Chicago. Defit of fant OPINIONS OF THE Corporation Counsel and Assistants FROM April 16, 1926. to April 15, 1927. VOLUME XV Compiled and Edited by Published September 15, 1927. PREFACE. The following Opinions of the Corporation Counsel and his Assistants cover the period extending from April 16, 1926, to April 15, 1927. With the exception of the last opinions, these were all written and approved during the administration of Hon. William E. Dever, as Mayor of the City of Chicago. The last opinions were approved after Mr. Dever had retired from office, three of them having been approved by me while acting as temporary Corporation Counsel prior to my appointment for a second time as Corporation Counsel on April 18, 1927. Before relinquishing his office on April 12, 1927, the former Corporation Counsel, Hon. Francis X. Busch, prepared a statement in the nature of a preface to this volume, which is printed herein as his foreword concerning the opinions presented. SAMUEL A. ETTELSON. Statement of Corporation Counsel Francis X. Busch and His First Assistant Concerning the Opinions Printed Herein. Following the usual practice of publishing each year a volume of opinions written by the Corporation Counsel and assistants, we present in this book such opinions written during the period extending from April 16, 1926, to the end of the administration of Hon. William E. Dever as Mayor as appear to be of sufficient value to preserve for future refer ence. It has been found that these books containing opinions rendered in the Law Department of the City of Chicago, of which this is the fifteenth, with a general index covering the first thirteen volumes, have been of great service not only to the members of the City's Law Department but to the general practitioner as well. The questions treated in many instances are of such a nature that it is difficult to find them discussed or digested in the law publications which are ordinarily referred to by lawyers. They relate to matters which spring up in the work of the various departments of the City government, and such questions frequently call for a solution that must be evolved from the practical situation that confronts the writer rather than reference books. Hence, the application of the law to these questions frequently is of absorbing interest, and whether or not it has been correctly applied is often not finally determined until long afterwards. While many such questions have been the subject of litigation and have been determined by the reviewing courts, the opinions rendered on them which appear in these volumes have seldom been reversed. We point to this record as an indication of how much thought and study is given to such opinions, all of which before they become official are considered by at least two members of the Law Department and sometimes by more than that number. This volume, in all its essential details, follows the form and style of preceding ones, and is made up of the character of opinions which we consider helpful. It is not necessarily the length of an opinion or its reference to precedents that determines this, but rather its subject-matter and the method in which it is treated. We hope that this book, like the others. will be of great assistance in disposing of questions that will arise in the future. FRANCIS X. BUSCH, Corporation Counsel. LEON HORNSTEIN, First Assistant Corporation Counsel. Chicago, April 11, 1927. OPINIONS OF THE Corporation Counsel and FROM APRIL 16, 1926, TO APRIL 15, 1927. Elimination of Position Appropriated for in the Annual Appropriation Bill, in Case of Vacancy. April 16, 1926. HON. Ross A. WOODHULL, Chairman, Committee on Finance. Dear Sir: You state in your letter of the 14th instant that your Committee has been requested to eliminate certain positions appearing in the Annual Appropriation Bill; that these positions are now vacant on account of death or resignation, and, in the judgment of the department heads, they are unnecessary. You ask for an opinion in respect to the elimination of such positions appropriated for under the General Corporate Fund, the Water Fund and the Vehicle Tax Fund, and as to the legal form of action necessary if such action is permissible. If the positions in question are all in the classified service, and we assume they are, the law makes no distinction between them merely on account of the funds from which the salaries are drawn. It was held in the case of People ex rel. Chadwick v. Sergel, 269 Ill. 619, that the rule with respect to antecedent appropriations was the same in all cases. We believe that would hold true in regard to civil service positions as well. |