministration. It is also going pretty far to say to a governmental admin-
istration that a competitive examination is not suited to determine the
relative fitness of several applicants for a legal position. An examination
for admission to the bar is for the purpose of determining a required
minimum of competency. In an examination for purposes of selection
for employment the purpose of the examination is to determine the
relative competency of the applicants for a position. The resentment of
the court on this score is, therefore, entirely misdirected. Though an in-
cidental point in the case, the feeling of the court is important because
it seemed to underlie the whole discussion.

This same erroneous view that there is a direct relationship between
classification and practicability of examination has crept into some of
the decisions of the courts in New York. 85 The impracticability test is
allowed to take the place of the recognized test of confidential relation-
ships, which in themselves do bear some reasonable relationship to classi-


i. Elective Officers. Civil service laws often deal expressly with a
number of special groups in the public service elective officers, legis-
lative officers and employees, heads of departments, deputies and confi-
dential employees, and the labor group.

These groups are sometimes left entirely outside the service, in the
same status as other political appointees and employees. At other times
they are included within the civil service as defined by the law, but are
accorded a special status to which many of the provisions of the merit
portions of the civil service law do not apply. The logical, as well as the
most convenient and practical method to follow in drafting a civil service
law is to include all the administration in its definition and then give to
such special groups the special status that may seem wise or necessary.
In this way the peculiar problems of each group can be distinguished
most easily and effectively.

Elective officers are very commonly not included in the statutory defi-
nitions of the civil service. They may be included, 86 but unless the inten-
tion is to change the term of office, the effect of including them in the
service is, of course, limited. It is not without significance, however, for

example, in protecting them against removal during their term of office
except for the causes set forth in the law and according to the procedures
outlined therein.

Ayers v. Hatch, 87 a Massachusetts case, presents an interesting, though
now somewhat doubtful, authority upon the meaning that attaches to
phraseologies of exemption in so far as they refer to elective officers.
The original civil service act had exempted elective officers but had been
amended so as to read: "judicial officers and officers who are elected by
the people or a city council, . . . shall not be affected as to their selection
or appointment . . ." It was held that this amendment specified more
particularly what is meant by "officers," and that the changed wording
should be taken to mean "officers whom the people are and have been
accustomed to elect." For that reason an officer who was formerly elective
was held to be outside the civil service act even though no longer elective.

An office to which appointment is made by a board does not come
within the meaning of the phrase "elective office" in a civil service act.
The position is subject to the act, not exempt from it. 88 Election means
elected by the people, and the fact that a plural membership is to be
found in the appointing authority does not convert the appointment into
an election.

2. Legislative Groups. The common practice is to make an express
exception of legislators. This applies also to such bodies as the city council
and the board of county commissioners. In many instances the exemp-
tion goes further, extending to employees of legislative bodies, and in a
few cases extends even to certain officers whose duties involve keeping
records of a legislative nature, and their employees. Under this rule, a
janitor in a county courthouse has been said to be in the exempt class. 89

" 'All Icyis1.ui\c officers and appointees,' and those words are used not
only in connection with the state but with each of its civil divisions, and
each of its cities, manifestly contemplating that there shall be within the
unclassified service of the state those who are officers or employees in
bodies whose functions are limited to legislation" was the statement of
one court in holding that a clerk in the office of the clerk of the board
of aldermen was in the unclassified rather than the classified service. 90
The same rule and the same reasoning have been applied to the sub-
ordinates in the office of a city clerk. The court thought that it was im-
material that the duties of the subordinates were not entirely of a legis-

lativc nature. The fact that the office was exempt under the legislative
exemption clause was sufficient to extend the exemption to all those
who worked in the office. 91

3. Heads of Departments. The heads of departments arc usually
placed outside the classified service because it is believed that officers who
are vested with the power to formulate policies and authorized to use a
high degree of discretion in their work should be considered political
officers rather than part of the bureaucracy. Heads of departments created
subsequent to the establishment of the service are subject to the same
exemption regulations as heads of departments in existence at the time
of the adoption of the civil service. 92

The superintendent of a municipal garage was held not to be the
"head of [one of] the principal departments" within the meaning of a
civil service law. 93 He was subject to the general supervision of the direc-
tor of finance, and the regulations of the ordinance that created the posi-
tion were so detailed that his discretion was much more narrowly limited
than that of the head of a department. A superintendent of a municipal
waterworks system who was subordinate to one of the members of the
city commission, under a commission form of city government, was also
said not to be a head of a department within the meaning of that phrase
as used in a veterans' preference case in Minnesota. 94 Similarly, it was
held in New Jersey that the business manager of a school system was not
the head of a department. 95 The board of education was the head of the
department of education, and it was the school system that constituted
the department, rather than the various specialized divisions that had
been created in the administration of school affairs. The court added that
even if it is assumed that the business manager is the principal executive
officer of the department in which he works, there is no authority in law
for the appointment of a deputy manager to act generally for him, a test
that is apparently sometimes used by the courts, although taken alone
it is not of much weight. After examining the duties of the position, the
court concluded that it was an employment because on major contracts
and decisions of policy the board and the superintendent of schools had
the power of decision.

Under the commission form of municipal government the comptrol-
ler is not entitled to a private secretary in the exempt class because he is
not one of the principal executives of the city, that class including the
commissioners but not those administrative officers who are the technical

heads of departments under them. 96 A city clerk has been held to be the
head of a department. 97

In all cases involving the status of one who claims to be the head of a
department for civil service purposes, it is necessary to investigate care-
fully the exact organization of the government in which he claims to
occupy that title, and to canvass in detail his duties and powers and his
relations to other officers and governing bodies.

4. Deputies. Deputies are sometimes not included in the civil serv-
ice, but they may be placed in the exempt subdivision of the classified
service; in this case the provisions on competitive examinations and on
removal from office do not apply to them. Which class deputies are in
depends entirely upon statute, if the statute has anything to say upon
the subject. 98 Statutes seldom define the word "deputy," however, so that
the courts are left to work out the tests to be applied and the definition
to be used in each case.

It is not sufficient to make a person a deputy that he be called a deputy;
he must satisfy certain tests. 99 In a New York case 10 the court said it
must be shown that the person was authorized by law to act in place of
his chief in order to be a deputy within the civil service act.

A statute provided that persons in the classified service should be re-
moved only in accordance with the rules set forth in that statute, and then
recited that "nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to the po-
sition of private secretary, cashier or deputy of any official or depart-
ment." An assistant corporation counsel claimed to be a deputy because
the charter contained the statement that "any assistant corporation coun-
sel shall, in addition to his other powers, possess every power and perform
all and every duty belonging to the office of the corporation counsel, or
so much of such duties as the corporation counsel shall deem it necessary
to delegate whenever so empowered by said corporation counsel by
written authority, designating a period of time, not extending beyond
three months nor beyond the term of office of said corporation counsel."
The majority of the court held that this provision of the charter indicated
that the position occupied by the plaintiff was that of a deputy. A vigor-
ous dissent was filed, stating that the officer "can by no stretch of the
imagination" be called a deputy. The dissent went on the ground that
the corporation counsel had not made any delegation of authority in
writing. 101

A statute placed in the unclassified service "two secretaries, assistants
or clerks and one personal stenographer for . . . each of the principal ap-
pointive executive officers, boards or commissions." A director of indus-
trial relations, presumably the head of a department or of an executive
office, asked that the chief of boiler inspection be placed in this exempt
group. In a subsequent case involving the ousted holder of the position,
the court held that he had no rights, because when placed in the exempt
class, he was subject to discharge without benefit of statement of reason;
it also held that the position of chief of a division under the general juris-
diction of the director was that of an "assistant" because his work was
subject to the administrative supervision of the director. 102

The exempt class in a service was to include "the deputies of principal
executive officers authorized by law to act generally for and in place of
their principals" and in addition "one clerk, and one deputy clerk, if au-
thorized by law, of such court, and one clerk of each elective judicial
officer." The question arose whether special deputies that were necessary
because several divisions of the court sat concurrently were to be placed
in the exempt class. The opinion stated that their positions were to be
placed in the classified service because the court was one court, though
acting in divisions. 103

A deputy is in the exempt class in which the law places him even
though he may be performing incidental duties in addition to those of a
delegated nature. An interesting illustration of this is to be found in
Blust v. Collier, 104 a New York case, in which it was held that although
the person in question was really a steam engineer he performed certain
duties as a deputy around the jail. That he had been unacceptable for
the exempt class in his technical capacity, because the position of engi-
neer fell within the classified service, was held not to be fatal in view of
the fact that he was a deputy, and that the number of deputies allotted to
the office had not been exceeded.

5. Confidential Positions. Confidential officers or employees are
often placed in a separate class within the civil service, and in some in-
stances are left outside that service as defined in the law. Whether a con-
fidential employee is exempt or not depends upon the statute or charter;
the fact that the position is one involving duties and relationships of a
confidential nature does not in and of itself render the position exempt
from the normal provisions applicable to the competitive classified serv-

A general test of confidential employment was given by the Pennsyl-
vania court 106 when it said that "any relation in which one person repre-
sents another in the performance of duties involving skill, integrity and
trust is a confidential one within the general legal conception of that
term." The Pennsylvania statute provided for an exempt, a competitive,
a noncompetitive, and a labor class, permitting certain "confidential"
positions to be in the exempt class. Under this statute the chief clerk to
the head of a department was discharged. The court held that he was not
entitled to the protection of the provisions limiting removal in the com-
petitive branch. It was argued that in so far as the duties of the chief clerk
were not of a secret nature, the position was not confidential. However,
the court held that the general test set forth above applied, and decided
that the element of secrecy was not essential to the status of confidential

Another factor considered by some courts is the financial relationship
between superior and subordinate. If the superior is held responsible for
the acts of the subordinate, then the courts may hold the position to be
confidential; and if he is not responsible, it has been held that the posi-
tion is not confidential. 107 A chief clerk of a bureau who prepared all
orders for payments, made collections for the bureau, and kept the ac-
counts of the general financial operations of the bureau, and in addition
served as secretary to the commissioner of public works, was said to
occupy a confidential position. 108 The fact of financial responsibility
when combined with other delegated duties may create a confidential
position, as is shown by the New York case in which the positions of
"assistant deputies" were held not subject to the civil service examina-
tion. 109 A court stenographer is not a confidential employee. 110

Whether it is necessary that all the duties of a position be confidential
in order to have the position brought within that designation has been
answered by the courts in the same manner as a like question was an-
swered with respect to deputies. It is not necessary that a clerk be a full-
time confidential clerk. It is enough if some of his duties are confiden-
tial. 111

An attorney engaged in tax collection work in the city attorney's of-
fice is not a confidential officer or employee. 112 The court realized that

there was room for a difference of opinion on this question, but did not
think that the case was so clear that it was justified in refusing to adhere
to the civil service commission's decision that the position should come
within the classified competitive service. A similar attitude was taken
toward the question of whether a coroner's physician could be placed in
the competitive class. 113

Sometimes the fact that something of the function of a deputy is
added to the financial responsibility of the superior is considered in decid-
ing that a position, such as that of a warrant clerk who acted for the
comptroller in the latter's absence, is confidential and exempt. 114

The fact that an employee is under bond to cover his defaults is of
importance. So is the fact that his duties are fixed by law and not by his
superior. 115 A special agent in the excise department has been held to be
confidential because of the nature of his duties. 116

A statute provided that u the provisions of this act shall not be con-
strued to apply to the position of private secretary or deputy of any official
or department or to any other person holding a strictly confidential posi-
tion." Petitioner's duties consisted of opening the mail that came to the
office, with the exception of personal letters, referring the letters to the
proper bureau, supervising the keeping of records, taking and transmit-
ting to the board any testimony given in proceedings for arson, granting
temporary leaves of absence, and seeing that orders were executed. He
also had custody of small cash in the office. In holding that the position
was confidential, the court said that the commissioners "necessarily had
to repose trust and confidence in their secretary and that he would per-
form the duties which fell within his province in the manner designated
by him." 117

The title of a position is of little effect in determining whether an
employee is confidential or not. The custody of funds or of records has
been referred to in some of the cases previously discussed, and it has also
been held that a clerk who has custody of property seized by the police,
and who is responsible not only for its production in court but also for
the details of its subsequent sale, is a confidential clerk. 118

Underlying all the decisions is the idea that in order to classify a posi-
tion as confidential, it is necessary that there exist some relationship of
confidence. The various factors that are considered by the courts in these

us Matter of MacLeod v. McGuire, 71 Misc. 166, 129 N. Y. S. 883 (1911).

114 People ex rel. Crummey v. Palmer, 152 N. Y. 217, 46 N. E. 328 (1897).

115 People ex rel. Sears v. Tobey, 153 N. Y. 381, 47 N. E. 800 (1897).

116 People ex rel. Sweet v. Lyman, 30 A. D. 135, 50 N. Y. S. 444, 51 N. Y. S. 641
(1898), affirmed in People v. Lyman, 157 N. Y. 368, 52 N. E. 132.

m People v. Scannell, 64 N. Y. S. 593 (1900).

U8 People v. McAdoo, 181 N. Y. 547, 74 N. E. 1123 (1905).


confidential cases are of significance only because the courts think that
they are evidence as to whether a confidential relationship does exist. 119

Closely related to confidential employments, and often placed in the
exempt class, are positions that require special or peculiar qualifications.
If these qualifications are not such that they can be supplied by technical
or professional education, they are sometimes recognized as putting their
possessor into the classified service even though the position would other-
wise fall into the exempt class. As such, the holder of the position is quite
commonly afforded protection against removal. A special examiner of
abstracts of title has been held to be within such a class. 120

6. Labor Class. Labor is often left entirely outside the civil service,
but is also quite often included in the service as a separate class. Again
the statute must be consulted.

Labor is sometimes divided into two groups, the skilled and the un-
skilled labor groups. "Workman" is used less commonly than "labor."
The usual provisions of the classified service seldom apply to the un-
skilled group, but rules of tenure, rules of priority in layoff, and rights
of a procedural nature in removal may apply to this group. To skilled
labor it is possible to apply more of the competitive principle or some
tests of minimum standards. 121

An Illinois case 122 contains an interesting discussion of the status of
the labor group in the civil service. A laborer chosen by noncompeti-
tive examination and employed for two years was discharged without
charges and a hearing. The statute provided that officers and employees
in the service were to be removed only after charges had been made
against them and a hearing had been held. The labor class was expressly
excluded from these provisions. The discharged laborer failed to obtain
mandatory relief for reinstatement; and the court held as unfounded his
claim that the statutory discrimination against labor was unconstitu-
tional. The court took the position that the laborer held a different re-
lationship to the government than does an officer or employee. The officer
is compensated upon the basis of his office, and the employee upon the
basis of his contract. But the laborer is compensated because of the work
that he has performed. The distinction between the status of skilled and
unskilled labor was a reasonable one, according to the court.

The duties of the position rather than its title are to be considered in
determining whether it falls within the unskilled labor class, and it is
not conclusive against placing a position in the labor group that it was

once placed in the competitive class. 123 When a phrase like "common
labor" or "unskilled labor" or "merely labor" is used, the problem of in-
terpretation is simplified. But when "labor" is used alone, the task is
more difficult. In interpreting the latter term, the courts usually read into
it the distinction between unskilled and skilled labor and hold that when
unmodified, the term is intended to apply only to unskilled labor. 124
Emergency and seasonal workers are sometimes placed in separate cate-
gories, and in some instances are not included in the scales of compensa-
tion fixed for the regular classifications of labor. 125 The day-labor wage
provisions of a statute have been held inapplicable to laborers who were
subject to call on a twenty-four hour basis; their salaries may be fixed
on an annual basis. 126

A statute included the labor class in the civil service and provided for
appointment to fill vacancies in that class from eligible lists of applicants
registered by the commission. The law further provided that "the com-
mission shall require an applicant for registration for the labor service to
furnish such evidence or pass such examination as they may deem proper
with respect to his age, residence, physical condition, ability to labor,
skill, capacity and experience in the trade or employment for which he
applies." The court held that this statute permitted the commission to
accept the endorsement of two citizens and the superintendent of streets
as sufficient evidence of the qualifications of the applicant. To do this
was held not to be a delegation by the commission of its power, since the
examination was not required but only authorized. It is not necessary
that the commissioners personally investigate the fitness of each appli-

© Art Branch Inc. | English Dictionary